Context Effects in Environmental Judgments: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Separate and Joint Evaluation Modes1

This research investigates whether consumers judge the environmental quality of food products differently according to whether the products are presented separately or jointly and whether assimilation or contrast effects are more likely to occur. Study 1 revealed contrast effects when products were judged in separate evaluation. Study 2 revealed assimilation effects when products were judged in joint evaluation. Increasing the range of the product alternatives, however, produced a displacement of the judgments in the opposite direction, indicating contrast effects again. Comparing the environmental judgments across both studies, reversal effects in judgments and ordering of products could be demonstrated. Overall, the findings underline that environmental judgments are highly unstable and context‐dependent.     

Relational Judgments in an Influence Context

We contend that communication episodes tend to focus interactants’attention on one or the other of two relational judgments: dominance or affiliation. Further, when one judgment is relatively more salient, individuals will use the salient judgment as the basis for inferring other aspects of the relationship. To test that notion, a judgment study was conducted in which participants viewed a set of influence messages that varied in degree of dominance and explicitness. The influence context was chosen because it naturally highlighted dominance. After viewing the messages, participants provided ratings of dominance, explicitness, and two aspects of affiliation: liking and involvement. When the resulting data were submitted to a structural equation analysis, it was found that judgments of liking depended on judgments of explicitness and dominance. Judgments of involvement depended on judgments of liking and dominance. Both findings support the claim that one relational judgment may provide the basis for another.     

Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences

This paper explores the cognitive processes at work in preference generation. It tests the hypothesis that the evaluation process relies on a comparative context of alternatives. Participants in two experiments reviewed pairs of options that included one superficially attractive option and another that was normatively superior in some way but superficially unattractive. Experiment 1 (N= 116) found that when the superficially attractive option was rated first, reported preferences for both options were higher than when the less attractive alternative was rated first. Experiment 2 (N= 177) replicated this order effect on preferences using six pairs of options. I obtained process measures that suggest the effect is attributable to the process by which people generate judgments of preference. Options are rated more positively to the extent that they compare favorably to other real or imagined alternatives; options are rated more negatively to the extent that they compare poorly to their alternatives. These two experiments contribute to the literature on preference generation by specifying a process by which people generate preferences.     

Visuo-Proprioceptive Matching Errors Are Consistent with Biases in Distance Judgments

People make systematic errors when matching the location of an unseen index finger with that of a visual target. These errors are consistent over time, but idiosyncratic and surprisingly task-specific. The errors that are made when moving the unseen index finger to a visual target are not consistent with the errors when moving a visual target to the unseen index finger. To test whether such inconsistencies arise because a large part of the matching errors originate during movement execution, we compared errors in moving the unseen finger to a target with biases in deciding which of two visual targets was closer to the index finger before the movement. We found that the judgment as to which is the closest target was consistent with the matching errors. This means that inconsistencies in visuo-proprioceptive matching errors are not caused by systematic errors in movement execution, but are likely to be related to biases in sensory transformations.     

Distinguishing Perceptions of Control From Self-Efficacy: Predicting Consumption of a Low-Fat Diet Using the Theory of Planned Behavior1

The aims of the present study are fourfold: to apply the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to eating a low-fat diet; to consider differences between self-efficacy and perceived control over behavior (PCB); to examine self-identity as a potential addition to the model; and to identify beliefs which may provide useful targets for interventions. Findings support the efficacy of the TPB as a predictor of low-fat diet. Evidence for the distinction between self-efficacy and PCB was provided by principal components analysis, patterns in prediction of intention, and the control beliefs associated with the two constructs. Self-identity was found to independently predict intention and may prove a useful addition to the TPB. Finally, specific beliefs distinguished intenders from nonintenders, providing potential targets for health interventions. The findings are discussed in the context of previous TPB research and the need for multimethod assessments of behavior.     

Sex Effects in Performance--Related Judgments

This study examined the relationships among objective performance, performance ratings, and pay allocations made by male and female managers. Because rater sex has been found to affect performance ratings and pay allocations, but little research has explored the causes of these sex differences, this study explored the effects of contextual factors that may moderate differences between the performance ratings and pay allocations of male and female raters. Two hundred twenty-nine managers assigned performance ratings and merit pay allocations to performance profiles that varied in levels of objective performance. It was found that: (a) sex effects on performance ratings were moderated by contextual variables, and b) sex and objective performance did not influence merit pay allocations independent of their separate effects on performance ratings.     

Contrast Effects in Judgments of Health Hazards

Abstract

Researchers commonly use 2 models to explain contrast effects (CEs): the standard-of-comparison model and the set-reset model. The 2 models focus on the role of categorization to predict when a CE (instead of an assimilation effect) will happen, while minimizing the role of knowledge accessibility and relevance in determining whether any effect will occur. A 3rd model, the selective-accessibility model (F. Strack & T. Mussweiler, 1997), focuses on knowledge accessibility and relevance, but it is a model of assimilation effects in the anchoring bias. In the present study of CEs, the authors tested 3 predictions implied by the selective-accessibility model. The authors found a CE only when anchor- and target-rating dimensions matched and only in the 1 st of multiple targets rated. The CE required a minimum amount of attention to the anchor. These results support the account that selective knowledge accessibility and relevance play an important role in CEs.     

The Effect of Information Format and Performance Pattern on Performance Appraisal Judgments in a Computerized Performance Monitoring Context1

This paper examines how the presentation of computer-monitored performance information affects performance judgments. Two factors were examined: the performance pattern and the information format. In a computer simulation, subjects were responsible for evaluating the performance of a computer-monitored typist. They were assigned to one of three format conditions: a periodic, delayed, or summarized format. The pattern of the typist's performance was also varied: It either improved, worsened, or remained about the same during the simulation. Results indicate that performance pattern affected subjects' ratings of overall performance, performance quality, and performance consistency. Both factors influenced ratings of future performance and recall of specific performance information. Implications of these results for performance appraisals and computerized performance monitoring systems are discussed.     

Decision Control and Process Control Effects on Procedural Fairness Judgments1

Process control, the capacity to influence the content of a conflict resolution hearing, has been found repeatedly to affect disputants' judgments of the fairness of conflict resolution procedures, but never has there been an unambiguous test of the effect in nonbinding procedures. It was hypothesized that disputants experiencing nonbinding conflict resolution procedures, as well as those experiencing binding conflict resolution, would judge as more fair procedures high in disputant process control. One hundred nineteen undergraduate males and females were placed in apparent conflict with other suhjects. The procedure used to resolve the conflict was either high or low in disputant process control and was either binding or nonbinding. The outcome of the conflict resolution procedure was either favorable or unfavordblc to the subject. High disputant process control procedures were judged more fair than low disputant process control procedures regardless of whether the decision was binding, confirming the hypothesis. The results support new applications of procedural fairness theory and research and encourage testing of process control-like variables in nonlegal settings.     

A Methodological Note on Overestimates of Reaching Distance: Distinguishing Between Perceptual and Analytical Judgments

Previous research has shown that perceivers tend to overestimate whether an object is within reach. This exploratory study examined the hypothesis that this overestimate is a result of transforming what is typically a perception-action process into an analytical, reflective judgment. It was hypothesized that reaching estimates would be more accurate as analytical processes became less implicated in the judgment. The results indicate that when the judgment of reach was the focal task for perceivers, they overestimated their reach; but when the judgments were made a subsidiary part of aprimary task, with perceivers judging how reachable an object was in order to carry out some other task, their estimates of perceived reach were very accurate. These results support the hypothesis and suggest that perception-action prgcesses should be conceptualized as a complex mode of functioning that can operate independently of analytical processes.     

Ethical Judgments of Counselors: Results From a Turkish Sample

The present study examined the ethical judgements of Turkish counselors (N = 767) using a translation of the Gibson and Pope (1993) ethical judgements survey. Items predominantly judged as ethical and unethical, and group differences regarding gender, taking ethics as a course, professional affiliation, and level of academic degree, were investigated. Chi-square analysis, Fishers’s exact test, and Fisher–Freeman–Halton tests were used in statistical analysis. Results revealed that participants predominantly judged breach of confidentiality in cases of child abuse and potential harm toward oneself or others as ethical. Items concerning sexual dual relationships were predominantly perceived as unethical, and male participants were more likely to judge items regarding sexual and nonsexual dual relationships as ethical. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.     

Contextual Effects in Judgments of Crimes,Criminals, and the Purposes of Sentencing1

Content analyses of crime coverage in the news media (e.g., Graber, 1980) consistently demonstrate the overrepresentation of crimes of violence. It was hypothesized that in addition to direct effects upon members of the public (e.g., leading people to overestimate the number of violent crimes) this would also have several indirect effects. Reading about crimes of high seriousness might lead the public to (a) view other offenses more seriously, (b) regard other offenders more negatively, (c) punish other offenders more severely, and (d) emphasize the importance of retribution as a sentencing goal. Two experiments were conducted, using 90 members of the general public as subjects, to test these hypotheses. In Experiment I, subjects first read a news story about a crime that was of high, medium, or low seriousness. Later they rated an unrelated offender and offense more negatively, and were more punitive in their sentences, if the earlier offense had been very serious. There was equivocal support for the hypothesis that changes in punitiveness are caused by subjects shifting to a punishment-oriented sentencing strategy. Rather, it would appear that harsher penalties resulted from changes in perceptions of offense seriousness. These findings are discussed, as are future research directions.     

From Compassion to Compensation: The Effect of Injury Severity on Mock Jurors' Liability Judgments1

Two studies were performed to ascertain the effect of injury severity on participants' judgments in a simulated jury task. Participants read a summary of a personal-injury case in which the severity of the plaintiffs injury was varied; they were asked to judge the defendant's liability, award compensation. and rate their feelings toward the litigants. In Study I, more severely hurt plaintiffs were more likely to obtain a favorable verdict, even though evidence of liability was held constant. Greater severity influenced liability judgments only insofar as it elicited positive feelings toward the plaintiff or negative feelings toward the defendant, In Study 2, severity was found to have no effect when participants could not award damages, suggesting that more severe injuries arouse feelings for the litigants that are associated with a motivation to alleviate the plaintiffs suffering or to punish the defendant. Strategies for reducing the extralegal influence of injury severity are discussed.     

The Effects of Onset and Offset Responsibility on Affects and Helping Judgments1

Attributional studies of helping have examined perceivers affective responses and helping intentions as a function of responsibility (controllability) for the onset of a problem. This study extended the analysis to a responsibility for the solution (offset) of a problem and examined how the cause of both the onset and the offset of a problem determined perceivers' affective responses and helping intentions. One hundred and eighty subjects participated in the study. The subjects read one of three stories regarding the target person's behavior at the onset of falling behind in school (“sick” vs. “effort” vs. “no effort”) and reported their perceptions of the cause of the problem, affective responses, and helping intentions. Then they read one of three stories regarding the target person's behavior for the offset of the problem (“sick” vs. “effort” vs. “no effort”:' and responded again to the previously administered scales. Results indicated (a) that the final responses were strongly determined by the offset information. and (b) that sickness at the time of the onset led to negative affect and less helping intention when the offset information was “no effort.” The latter effect is discussed within the context of the moral judgment. Furthermore, structural equation analyses for the responses after the offset information revealed (a) that Weiner's “attribution-emotion-helping” model was applicable. and (b) that the effect of the effort perception on the helping intention was mediated by anger and pity.     

Nonlinear and Nonmonotonic Effects of Outcome on Procedural and Distributive Fairness Judgments1

It has generally been assumed that increases in the concrete outcomes of a procedure will result in judgments of greater procedural and distributive fairness, but research on this topic has been inconsistent. Using a classic procedural justice paradigm (Walker, LaTour, Lind, &. Thibaut, 1974), the experiment tested the effects of four levels of outcome. Forty-eight male and female undergraduates were led to believe that their team had been wrongfully charged with cheating in a business simulation game. An adversary adjudication was held, purportedly to resolve the charge. The outcome of the adjudication was confiscation of all, two thirds, one third, or none of the subject's monetary winnings from the game. Both procedural and distributive fairness measures showed dear nonlinear outcome effects. The relationship between outcomes and both fairness measures showed some evidence of being nonmonotonic as well: A two-thirds loss resulted in less favorable reactions than did a total loss. Ratings on other scales suggest that the nonlinear effects are due to beliefs that the judge did not fully consider the evidence in the two-thirds loss and one-third loss conditions. The discussion focuses on the theoretical implications of the findings for procedural justice and social exchange processes and the practical implications for conflict resolution procedure.     

Using Judgments to Understand Decoy Effects in Choice

Students were presented choice triads from several different domains, with alternatives described along two dimensions. In Experiment 1, the decoy alternative in each set was dominated by only one of the two other alternatives in the set. In Experiment 2, the decoy alternative was dominated by both of the other alternatives in the set. Within different blocks of trials, participants rated (a) overall attractiveness of each alternative, (b) importance of the different dimensions, (c) attractiveness of each attribute value, and (d) the justifiability of each alternative. Significant effects of manipulating the decoy were found for justifiability ratings and value ratings, with these combining to predict effects on attractiveness ratings. Results argued against a weight-change model of decoy effects and supported value-shift and value-added models.     

The Nature and Processing of Errors in Interactive Behavior

Understanding the nature of errors in a simple, rule‐based task—programming a VCR—required analyzing the interactions among human cognition, the artifact, and the task. This analysis was guided by least‐effort principles and yielded a control structure that combined a rule hierarchy task‐to‐device with display‐based difference‐reduction. A model based on this analysis was used to trace action protocols collected from participants as they programmed a simulated VCR. Trials that ended without success (the show was not correctly programmed) were interrogated to yield insights regarding problems in acquiring the control structure. For successful trials (the show was correctly programmed), steps that the model would make were categorized as matches to the model; steps that the model would not make were violations of the model. The model was able to trace the vast majority of correct keystrokes and yielded a business‐as‐usual account of the detection and correction of errors. Violations of the model fell into one of two fundamental categories. The model provided insights into certain subcategories of errors; whereas, regularities within other subcategories of error suggested limitations to the model. Although errors were rare when compared to the total number of correct actions, they were important. Errors were made on 4% of the keypresses that, if not detected, would have prevented two‐thirds of the shows from being successfully recorded. A misprogrammed show is a minor annoyance to the user. However, devices with the approximate complexity of a VCR are ubiquitous and have found their way into emergency rooms, airplane cockpits, power plants, and so on. Errors of ignorance may be reduced by training; however, errors in the routine performance of skilled users can only be reduced by design.