How do leaders promote cooperation? The effects of charisma and procedural fairness

The present research examined the effect of leaders' procedural fairness and perceived charisma on an important organizational process: cooperation. Both charisma and procedural fairness were predicted to have a positive effect on cooperation, and procedural fairness and charisma were predicted to interact such that their effects are stronger alone than in conjunction. Results from a scenario experiment, a cross-sectional survey, and a laboratory experiment supported these predictions. Results from the laboratory study also showed that the interactive effect of leader charisma and procedural fairness on cooperation was mediated by their interactive effect on the sense of group belongingness. It is concluded that leader charisma and procedural fairness may engender cooperation because they appeal to relational concerns.     

Why do people give? The role of identity in giving

Why do people give to others? One principal driver involves one's identity: who one is and how they view themselves. The degree to which identities are malleable, involve a readiness to act, and help make sense of the world have significant implications determining whether and how much people give. Drawing on the Identity-Based Motivation model (IBM; Oyserman, D. (2009). Identity-based motivation: Implications for action-readiness, procedural-readiness, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19.), we provide a tripartite framework to help advance the research on the psychology of giving.     

Why do people remain in abusive relationships?

Increasingly ministers and pastoral counselors are being consulted by people who are in abusive relationships. Consequently, it is important for all ministers and pastoral counselors to develop both an intellectual and an emotional appreciation for the complexities involved in remaining in, or leaving, abusive relationships. This article discusses six basic reasons why people choose to remain in abusive relationships, and concludes with three pastoral implications for ministers who counsel people in such relationships.     

Being uncertain about what? Procedural fairness effects as a function of general uncertainty and belongingness uncertainty

Do different forms of uncertainty account for different procedural fairness effects? We hypothesized that general uncertainty accounts for fairness judgments, whereas belongingness uncertainty accounts for group identification. Experiment 1 manipulated general versus belongingness uncertainty. Participants in the general uncertainty condition regarded the procedures as fairer when they were granted than denied voice, whereas participants in the belongingness uncertainty condition showed stronger group identification when they were granted than denied voice. Experiment 2 split the belongingness uncertainty condition into family and stranger uncertainty. Only participants in the family-belongingness uncertainty condition identified with their group when they were granted than denied voice. The findings have implications for the construct of uncertainty, models of procedural fairness, and group membership.     

Why do citizens want to keep refugees out? Threats,fairness and hostile norms in the treatment of asylum seekers

A social identity framework was employed to understand why people support the exclusionary treatment of refugee claimants (‘asylum seekers’) in Australia. Over and above individual difference effects of social dominance orientation and individuals' instrumental threat perceptions, insecure intergroup relations between citizens and asylum seekers were proposed to motivate exclusionary attitudes and behaviour. In addition, perceived procedural and distributive fairness were proposed to mediate the effects of social identity predictors on intergroup competitiveness, serving to legitimise citizens' exclusionary behaviours. Support for these propositions was obtained in a longitudinal study of Australians' social attitudes and behaviour. Small and inconsistent individual‐level effects were noted. In contrast, after controlling for these variables, hostile Australian norms, perceived legitimacy of citizen status, and threatening socio‐structural relations were strongly and consistently linked to intentions to support the harsh treatment of asylum seekers, and exclusionary attitudes and action at Time 2. Moreover, perceived procedural and distributive justice significantly mediated these relationships. The roles of fairness and intergroup socio‐structural perceptions in social attitudes and actions are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why do people change in therapy? A preliminary study

Why do people change in therapy? A preliminary study. This work represents the beginning of a new way to study the processes that can explain the therapeutic change. The method used is the observation and analysis of therapeutic sessions directly recorded and developed inside a behavioural approach. The category system tries to carry out a functional analysis of the therapist-client interaction which enables the identification of learning processes that work in clinical setting and explain success in therapy. Outcomes are provisional but show the utility of this initial trend of investigation to the comprehension of clinical phenomenon. Conclusions also emphasize the importance of associative learning processes on the therapeutic change.     

Why do people tend to overpredict pain? On the asymmetries between underpredictions and overpredictions of pain

After an underpredicted painful experience people tend to expect increased pain levels for a considerable time, despite disconfirmatory experiences. Underpredictions also tend to raise long-lasting fear and increased physiological responding. Overpredicted pain does not have such dramatic effects. What are the reasons for this asymmetry? Evidence for and against the hypothesis that underpredicted pain hurts more than correctly predicted pain, and that overpredictions result from a tendency to avoid the extra aversiveness of underpredictions, is reviewed. Based on recent experiments this explanation is rejected, and alternative explanations are discussed. It is reasoned that the most plausible explanation is that the organism automatically infers danger from an underprediction, because of the loss of predictability into the dangerous direction (i.e. more pain). Elevated expectancy and fear levels are the result of this. A modified stimulus-comparator model that accounts for the differential effects of both types of incorrect predictions is suggested. In contrast to previous models, such a model hypothesizes: (i) differential processing of under- and overpredictions; and (ii) different processes involved in the influence of expectations on subjective and non-subjective pain responses.     

Why are some people more susceptible to ingroup threat than others? The importance of a relative extrinsic to intrinsic value orientation

Whereas an individual differences perspective recently pointed to the importance of a relative extrinsic to intrinsic value orientation in the prediction of outgroup attitudes, the intergroup relations perspective stresses the importance of threat. This study investigates the interplay of both perspectives. A scenario study among high-school students showed that only people who attach greater relative importance to extrinsic values react with a negative attitude towards an outgroup that is portrayed as threatening. A longitudinal study among university students then showed that people with a relatively greater extrinsic value orientation are not only more likely to react to threat but also to perceive threat. Specifically, cross-lagged analyses showed that a relatively greater extrinsic value orientation predicted over-time increases in threat perceptions.     

How do people respond to health news? The role of personality traits

When a patient receives a health diagnosis, their response (e.g. changes in behaviour, seeking support) can have significant consequences for long-term health and well-being. Characteristics of health news are known to influence these responses, but personality traits have been omitted from this line of research. The current study examines the role of personality traits in predicting response to health news. Participants (N = 298) read scenarios in which they received health news that was manipulated to vary in severity, controllability and likelihood of outcomes. Participants then rated how likely they were to engage in a number of response behaviours. We examined the main effects and interaction of situational manipulations and personality traits on ratings of these behaviours. Both situations and personality traits influenced behavioural responses to health events. In particular, conscientiousness predicted taking action and seeking social support. Neuroticism predicted both maladaptive and adaptive behavioural responses, providing support for the ‘healthy neurotic’ hypothesis. Moreover, personality traits predicted best in weak (unlikely, controllable) situations. Both personality traits and situational characteristics contribute to behavioural responses to health news.     

Why do people need self-esteem? A theoretical and empirical review

Terror management theory (TMT; J. Greenberg, T. Pyszczynski, & S. Solomon, 1986) posits that people are motivated to pursue positive self-evaluations because self-esteem provides a buffer against the omnipresent potential for anxiety engendered by the uniquely human awareness of mortality. Empirical evidence relevant to the theory is reviewed showing that high levels of self-esteem reduce anxiety and anxiety-related defensive behavior, reminders of one's mortality increase self-esteem striving and defense of self-esteem against threats in a variety of domains, high levels of self-esteem eliminate the effect of reminders of mortality on both self-esteem striving and the accessibility of death-related thoughts, and convincing people of the existence of an afterlife eliminates the effect of mortality salience on self-esteem striving. TMT is compared with other explanations for why people need self-esteem, and a critique of the most prominent of these, sociometer theory, is provided.     

What do people think about changes in health behaviors? Differential perceptions of consequences of increases and decreases in health behaviors

Most health decision-making models posit that cost-benefit analyses underlie decisions to make changes in health-related behavioral practices. In a series of studies, participants imagined either increasing or decreasing the frequency of a variety of health behaviors and estimated the consequences of those changes. In Studies 1 and 2, individuals consistently estimated that increasing a health behavior produced greater consequences than did decreasing the behavior by an equivalent amount. The results of Study 3 demonstrated that this effect is due to differences in how individuals judge the impact of health behavior changes which involve not engaging in the behavior at all versus other types of changes. Taken together, these findings suggest that perceptions of the outcomes afforded by health behavior changes depend on both the behavioral frequency and direction of changes in behavior an individual is considering. This asymmetry has the potential to help explain patterns of behavior in a range of important health domains and may impact the effectiveness of behavior change interventions.     

When do visual and verbal memories conflict? The importance of working-memory load and retrieval

Examinations of interference between verbal and visual materials in working memory have produced mixed results. If there is a central form of storage (e.g., the focus of attention; N. Cowan, 2001), then cross-domain interference should be obtained. The authors examined this question with a visual-array comparison task (S. J. Luck & E. K. Vogel, 1997) combined with various verbal memory load conditions. Interference between tasks occurred if there was explicit retrieval of the verbal load during maintenance of a visual array. The effect was localized in the maintenance period of the visual task and was not the result of articulation per se. Interference also occurred when especially large silent verbal and visual loads were held concurrently. These results suggest central storage along with code-specific passive storage.     

Why do alternative ways of responding improve children's performance on tests of strategic reasoning?

Changing the way in which children respond significantly improves performance across a variety of cognitive domains. However, the basis for this response‐mode effect is unknown. To address this issue, the current study tested 78 preschool children on a measure of executive functioning (the windows task: Hala & Russell, 2001 ). The task requires children to point to an empty box to receive a box with a treat in it. There were four versions of the task, differing only in the way in which children made their responses. Children in the baseline condition, who pointed with their finger, performed poorly. However, children in three alternative response‐mode conditions won the treat significantly more often. Strikingly, even children who pretended to be pointing with an arrow – but were in reality pointing with their finger – performed significantly better than baseline. We suggest that non‐standard response modes encourage children to reflect on their actions and that this reduces the number of unreflective errors they make. The findings demonstrate that response‐mode effects do not depend on the presence of a physical means of responding (such as an arrow), but can be achieved via a purely cognitive means (such as engaging in pretence).     

Why are people with insecure attachments unhappy? The mediation of meaning in life

This study explores the mediating role of meaning in life with respect to the relationship between adult attachment and psychological well‐being. This study proposed that because people with insecure attachments have difficulty in connecting with the external world, this may decrease their ability to attain meaning in life, which may in turn diminish their well‐being. Two studies (N = 155 and 234, respectively, with age range from 18 to 31) were conducted. Participants completed self‐report measures of attachment, well‐being and meaning in life. The results consistently revealed a full mediation effect of meaning in life on the relationship between attachment and well‐being. The findings suggested that a deeper sense of meaning in life comes from one's connection with the external world, especially with other people.     

What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of different valued characteristics

Humans, as discriminately social creatures, make frequent judgments about others' suitability for interdependent social relations. Which characteristics of others guide these judgments and, thus, shape patterns of human affiliation? Extant research is only minimally useful for answering this question. On the basis of a sociofunctional analysis of human sociality, the authors hypothesized that people highly value trustworthiness and (to a lesser extent) cooperativeness in others with whom they may be interdependent, regardless of the specific tasks, goals, or functions of the group or relationship, but value other favorable characteristics (e.g., intelligence) differentially across such tasks, goals, or functions. Participants in 3 studies considered various characteristics for ideal members of interdependent groups (e.g., work teams, athletic teams) and relationships (e.g., family members, employees). Across different measures of trait importance and different groups and relationships, trustworthiness was considered extremely important for all interdependent others; the evidence for the enhanced importance of cooperativeness across different interdependence contexts was more equivocal. In contrast, people valued other characteristics primarily as they were relevant to the specific nature of the interdependent group or relationship. These empirical investigations illuminate the essence of human sociality with its foundation of trust and highlight the usefulness of a theoretically derived framework of valued characteristics.     

How do people react to negative procedures? On the moderating role of authority’s biased attitudes

The authors focus on the effects an authority’s apparent inconsistency between persons on judgments of relational treatment and procedural justice following negative procedures (i.e., procedures that people commonly regard as unfair). In Experiment 1, participants responded most negatively following a procedure that denied them, but granted another participant, an opportunity to voice an opinion when the intergroup context raised suspicions of bias (i.e., when both the experimenter and another participant were outgroup members). In Experiment 2, participants responded most negatively when the experimenter had expressed biased attitudes in favor of another participant, but this effect occurred only following procedures that denied participants a voice opportunity. We conclude that authority’s biased attitudes help people to make sense of negative procedure information.     

Why do males and females differ? Children's beliefs about sex differences

The present paper focuses on children's beliefs about sex differences and how these are related to age and gender. Seven, ten, and fifteen year olds (N=427) were asked to give explanations for their beliefs about sex differences. In strong agreement with previous research and the cognitive-developmental theoretical framework, marked age differences were found: younger children were more likely than older children to emphasize biological and physical factors. Significant gender differences were also found, especially for 15 year olds. Girls were much more likely to attribute sex differences to social factors, and boys to biological factors. These gender differences were interpreted as being indicative of different life experiences of males and females, with females being more likely to have experienced conflicts between their own values about sex-role behavior and those of society. Findings were also interpreted as being consistent with the recent emphasis on gender schema. Nevertheless, it was argued that theories of gender schema need to take more account of content—of the beliefs that people hold about sex roles—and, in particular, that more attention be given to exploring gender differences in beliefs.