The relation of trait self-esteem and positive inequity to productivity

The present study explored the relation of trait self-esteem and positive inequity to productivity Subjects worked on proofreading task, and received hourly (rather than piece-rate) compensation that was either greater than (positive inequity condition) or equal to (equity condition) the amount that they deserved The results showed that individuals of high and medium self-esteem were more productive (i e, completed more of the task) in the positive inequity condition than in the equity condition Low self-esteem participants however, were actually less productive (i e, completed less of the task) in the positive inequity than in the equity condition Theoretical implications are discussed     

What counts as “good” quantitative research and what can we say about when to use quantitative and/or qualitative methods?

In response to points raised by Dawson, Fischer, and Stein; Stam; and Stiles, the author delineates what counts as “good” quantitative research according to his proposal for explicitly interpretive quantitative methods. The key points concern how to employ these methods, not which quantitative methods we should use—“strong” rather than “soft” or vice versa. The author discusses ways in which what others would consider “strong” quantitative procedures can be extremely useful, although he argues that these procedures are interpretive. The reconceptualization of quantitative research offered here also suggests that the distinction between quantitative and qualitative research is much less fundamental than most researchers think. In a consideration of what we can say in general about when to employ quantitative and/or qualitative methods, the author returns to the theme of the limits of possible understanding in psychology.     

The paradox of the political maverick

Attitudes about political mavericks (politicians who cross party lines to “vote their conscience”) depend on whether people construe them in general terms or at the level of specific policy proposals. Three studies examined this hypothesis. In Study 1, participants expressed more positive views of political mavericks described generally than when prompted to consider a maverick of their own political party. Study 2 found that mavericks described in personality trait terms were evaluated more favorably than “party-line” politicians, even when the maverick was of the participant’s own political party. Study 3 found that when participants were provided with specific policy stances, a similarity-attraction pattern was found: opposing party mavericks were evaluated more positively, but same party mavericks were evaluated more negatively, than their party-line counterparts. Politicians challenging participant’s own party on a moral issue were evaluated particularly harshly. Implications of these findings for political perceptions and strategy are discussed.     

Framing inequity safely: Whites' motivated perceptions of racial privilege

Racial inequity was theorized to threaten Whites' self-image when inequity is framed as White privilege but not when framed as anti-Black discrimination. Manipulations of Whites' need for self-regard were hypothesized to affect their perceptions of White privilege but not of anti-Black discrimination. In Experiment 1, White participants reported less privilege when given threatening (vs. affirming) feedback on an intelligence or personality test; in contrast, perceptions of anti-Black discrimination were unaffected by self-concept manipulations. In Experiment 2, threatening (vs. affirming) feedback decreased privilege perceptions only among Whites high in racial identity. Using a value-based self-affirmation manipulation, Experiment 3 replicated the effect of self-image concerns on Whites' perceptions of privilege and provided evidence that self-concerns, through their effect on perceived privilege, influence Whites' support for redistributive social policies.     

The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules,moral accountability,bandwidth-fidelity,and social exchange

Multifoci justice pulls from research on social exchange theory to argue that despite the proliferation of rule sets in the literature (often referred to as the “types” of justice), individuals seek to hold some party accountable for the violation/upholding of such rules, and it is these parties (e.g., supervisors, the organization as a whole) that are most likely to be the recipients of attitudes and behaviors (i.e., target similarity effects). To explore these issues, we meta-analytically (k = 647, N = 235,682) compared the predictive validities of source- vs. type-based justice perceptions and found that (a) multifoci justice perceptions more strongly predicted outcomes directed at matched sources than did type-based justice perceptions, (b) multifoci justice perceptions more strongly predicted target similar than dissimilar outcomes, and (c) the relationships between multifoci justice perceptions and target similar outcomes were mediated by source-specific social exchange.     

Rankings,standards, and competition: Task vs. scale comparisons

Research showing how upward social comparison breeds competitive behavior has so far conflated local comparisons in task performance (e.g. a test score) with comparisons on a more general scale (i.e. an underlying skill). Using a ranking methodology ( Garcia, Tor, & Gonzalez, 2006) to separate task and scale comparisons, Studies 1–2 reveal that an upward comparison on the scale (e.g. being surpassed in rank), rather than in the mere task (e.g., being outperformed), is necessary to generate competition among rivals proximate to a standard (e.g. ranked #3 vs. 4, near “the top”); rivals far from a standard (e.g. ranked #203 vs. 204), on the other hand, still tend to cooperate. Study 3 illustrates this finding with player trades in Major League Baseball. Study 4 further shows how an implicit scale comparison, instead of the commonly assumed explicit task comparison, may account for those classical competition findings in the literature. Study 5 then reveals how scale ranking becomes all important in the proximity of a standard, leading rivals to tolerate even an upward scale comparison to increase their proximity to the standard. Implications for the increasingly popular “forced ranking” management systems (e.g., at General Electric) are also discussed.     

Cheapened altruism: Discounting personally affected prosocial actors

Are charitable donors always perceived as charitable? Three studies suggest that although having a personal connection to a cause motivates much charitable giving, donors who have been personally affected by the target cause are given less “credit” for their donations, i.e., are perceived as less intrinsically charitable. These donors are perceived as having selfish motivations even when they have nothing economic or social to gain from the donation. More specifically, personally-affected donors are perceived as driven by emotional selfishness, or a desire to improve their own hedonic state rather a desire to improve the welfare of others, which lessens the charitable credit that they receive. In addition, although donors who have been personally affected by the target cause are seen as less charitable, they are perceived more favorably in other ways (e.g., more loyal).     

Usage-based account of the acquisition of liaison: evidence from sensitivity to the singular/plural orientation of nouns

This study investigates whether children’s production and recognition of obligatory liaison sequences in French depend on the singular/plural orientation of nouns. Certain nouns occur more frequently in the plural (e.g., arbre “tree”), whereas others are found more often in the singular (e.g., arc-en-ciel “rainbow”). In the input, children more frequently encounter these plural-oriented nouns after determiners that indicate plurality (e.g., les,des “the”, deux “two”) and that are often associated with a /z/ liaison (e.g., deux arbres [døzarbr] “two trees”). In Experiment 1, 122 children (3 years 2 months to 6 years 3 months of age) were asked to produce nominal phrases with either /z/ liaisons (i.e., in plural contexts such as deux ours [døzurs] “two bears”) or /n/ liaisons (i.e., in singular contexts such as un ours [nurs] “one bear”). We found correlations between the plural orientation of the nouns and (a) the probability that they will be preceded by an incorrect /z/ liaison in the singular context and (b) the probability that they will be preceded by a correct /z/ liaison in the plural context. This result was, however, restricted to the younger children. In Experiment 2, 20 children (5 years 5 months to 6 years 3 months of age) were asked to monitor target words in auditorily presented sentences. The results showed shorter reaction times for singular-oriented nouns when preceded by a singular determiner than when preceded by a plural determiner. Conversely, plural-oriented nouns were responded to faster when preceded by a plural determiner than when preceded by a singular determiner. Results are discussed within the framework of a two-stage model of liaison acquisition recently proposed by Chevrot, Chabanal, and Dugua (Journal of French Language Studies,17 [2007] 103-128) as well as by Chevrot, Dugua, and Fayol (Journal of Child Language [in press]).     

How fast can you (possibly) do it,or how long will it (certainly) take? Communicating uncertain estimates of performance time

Recent research on verbal probability statements has revealed that some expressions (e.g., possible) are especially appropriate for describing outcomes in the high end of a distribution, whereas other expressions (e.g., certain) are more appropriate for describing low-end values. However, some dimensions appear to be reversible, with higher achievements sometimes associated with high and sometimes with low values, depending on frame. We report three experiments where this “reframing effect” is studied in communications of estimated performance time, both from a speaker's and from a listener's perspective. We hypothesize that statements describing tasks as “taking time” suggest a duration frame, and find accordingly that statements about how many hours that possibly will be spent on a task, or the time a task possibly takes, lead to high time estimates. Statements focusing on the actor's role suggest, in contrast, a speed frame, thus statements about what the actor can possibly do lead to low time estimates. Estimates of the time a task certainly takes or when it is certainly done follow the opposite pattern. The results are in line with approaches that see production and comprehension of language as a dynamical and context-driven process.     

The embodied cognition theory and the motor component of “yes” and “no” verbal responses

Most of the experiments which give theories of embodied cognition their empirical anchorage only take into consideration the motor responses induced by the task or the motor component of the visual stimulus. And yet, these motor responses are often associated with a linguistic answer. Our hypothesis is that “YES” and “NO” verbal responses have a motor component. In a first experiment we showed that producing a verbal response (YES vs. NO) involves motor planning (pushing vs. pulling): participants push a lever more quickly when they have to answer “yes” than “no”, and conversely, they pull a lever more quickly when they have to answer “no” than “yes”. Moreover, in a second experiment, we showed that perceiving the words “YES” and “NO”, on its own, leads to the same motor planning than when “yes” and “no” answers actually have to be produced. Participants detect the word “YES” faster when they have to push a lever than when they have to pull it and conversely they detect the word “NO” faster when they have to pull the lever than when they have to push it down. These results are discussed in reference to “online” and “offline embodiment” concepts and to the cognitive linguistic theories.     

Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it

This paper illustrates an interdisciplinary research program based on cross-linguistic comparison that is of relevance for psychologists working on language processing, so-called “processing typology” [Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press]. Its most original feature is the hypothesis that patterns and preferences found in performance in languages with several structures of a given type (e.g. preferences among alternative word orders) are the same patterns and preferences one finds across languages in the fixed conventions of grammars that permit less variation (i.e. in fixed word orders). Data supporting this “performance-grammar correspondence hypothesis” are summarized. One of its consequences is that principles of performance can be used to make predictions for patterns of grammatical variation, while preferences in grammars become relevant for the testing of psycholinguistic ideas. Two proposed principles of ordering in performance, in terms of “end weight” and “memory cost”, are criticized on the basis of cross-linguistic data. Both predict an asymmetry in ordering, whereby some category A precedes B. But end weight is not a valid cross-linguistic asymmetry, and memory cost cannot explain certain asymmetries for which it has been invoked when different language types are considered. The paper argues for greater mutual awareness between processing theorists and language typologists, for more consideration of non-European grammars and language types in psycholinguistics, and for a greater appeal to processing in the explanation of typological variation.     

Styles of pulling in trichotillomania: exploring differences in symptom severity, phenomenology, and functional impact

Previous research has examined possible phenomenological differences between “focused” (i.e., with a compulsive quality) and “automatic” (i.e., with decreased awareness) pulling associated with trichotillomania (TTM), but these constructs have not been assessed using psychometrically sound measures. In the current study, differences in TTM severity, phenomenology, comorbid psychiatric symptoms, and functional impact were examined across individuals with varying combinations of “focused” and “automatic” pulling styles. Participants aged 18 and older were recruited via an internet-based survey. Those meeting inclusion criteria and completing the Milwaukee Inventory for Subtypes of Trichotillomania-Adult Version (MIST-A; n=1545) were classified as either high- or low-focused and either high- or low-automatic based on scores obtained from the focused and automatic scales of the MIST-A using a median split procedure. Results showed some significant differences between pulling styles. For example, “high-automatic” pullers reported more severe TTM and greater stress than “low-automatic” pullers, and “high-focused” pullers reported more severe TTM, greater stress and depression, and greater functional impact than “low-focused” pullers. Subsequent analyses suggest that, in comparison to individuals experiencing low levels of both automatic and focused pulling, those experiencing high levels of each pulling style reported greater severity, psychological impact, and functional impact. Clinical and research implications, study limitations, and future areas of research are discussed.     

How children block learning from ignorant speakers

Preschool children typically do not learn words from ignorant or unreliable speakers. Here, we examined the mechanism by which these learning failures occur by modifying the comprehension test procedure that measures word learning. Following lexical training by a knowledgeable or ignorant speaker, 48 preschool-aged children were asked either a standard comprehension test question (i.e., “Which one is the blicket”) or a question about the labeling episode (i.e., “Which one did I say is the blicket”). Immediately after training, children chose the object labeled by an ignorant speaker when asked the episode question, but not when asked the semantic question. However, the advantage for episode questions disappeared when the same children were asked after a brief delay. These findings show that children encode their experiences with ignorant speakers, but do not form semantic representations on the basis of those experiences.     

“White” or “European American”? Self-identifying labels influence majority group members' interethnic attitudes

Multiculturalism (i.e., the recognition and celebration of cultural differences) has many potential benefits for society, including reduced prejudice among nonminorities and increased psychological well-being among ethnic minorities. Yet nonminorities generally tend to resist multiculturalism more than do minorities and believe that it is irrelevant to them. Two studies were conducted to examine why and under what conditions this is the case. In both studies, nonminority participants were randomly assigned to mark their race/ethnicity as either “White” or “European American” on a demographic survey, before answering questions about their interethnic attitudes. Results demonstrated that nonminorities primed to think of themselves as White (versus European American) were subsequently less supportive of multiculturalism and more racially prejudiced, due to decreases in identification with ethnic minorities. Implications for how to improve nonminorities' attitudes toward multiculturalism are discussed.     

Cruel nature: Harmfulness as an important,overlooked dimension in judgments of moral standing

Entities that possess moral standing can be wronged and deserve our moral consideration. Past perspectives on the folk psychology of moral standing have focused exclusively on the role of “patiency” (the capacity to experience pain or pleasure) and “agency” (usually defined and operationalized in terms of intelligence or cognitive ability). We contend that harmfulness (i.e., having a harmful vs. benevolent disposition) is an equally if not more important determinant of moral standing. We provide support for this hypothesis across four studies using non-human animals as targets. We show that the effect of harmfulness on attributions of moral standing is independent from patiency and intelligence (Studies 1–2), that this effect pertains specifically to an animal’s harmful disposition rather than its capacity to act upon this disposition (Study 3), and that it primarily reflects a parochial concern for human welfare in particular (Study 4). Our findings highlight an important, overlooked dimension in the psychology of moral standing that has implications for real-world decisions that affect non-human animals. Our findings also help clarify the conditions under which people perceive patiency and agency as related versus truly independent dimensions.     

Inclusion in a superordinate category, in-group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups

We hypothesized that group members’ attitudes towards an out-group are negatively related to the in-group’s perceived relative prototypicality for a superordinate category, but only if both the in-group and out-group are included in this superordinate category. In Experiment 1 (N=40), Germans’ attitudes towards Poles were negatively correlated with the relative prototypicality of Germans when “Europe” (including Poles), but not when “West-Europe” (excluding Poles), was the superordinate category. In Experiment 2 (N=63), female single parents’ attitudes about the competence of single parents to raise children depended on the in-group’s relative prototypicality for “single parents” (including fathers), but not on their relative similarity to “mothers” (excluding fathers). Both experiments showed that inclusion in a superordinate category had a more negative influence on attitudes towards the out-group when relative in-group prototypicality is high rather than low.     

The effects of managerial regulatory fit priming on reactions to explanations

We investigated the interactive effects of regulatory focus priming and message framing on the perceived fairness of unfavorable events. We hypothesized that individuals’ perceptions of fairness are higher when they receive a regulatory focus prime (promotion versus prevention) that is congruent with the framing of an explanation (gain versus loss), as opposed to one that is incongruent. We also hypothesized that these effects are mediated by counterfactual thinking. Three studies revealed that primed regulatory fit (promotion/gain or prevention/loss) led to higher levels of justice perceptions than regulatory misfit (promotion/loss or prevention/gain). Additionally, “could” and “should” counterfactuals partially mediated the relationship between regulatory fit and interactional justice (Study 3).     

The benefits of knowing what you know (and what you don’t): How calibration affects credibility

People tend to believe, and take advice from, informants who are highly confident. However, people use more than a mere “confidence heuristic.” We believe that confidence is influential because—in the absence of other information—people assume it is a valid cue to an informant’s likelihood of being correct. However, when people get evidence about an informant’s calibration (i.e., her confidence-accuracy relationship) they override reliance on confidence or accuracy alone. Two experiments in which participants choose between two opposing witnesses to a car accident show that neither confidence nor accuracy alone explains judgments of credibility; rather, whether a person is seen as credible ultimately depends on whether the person demonstrates good calibration. Credibility depends on whether sources were justified in believing what they believed.     

Children discard a resource to avoid inequity

Elucidating how inequity aversion (a tendency to dislike and correct unequal outcomes) functions as one develops is important to understanding more complex fairness considerations in adulthood. Although previous research has demonstrated that adults and children reduce inequity, it is unclear if people are actually responding negatively to inequity or if people dislike others getting more than them (motivated by social comparison) and like to share maximal resources, especially with those who have few resources (motivated by social welfare preferences). In order to evaluate if children are truly averse to inequity, we had 3- to 8-year-old children distribute resources to 3rd parties and found that 6- to 8-year-old children would rather throw a resource in the trash than distribute unequally, suggesting that concerns with equity can trump concerns with maximal sharing. We also demonstrated that children's reactions were not based on wanting to avoid upsetting the recipients or based on a preference for visual symmetry and that children will even throw away a resource that could have gone to themselves in order to avoid inequity. These results demonstrate the existence of inequity aversion in children, provide a new method for studying inequity aversion specifically, and suggest the need for new models to explain why inequity aversion may have evolved.     

Evidence that blatant versus subtle stereotype threat cues impact performance through dual processes

An experiment tested three competing hypotheses for how blatant and subtle stereotype threat cues influence the performance of female sports participants on a golf-putting task. A “predominant” model predicts that blatant threat cues have a more negative effect on performance than subtle threat cues, whereas an “additive” model predicts that both cues combine to have a greater negative effect than either threat cue alone. However, a “dual process” model predicts that each threat cue has an independent negative influence through separate mechanisms. To test these predictions, we varied the presence of blatant (e.g., the task frame) and subtle cues (e.g., the gender of the experimenter) for negative stereotypes about female athletes, and then measured both the number of strokes required to finish the course and accuracy on the last putt of each hole. The results supported the dual process model prediction: females required more strokes to finish the golf task when it was framed as measuring gender differences compared to racial differences in athletic ability, and females performed less accurately on the last putt of each hole in the presence of a male versus a female experimenter. The discussion focuses on how the presence of multiple stereotype threat cues can induce independent mechanisms that may have separate but simultaneously deleterious effects on performance.