Some Interpersonal Effects of Imposing Guilt Versus Eliciting Altruism

Two groups of participants observed a videotaped interpersonal conflict involving two friends. The two groups were distinguished by their observing the videotaped protagonist making a request by imposing guilt or eliciting altruism. Immediately after observing the conflict, ratings were obtained from the two groups on their evaluation of the protagonist and their probable response to the protagonist's request. The major results indicated that when altruism was elicited instead of guilt imposed, participants indicated that the protagonist was more likable and respected and that they would be more likely to comply with the protagonist's request and less likely to become overtly or covertly angry at the protagonist.     

Hey Buddy,Can You Spare Seventeen Cents? Mindful Persuasion and the Pique Technique1

According to the pique technique, a target is more likely to comply if mindless refusal is disrupted by a strange or unusual request. We demonstrated the use of this technique in two experiments. In Experiment 1, passersby on a local municipal wharf were approached by a confederate panhandler who made either one of two strange requests: “Can you spare 17¢ (or 37¢)?” or made either one of two typical requests “Can you spare a quarter (or any change)?” Subjects in the strange conditions were almost 60% more likely to give money than those receiving the typical plea. In addition, a strange request piqued interest as evidenced by increased verbal inquiries about the request. Experiment 2 replicated the first experiment in a laboratory setting and provides additional evidence (via a cognitive response analysis) that strange requests piqued subjects' interest in the appeal as well as increased liking for the panhandler.     

Consistency-based compliance across cultures

A field study investigated cross-cultural differences in choice-congruent behavior and its impact on compliance. U.S. and Asian participants received a request to complete an online survey and a month later they were approached with a larger, related request. Compliance with the initial request had a stronger impact on subsequent compliance among the U.S. participants than among the Asian participants. Despite their lower rate of compliance with the initial request, the U.S. participants who chose to comply were more likely than their Asian counterparts to agree to the subsequent request. Further analyses revealed that this effect was driven by differences in the individualistic/collectivistic orientation of the participants from the two cultures. Within both cultures, the more individualistic participants showed stronger consistency with their earlier compliance than the more collectivistically oriented participants.     

Dating during the time of COVID-19: Risk perceptions and political ideology

This study examined predictors of single people's beliefs about COVID prevention behaviors, intentions to engage in COVID prevention behaviors while dating, and actual dating behavior during the pandemic. Results revealed that single participants engaged in “riskier” dating behaviors (i.e., in-person unmasked) more frequently than “safer” dating behaviors (i.e., remote, or in-person masked/distanced). Individuals who perceived greater (vs. lesser) risk associated with COVID more strongly endorsed beliefs about social distancing (self and other) and were more likely to personally (or request others) engage in COVID prevention behaviors while dating. However, perceived risk did not predict actual dating behaviors. Conservatives (vs. liberals) less strongly endorsed beliefs about social distancing (for others, but not the self) and were less likely to personally (or request others) engage in COVID prevention behaviors while dating. Conservatives also reported meeting potential romantic partners more frequently than liberals. However, political ideology did not predict actual dating behaviors. Results suggest there is a disconnect between college students' beliefs/intentions and their actual dating behavior. These results demonstrate the importance of developing public health interventions that take into account the disconnect between college students' health-related intentions and actual behaviors, particularly in the context of dating.     

Introspection on uncertainty and judicious help‐seeking during the preschool years

Little is known about the mechanisms underlying a ubiquitous behavior in preschoolers, help‐seeking. We tested the hypothesis that preschoolers' awareness of their own uncertainty is associated with help‐seeking. Three‐, 4‐, and 5‐year‐olds (N = 125) completed a perceptual identification task twice: once independently and once when they could request help from a confederate whose competence level was manipulated. Consistent with our hypothesis, participants sought help more frequently on trials for which, when required to answer independently, they expressed lower confidence. Children in the bad‐helper condition were slower to respond after receiving help than those in the good‐helper condition. Finally, females and children with more advanced theory of mind were more likely to seek help, identifying additional factors that relate to help‐seeking.     

Increasing compliance with a request: two touches are more effective than one

Touch procedures have been shown to increase the likelihood of compliance with requests. But the effect of subsequent touches following a classical touch procedure has not been investigated. It was predicted that two touches would lead to more compliance than one touch. 180 male and 180 female bystanders were asked to fill in a short or long questionnaire by a female confederate. They were touched by the confederate either once, twice, or not at all. Results showed that there was more compliance in the two-touch than in the one-touch condition, and when the participants were touched by the confederate. These findings support the hypothesis. Moreover, whereas participants were less likely to fill in the long questionnaire in the no-touch condition, touch procedures led to more compliance whatever the questionnaire length. Also, touch was more effective when a female confederate made the request to a male participant.     

Understanding the foot‐in‐the‐door effect as a pseudo‐effect from the perspective of the Campbell paradigm

Compliance with a small request (a metaphorical foot‐in‐the‐door) promotes compliance with a subsequent big request. Whereas some explanations expect a drop in the behavioural costs of the big request, others suspect that the effect comes from boosting the underlying attitude. However, evidence for both explanations is equivocal and circumstantial, at best. Drawing on what Kaiser et al. (2010) call the Campbell paradigm, we present an integrative account: Compliance with any request demands a corresponding attitude to counterbalance the costs of the request. In our research, 229 participants were randomly assigned to either a foot‐in‐the‐door (i.e., initially asked to sign a pro‐environmental petition) or a control condition. Small‐request‐compliant participants were more likely than control participants to also comply with the big request and to continue filling out environmental‐issues‐related questionnaires. However, this foot‐in‐the‐door effect occurred without diminishing behavioural costs or increasing attitude levels. Accordingly, the greater likelihood of small‐request‐compliant participants to also comply with the big request can be parsimoniously explained by baseline variability in people's attitude levels that manifests in their compliance with the initial request. We conclude that several of the foot‐in‐the‐door effects reported in the literature carry the risk of representing mere pseudo‐effects.     

Does counting to ten increase or decrease aggression? The role of state self‐control (ego‐depletion) and consequences

In this investigation, we experimentally test the interaction of ego‐depletion (low state self‐control), consequences, and decision‐making time on aggressive responses to an insult from a confederate. The results indicate that ego‐depleted participants respond more quickly and aggressively to an insult from a confederate. However, when a 30‐ second decision‐making delay is imposed, ego‐depleted participants reduce their aggression, but only if there are external consequences to being aggressive. In the absence of such consequences, ego‐depleted participants become more aggressive following a delay. Additionally, if a distracting cognitive load disrupts the 30‐ second delay, aggression levels do not change significantly, even if there are consequences. These results suggest people respond to aggressive triggers more impulsively when ego‐depleted.     

Chewing on it can chew you up: effects of rumination on triggered displaced aggression

Ruminating about a provocation increases the likelihood of displaced aggression following a minor annoyance (trigger). In Study 1, provoked participants who ruminated for 25 min were more aggressive toward a fumbling confederate than were distracted participants. Provocation-induced negative affect was positively related to aggression but only among those who ruminated. Study 2 conceptually replicated Study 1 and also found that the more negatively people reacted to the trigger, the more likely the trigger was to increase displaced aggression. Study 3 replicated the findings of Studies 1 and 2 by using an 8-hr rumination period. All 3 studies suggest that ruminating about a provocation increases the likelihood that a minor triggering annoyance will increase displaced aggression.     

Allocation of speech in conversation

In a replication and extension of Conger and Killeen's (1974) widely cited demonstration of matching in conversations, we evaluated nine participants’ allocation of speech and gaze to two conversational partners. German speakers participated in two 90‐min sessions in which confederates uttered approval on independent variable‐interval schedules. In one of the sessions, confederates uttered approval contingent upon and contiguous with eye contact whereas in the other session approval was uttered independent of the participant's gaze. Several measures of participants’ verbal behavior were taken, including relative duration and rate of speech and gaze. These were compared to confederates’ relative rate of approval and relative duration and rate of talk. The generalized matching equation was fitted to the various relations between participants’ behavior and confederates’ behavior. Conger and Killeen's results were not replicated; participants’ response allocation did not show a systematic relation to the confederates’ relative rate of approval. The strongest relations were to overall talk, rather than approval. In both conditions, the participant talked more to the confederate who talked less—inverse or antimatching. Participants’ gaze showed the same inverse relation to the confederates’ talk. Requiring gaze to be directed toward a confederate for delivery of approval made no difference in the results. The absence of a difference combined with prior research suggests that matching or antimatching in conversations is more likely due to induction than to reinforcement.     

The price of deceptive behavior: Disliking and lying to people who lie to us

We hypothesized that frequency and quality of deception influences how people perceive those who lie to them and that people subsequently increase deceptive behavior as a consequence of being lied to. In Study 1, participants were covertly videotaped conversing with a partner. Following the conversation, participants evaluated partners, and partners reviewed the videotape, identifying deceptions that they told. Findings indicated that partner’s frequency of deception was inversely related to likeability. In Study 2, participants watched a videotape of a confederate who appeared to produce one or four exaggerated or minimized lies, and then evaluated the confederate. Participants and confederates subsequently engaged in a conversation. When participants witnessed either one exaggerated lie, one or four minimal lies, or no lies they trusted and liked the confederate more than when witnessing four exaggerated lies. Moreover, participants increased their own use of deception as a function of the severity and quantity of confederate’s lies.     

Music and aggression: the impact of sexual-aggressive song lyrics on aggression-related thoughts, emotions, and behavior toward the same and the opposite sex

Three studies examined the impact of sexual-aggressive song lyrics on aggressive thoughts, emotions, and behavior toward the same and the opposite sex. In Study 1, the authors directly manipulated whether male or female participants listened to misogynous or neutral song lyrics and measured actual aggressive behavior. Male participants who were exposed to misogynous song lyrics administered more hot chili sauce to a female than to a male confederate. Study 2 shed some light on the underlying psychological processes: Male participants who heard misogynous song lyrics recalled more negative attributes of women and reported more feelings of vengeance than when they heard neutral song lyrics. In addition, men-hating song lyrics had a similar effect on aggression-related responses of female participants toward men. Finally, Study 3 replicated the findings of the previous two studies with an alternative measure of aggressive behavior as well as a more subtle measure of aggressive cognitions. The results are discussed in the framework of the General Aggression Model.     

Alcohol as social lubricant.

This study examines how consuming alcohol differentially affects the communicative behavior and perceptions of high and low social self‐esteem (SSE) women as they engage in a brief interaction with a flirtatious male. Alcohol myopia theory proposes that alcohol affects behavior when it blocks a person's normal inhibitions about enacting a behavior. It was predicted that low SSE women would be more inhibited when talking to a flirtatious male than would high SSE women and, therefore administration of a social self‐esteem measure and random assignment to an alcoholic or nonalcoholic beverage condition, participants (N=50) talked with an attractive, flirtatious male confederate. Low SSE women were less anxious and self‐disclosed more when drinking than when sober, whereas high SSE women were not significantly affected by alcohol consumption. The discussion highlights the complex and often contradictory effects of alcohol consumption on social interaction.     

Hostile aggression and type A behavior

Type A and Type B male college students were given the opportunity to display hostile aggression against an insulting confederate on a bogus ESP task, using either aversive noise or a monetary penalty. Preliminary correlational analyses confirmed that Ss' aggressive responding covaried directly with their reported desire to hurt the confederate but was, in contrast, unrelated to their reported desire to help the confederate. Thus, Ss' aggressive behavior was motivated by hostile intentions. Subsequent analyses revealed that Type As were more aggressive and reported a greater desire to hurt the confederate than Type Bs, regardless of the mode of aggression. These data support the results of a recent study which questioned the intuitively appealing assumption that Type As should only display aggressive behavior when motivated by some external achievement goal.     

The egocentric bias: Seeing oneself as cause and target of others' behavior

The egocentric bias—the tendency to see oneself as both cause and target of another person's behavior—was examined in the context of a small group interaction. Pairs of subjects plus a confederate conducted a short discussion, their goal being to achieve consensus on a specific topic. The discussion was interrupted by the experimenter when the confederate summarized his/her opinion. It was found that subjects were more likely to see themselves as a cause as well as a target of the confederate's last statement compared to the way they were seen by other group members. Subjects were also more likely to exaggerate the amount of attention they received from the confederate. The overall egocentric bias scores were correlated with subjects' level of self-esteem. Cognitive and motivational processes that may account for this bias were discussed.     

Moderating effects of rumination and gender on context‐specific aggression

Angry rumination has been linked previously to increased aggression. The effects of trait rumination on men and women's emotional and aggressive responses under different cueing contexts were examined. Aggressive behavior, not resulting from direct insult or provocation, was indexed by a laboratory paradigm that measured the intensity and the duration of shocks delivered to a putative “employee”. Frustration about, and cognitive focus on, the employee's poor performance was manipulated through the cover story and procedures; however, half the participants were exposed to a fearful/distracting stressor (stress focused) whereas the other half were not (confederate focused). Emotional responses and evaluations of the confederate were also assessed. Results indicated that rumination enhanced the effects of context, so that it related to greater fear and sadness in the stress‐focused context and to increased aggression and motives to aggress in the confederate‐focused context. These effects, however, were more robust for women than men. Ruminative men tended to show more hostile behaviors and motives across both conditions. Mechanisms for the effects of rumination on aggression, and gender differences in these processes, are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 00:1–17, 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

The World Wide Wait: Exploring Physiological and Behavioral Effects of Download Speed

ABSTRACT

When people use humorous media content, their behavior and assessments of the content may depend on the emotional expressions (e.g., laughter) of those around them. In a laboratory experiment in which 80 participants watched a movie clip with a confederate who either laughed or remained silent, we identified two parallel processes. The confederate’s laughter induced behavioral responses in our participants (laughing or smiling). Through those responses, a corresponding appraisal of the media content was generated: The content was rated funnier in comparison to situations in which the confederate did not laugh. This effect corresponds to emotional contagion processes and was especially pronounced in introverts. Additionally, participants who were low in conscientiousness directly elevated their funniness ratings (more than their own emotional expressions would suggest) when the confederate laughed. Those who were high in conscientiousness, however, lowered their ratings of the content’s funniness in the presence of a laughing confederate. This finding suggests the existence of an additional cognitive process that links confederate’s laughter and participant’s content ratings beyond automatic contagion. Participants with low conscientiousness use the confederate’s laughter as a heuristic cue for the content’s funniness, while highly conscientious participants discount the confederate’s laughter as a cue for content funniness.     

From sucker to saint: moralization in response to self-threat

ABSTRACT— When people's rationality and agency are implicitly called into question by the more expedient behavior of others, they sometimes respond by feeling morally superior; this is referred to as the sucker-to-saint effect. In Experiment 1, participants who completed a tedious task and then saw a confederate quit the same task elevated their own morality over that of the confederate, whereas participants who simply completed the task or simply saw the confederate quit did not. In Experiment 2, this effect was eliminated by having participants contemplate a valued personal quality before encountering the rebellious confederate, a result suggesting a role for self-threat in producing moralization. These studies demonstrate that moral judgments can be more deeply embedded in judges' immediate social contexts—and driven more by motivations to maintain self-image—than is typically appreciated in contemporary moral-psychology research. Rather than uphold abstract principles of justice, moral judgment may sometimes just help people feel a little less foolish.