For better or for worse: Social influences on risk-taking

This study investigated changes in risk-taking propensity on a behavioral decision-making task as a function of varying social conditions with peers. In contrast to the effects of direct peer influence (pro-risk and anti-risk messages by peers), we included a socially ambiguous context (neutral messages by peers) and a no-peer control (participants alone) as comparison conditions. Using a counterbalanced mixed factorial design, college students (N = 187) completed the Balloon Analogue Risk Task-Youth (BART-Y) twice during two consecutive sessions, including once alone and once with a confederate; the control group completed two sessions of the task alone. The findings showed that, in general, direct pro-risk messages led to the most robust and consistent changes in risk-taking. The findings are discussed in terms of the multidimensional and multidirectional nature of peer influence during the college years.     

For better and for worse: everyday social comparisons between romantic partners

The authors examined the frequency, direction, and impact of social comparisons between romantic partners. Comparisons were expected to occur on a daily basis, owing to regular interactions between partners. To the extent that one empathizes and shares outcomes with one's partner, one might respond more positively to upward than to downward comparisons. Study 1a was an experience-sampling study in which participants reported comparisons made to their spouse over 2 weeks. Study 1b examined reactions to the most significant comparisons made during the experience-sampling study. Participants reported making comparisons to their romantic partner more than once a day on average and experienced more positive responses to upward than to downward comparisons. Study 2 demonstrated that participants empathized and shared outcomes with their partner to a greater extent than with a friend. Study 3 confirmed that participants responded more positively to upward than to downward comparisons even for domains high in self-relevance and even when the comparison had negative self-evaluative implications. These results suggest that, owing to higher levels of empathy and shared fate with partners, comparisons function differently in romantic than in other relationships.     

For better or for worse: the congruence of personal and group outcomes on targets' responses to discrimination

This paper reports two studies examining how (in‐) congruence between personal and group outcomes affects emotional well‐being, outcome attributions and procedural justice perceptions of individuals who are exposed to subtle discrimination. In Study 1 (N = 82) participants are either accepted or rejected in a (bogus) job application procedure, and either do or do not receive additional information indicating group‐level disadvantage. In Study 2 (N = 79), participants were either accepted or rejected, and received information indicating either advantage or disadvantage for members of their group. Results of both studies reveal that not only emotional well‐being and outcome attributions, but also procedural justice perceptions are primarily guided by personal outcomes. That is, being informed of group‐level disadvantage does not intensify but can instead alleviate negative affect resulting from personal rejection. Furthermore, group disadvantage is only seen as an indicator of an unjust procedure by individual group members who have personally suffered rejection. Results are discussed in relation to current insights on discrimination, tokenism and social justice. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Remembering personal change for better or worse: Retrieval context matters

We investigated how focusing on the details (experience focus) versus self-narrative significance (coherence focus) of valenced transitions informs appraisals and emotions at recall. Participants (N = 302) selected a negative or positive transition and rated their emotion. Two weeks later, they described their event using an experience or coherence focus, then rated emotion, event impact, self-relevance, and memory characteristics. A coherence (vs. experience) focus produced lower negative affect and greater psychological impact, particularly for negative transitions. The negative-coherence group showed the largest decrease in negation emotion over time. A coherence (vs. experience) focus resulted in less perceptual detail, reactivity, and re-experiencing. Positive (vs. negative) events were deemed more central to identity and connected to other events. Mental focus informed psychological impact and negative affect, while event valence influenced self-relevance. These findings remained when event type (interpersonal) was matched across groups. Motives for framing autobiographical memories and implications for adaptive self-reflection are discussed.     

Dynamics of time matching: Arousal makes better seem worse

Matching of time allocation across alternatives in proportion to relative reinforcement rates is a ubiquitous finding in the animal-learning literature on choice. The dynamics of the underlying mechanism, however, remain poorly understood. A recent finding by Belke (1992) profoundly challenges scalar expectancy theory (SET; Gibbon et al., 1988) and other accounts of matching in concurrent variable interval (VI) schedules. He studied concurrent probe tests of stimuli associated with equal VIs but trained in alternative concurrent pairs. In training, one was preferred and the other not. Unreinforced probes revealed a strong preference for the alternative preferred in training. An experiment is reported replicating this result and showing that it is not due to generalization of preference levels from training. When the probe is between the two preferred training stimuli, the richer schedule is unpreferred. A SET account of these results is presented which implicates two processes in time allocation: (1) the choice between alternatives based on memory for delays to reinforcement, and (2) the times at which such choices are made. The former process is sensitive to reinforcement scheduling; the latter is sensitive to arousal levels induced by overall reinforcement rates in training.     

Feeling better about doing worse: social comparisons within romantic relationships

The authors examined the role of closeness between self and partner in determining the impact of social comparisons within intimate relationships. To the extent that one's partner is a central aspect of one's identity, one may be able to restore one's positive self-regard following an upward comparison with the partner by turning to the relationship as a self-affirmational resource. Studies 1 and 2 examined reactions to imagined comparisons; Studies 3 and 4 examined reactions to actual comparison feedback. Across studies, closeness moderated the impact of upward comparisons with the partner; that is, higher closeness participants responded to a more successful partner by focusing on their relationship-related strengths. However, closeness did not moderate the impact of downward comparisons with the partner.     

Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others

A previously unobserved pattern of choice behavior is predicted and corroborated. In line with the principle of compatibility, according to which the weighting of inputs is enhanced by their compatibility with output, the positive and negative dimensions of options (their pros and cons) are expected to loom larger when one is choosing and when one is rejecting, respectively. Subjects are presented with pairs of options, one of which—theenriched option—has more positive as well as more negative dimensions than does the other,impoverished, option. Because positive dimensions are weighted more heavily in choosing than in rejecting, and negative dimensions are weighted more heavily in rejecting than in choosing, the enriched option tends to be chosen and rejected relatively more often than the impoverished option. These findings are extended to nonbinary decision problems, and their implications for the rational theory of choice and for everyday decisions are discussed.