From rarity to evaluative extremity: effects of prevalence information on evaluations of positive and negative characteristics

Experiments showed a scarcity principle in evaluative judgments such that the identical characteristic is evaluated more extremely the lower its perceived prevalence. In Study 1, Ss evaluated a fictitious medical condition that was described as either beneficial or detrimental to health and as occurring in either 30% or in one half of 1% of a test population. The condition was evaluated more extremely--as as a more positive health asset or a more negative health liability--in the low-prevalence than in the high-prevalence conditions. Study 2 demonstrated the same effect in self-evaluations and with a different manipulation of perceived prevalence. Ss were told that they actually had the fictitious medical condition, that it was either beneficial or detrimental to their health, and either that they were the only 1 of 5 Ss who had it or that 4 of the 5 did. Low-prevalence Ss exhibited more extreme evaluative, affective, and behavioral reactions to the medical condition than did high-prevalence Ss. The origins and validity of the scarcity principle are discussed, as are its implications for uniqueness theory, reactance theory, and social evaluation theories.     

Personalism and cognitive labels as determinants of attitude attribution

An experiment was conducted to test hypotheses derived from Jones and Davis’ (1965) theory of correspondent inferences in conjunction with research on emotional misattribution effects. Subjects were informed that they had ingested either a stimulant or a tranquilizer (label). They then read an emotional, counterattitudinal essay which was written either personally for them or for another subject (personalism). The primary dependent variable was the attitude on the issue in question attributed to the author of the communication. The results showed that the subjects who read the more personal communication made more extreme attributions concerning the attitude of the author of the essay than did the subjects who read the less personal communication. In addition, subjects who were informed that they had received a tranquilizer made more extreme attitude attributions than subjects who were informed that they had received a stimulant. The implications of the results of the experiment for Jones and Davis’ principles of personalism and hedonic relevance are discussed.     

Am I blue? Depressed mood and the consequences of self-focus for the interpretation and recall of ambiguous words

In two experiments, dysphoric and nondysphoric students first concentrated on either self-focused or other-focused phrases and then performed an ostensibly unrelated task involving the interpretation of homographs with both personal and impersonal meanings. In Experiment 1, they constructed sentences for the homographs; dysphoric students' sentences were more emotionally negative (although not more personal) in the self-focused condition than in the other-focused condition. In Experiment 2, they freely associated to the homographs, and the percentage of personal meanings reflected by the associations revealed an effect of self versus other focus that depended on mood group. Following free associations, they attempted to recall the homographs. Dysphoric students (but not nondysphoric students) recalled a greater percentage of personally interpreted homographs if they had focused on self than if they had focused on other matters. In general, these results suggest that ruminative or self-focused thinking by people in depressed moods transfers to novel ambiguous situations, encouraging more negative interpretations and better recall of personal interpretations.     

Restraint and internal responsiveness: effects of placebo manipulations of hunger state on eating

Restrained and unrestrained subjects were given a "vitamin" (placebo) prior to an ad-lib taste test. Subjects were either told nothing about the placebo or told that previous subjects had reported that the vitamin had made them feel either hungry or full. As predicted, restrained subjects, in two separate studies, behaved in accordance with placebo messages, eating more when given "hungry" messages than when given "full" messages. Unrestrained subjects showed an apparent reverse-placebo effect; they ate less ice cream when given "hungry" information than when given "full" information. Hunger ratings did not parallel eating behavior; possible explanations for this discrepancy are considered. We conclude that unresponsiveness to internal hunger state, and an overreliance on external cognitive cues, characterizes restrained but not unrestrained individuals.     

Effects of public and private deviancy on compliance with a request

A confederate requester asked subjects to write letters for an educational campaign after they had completed a battery of tests and received either deviant or nondeviant feedback. Half of the subjects were led to believe that the requester had knowledge of their test performance; the remaining half believed that the confederate did not know their test scores. Within these conditions, some subjects believed that complying with the request would involve future meetings with the requester while others were not led to anticipate any future interaction. As expected, deviants complied more than nondeviants replicating Freedman and Doob's (1968) results; however, neither the secret/known nor the future interaction variations produced effects. Contrary to the prediction that deviants are compliant because they wish to avoid mistreatment, secret deviants complied slightly more than known deviants. Compliance was discussed as instrumental in improving self-image.     

Group performance and interpersonal evaluations as determinants of egotistical attributions in groups1

Group members often try to claim personal credit for the successes of their group while avoiding blame for group failures. Two experiments examined the effects of evaluations from their fellows on such egotism in groups. In Experiment 1, 96 subjects participated in four-person, problem-solving groups, and, after completing the group tasks, rated the competency and worth of each of the other group members. Subjects then received bogus written feedback indicating that the group had either succeeded or failed, and that the other members had considered them: (a) the most competent member of the group, (b) the least competent, or (c) of average competence. Group performance and personal evaluations interacted in influencing subjects' perceptions of their personal performances, relative responsibility for the group performance, and potency within the group, generally supporting predictions derived from self-esteem and equity theory. Subjects claimed more responsibility for success than for failure only when they were favorably evaluated by their peers, and claimed the least responsibility for group success when they were unfavorably evaluated. The latter acceptance of negative peer evaluations was examined in Experiment 2, which manipulated the consensus of the evaluations given 76 high or low self-esteem subjects. Regardless of their self-esteem or the consensus of the evaluations, subjects again seemed to accept unfavorable evaluations. High self-esteem subjects did, though, rate their personal performance and relative responsibility higher than low self-esteem subjects.     

Denial and Confirmatory Search: Paradoxical Consequences of Medical Diagnosis1

An experiment was conducted to examine the effects of medical diagnostic-test results on illness appraisal and the recall of symptoms and behavior. Subjects were tested for a fictitious enzyme deficiency and were told either that the test result was positive (deficiency present) or that it was negative (deficiency absent). In addition, some of the subjects were told the test was accurate 95% of the time and others were told it was accurate 75% of the time. As predicted, subjects judged the enzyme deficiency as less serious and more prevalent when presented with positive test results. Subjects with positive test results also recalled more behaviors that had been labeled as risk factors. Although positive test subjects tended to report more deficiency-related symptoms, diagnosis did not affect the free recall of general symptoms. In addition, information concerning the reliability of the diagnostic test had no effect on judgments or recall but did affect information seeking. Subjects with positive test results were less likely to request a definitive follow-up test when their results were unreliable. The results are interpreted as evidence for independent confirmatory search and denial processes following medical diagnosis.     

Reactions to Medical Diagnosis: The Role of Illness Stereotypes

Two studies were conducted to explore the role of illness stereotypes in appraisals of health threat. The results of Study 1 indicated that a substantial proportion of questionnaire respondents believed that high blood pressure (BP) is associated with positive personal characteristics (e.g., persistence) whereas a smaller proportion believed that high BP is associated with negative characteristics. In addition, more favorable stereotypes were correlated with lower ratings of the seriousness of high BP. Study 2 examined the effects of experimentally induced illness stereotypes on the health-related judgments of subjects who received false feedback on a test of their BP. The results revealed a significant effect of illness stereotypes on health-threat appraisals of high BP. Subjects who were led to believe that high BP was associated with achievement and competence perceived high BP as a less serious threat to health than did subjects who believed high BP was associated with less desirable traits. In addition, subjects given high BP readings reported fewer symptoms they were told were associated with high BP when the disorder was associated with negative characteristics. The results demonstrate the importance of illness stereotypes in appraisals of health threats, symptom reporting, and reactions to medical diagnosis.     

Effect on retaliation of causal attributions concerning attack

In two studies, men were defeated on either 17%, 50%, or 83% of reaction time trials, received aversive noise, and could ostensibly retaliate by delivering shock to their partner. The noise level delivered was described in Experiment 1 as typical of most other people (high consensus) or atypical of most other people (low consensus) and in Experiment 2 as from a partner who knew (high foreseeability) or did not know (low foreseeability) the kind and level of stimulation controlled by the switches delivering reinforcement to the recipient. Hypotheses were based on the notion that retaliation increases as more personal causality is attributed to a provoker and that more personal causality is inferred in highly foreseeable--or low consensus--50% defeat conditions. As expected, greater differences in aggression between high and low consensus and between high and low foreseeability were displayed in the 50% defeat condition than in the other defeat conditions. Anticipated differences in inferences were obtained.     

The Impact of Social Comparisons After Failure: The Moderating Effects of Perceived Control

It was proposed that the impact of upward and downward social comparisons on affect and behavior following failure is moderated by perceived control. Subjects who failed an initial test were led to believe that it was either possible or impossible to improve performance on a second test and were exposed to information indicating that others either had done better or had done worse on the first test. As predicted, those who believed that they had little control over their subsequent outcomes and who were exposed to upward comparisons reported greater depressive and hostile affect and persisted less on the second task relative to other subjects. In addition, subjects who had low perceived control showed more interest in additional comparison information when they believed that others had done worse than when they believed that others had done better. Those who believed that they had high control did not show this preference. Findings suggest that upward comparison is debilitating only when accompanied by low perceived control. Further, exposure to downward comparison information may prevent some of the negative effects that have previously been associated with low personal control.     

Control motivation and attributions for performance

Two experiments examined the relationship between the desire for effective control over performance outcomes and attributions of causality for those outcomes. In Experiment 1, subjects were led to believe that they had either succeeded at or failed a test that was either unimportant or important. As predicted, failure of the important test was attributed more to lack of effort (a controllable cause) and less to lack of ability (an uncontrollable cause) than was failure of the unimportant test. In Experiment 2, all subjects were led to believe that they had failed a test. Once again, subjects were informed that the test was either important or unimportant. In addition, half the subjects were told that they would be undergoing more tests in a later testing session, while half were not informed of any future testing. As in Experiment 1, subjects failing the important test attributed their failure less to lack of ability than did subjects failing the unimportant test. The anticipation of future testing interacted with test importance in its effects on attributions to ability. Subjects performing the unimportant task attributed their failure more to lack of ability when anticipating future performance than when not. Attributions of subjects performing an important task were not affected by the anticipation of future performance. Results were discussed in terms of the need for control over performance outcomes.     

The Opinions of GP's Patients About Suicide,Assisted Suicide,Euthanasia, and Suicide Prevention: An Italian Survey

A survey about opinions on end‐of‐life issues of a population represented by 1,171 people in the waiting room of general practitioners' surgeries was conducted in a province of northern Italy. Most subjects did not consider suicide as a reasonable option even in cases of a serious and incurable disease. Moreover, subjects did not consider euthanasia as a possible option either; however, they did express an opposite attitude when considering euthanasia in a third‐person perspective. People with a personal history of suicidal behavior appear to present as a different population, overall expressing more open attitudes.     

"Eating lightly" and the self-presentation of femininity

In Experiment 1, male and female subjects were given an opportunity to snack as they participated in a "get-acquainted study" with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner (confederate) whose social desirability was manipulated. Consistent with the hypothesis that women may eat less when motivated to present themselves in a feminine light, female subjects ate significantly less with a desirable male partner than in the remaining three conditions. In contrast, male subjects did not eat more (or less) with a desirable woman, although they did show an overall tendency to eat less with female (vs. male) partners. In Experiment 2, female subjects snacked as they got acquainted with a desirable male partner (confederate). Before this interaction, subjects received feedback indicating that they had either very masculine or very feminine interests. In addition, subjects believed either that their male partner was aware of their gender feedback or that he was unaware. Consistent with predictions derived from Schlenker's (1982) analytic-identity theory of social conduct, subjects in the partner-aware conditions ate less when they had received masculine (vs. feminine) feedback, whereas subjects in the partner-unaware conditions ate less when they had received feminine (vs. masculine) feedback. Implications for understanding eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia are discussed.     

Actors' and observers' attributions for success and failure: A comparative test of predictions from Kelley's cube,self-serving bias,and positivity bias formulations

An experiment was conducted to test implications of Kelley's cube, self-serving bias, and positivity bias formulations for attributions associated with success and failure on a test of “abstract reasoning.” Subjects either experienced or observed outcomes on three tasks. They then made attributions for only the third outcome, which was either a success or a failure. The first task was of the same type and had the same outcome as the third task, thus providing the information that the outcome being attributed was high in consistency. The second task was of a different type than the first and third tasks, and its outcome either did or did not differ from their outcomes, thus varying information about the distinctiveness of the outcome being attributed. Consensus was manipulated by presenting false norms, ostensibly from a previous experiment. In contrast to previous research, the present study included thorough checks on all of these informational manipulations. Regardless of attributor role (actor or observer), subjects attributed success more to internal than to external factors and attributed failure more to external than to internal factors. These findings indicate a general bias toward positive evaluations. Discussion centers on possible alternative interpretations of these findings, restrictions on their generality, and the limitations that they seem to impose on the applicability of the other two formulations.     

“How Many Partners Is Too Many?” Shaping Perceptions of Personal Vulnerability1

The effectiveness of interventions that directly inform people of the risks posed by their own behavior is frequently undermined by people's ability to defend themselves against unwanted information. In response to this difficulty, an alternative approach to shaping people's perceptions of personal vulnerability in which people remained unaware of the intervention was tested. As part of a survey on sexual issues, college undergraduates reported the total number of sexual partners they had had on a response scale that systematically framed their sexual behavior as being either above average or below average. Participants in the 2 conditions reported the same absolute number of sexual partners. However, those who received a response scale that implied they had had more partners than the average student reported greater concern about their sexual behavior than did those who received a scale that implied they had had fewer partners than average. The implications of this approach for influencing perceptions of personal risk are discussed.     

Dreams and reality monitoring

Experiment 1 tested the counterintuitive prediction that memories for one's own dreams should not be particularly easy to discriminate from memories for someone else's dreams. Pairs of people reported dreams to each other that they had either dreamed, read, or made up the night before. On a test requiring subjects to discriminate events they had reported from those reported by their partner, subjects had more difficulty with real dreams than with dreams they read or made up. Experiment 2 provided evidence that real dreams do not simply produce overall weaker memories; the deficit for dreams was eliminated with more time to respond and with more detailed cues. In addition, subjects' ratings of various characteristics of their memories (e.g., vividness, personal relevance) indicated that dreams were not generally weaker or impoverished. The results are interpreted within the framework for reality monitoring described by Johnson and Raye (1981): Memories for real dreams are proposed to be deficient in conscious cognitive operations that help identify the origin of information generated in a waking state. At the same time, real dreams are embedded in a network of supporting memories that can be drawn on for reality monitoring decisions under appropriate circumstances. Finally, a comparison of recognition and recall indicated that dreams may leave persisting memories that are difficult to access via free recall.     

Attributing Responsibility to Female Victims After Exposure to Sexually Violent Films1

We investigate the possibility that the degree to which female abuse victims are held accountable by other women who have been exposed to sexually violent mass media is primarily dependent upon 3 factors: situational relevance, personal similarity, and emotional arousal. Female subjects participated in an experiment. Factors were: film dose; film viewing/victim judgment time interval; victim-subject similarity; and situational relevance of the assault. The results showed less attribution of responsibility to similar victims and high attributions of responsibility to dissimilar victims in the personally relevant assault situation (rape). Women identified least with dissimilar rape victims and most with similar victims when they had not been desensitized. When subjects were desensitized, the defensive attribution effect failed to emerge. There was also a significant tendency among low film dose subjects to perceive more psychological injury and to attribute more distress to the victim than among high film dose subjects.     

Personal space and density as factors in task performance and feeling of crowding.

The study was an investigation of the effects of density and personal space on simple and complex task performance and on feelings of crowding on 60 female Hindu students in India. A 2 x 2 design was used. Density was manipulated by varying the number of subjects in a fixed room space (social density), and the stop-distance technique was used to measure personal space. Results revealed that complex task performance was adversely affected by a high-density condition and by the personal space of the subjects, leading to a significant interaction effect of the two variables, but no significant main or interaction effect was found for the simple task performance. The subjects with "far" personal space under the high-density condition evaluated the environment of the experimental room as most crowded, more than any other subject did.     

The access of relevant information for solving problems

Two issues were investigated concerning the retrieval of recently acquired relevant information for solving riddle problems. First, although earlier research indicated that problem solvers often fail to retrieve relevant information unless they are explicitly informed of its relevance, Bowden (1985) suggested that uninformed subjects would benefit greatly from additional problem-solving time. In two experiments, we found that uninformed subjects solved more problems than did subjects who did not receive the information, but a simple model attributed this difference to these uninformed subjects "catching on" to the information's relevance after solving some problems. Second, the retrieval characteristics were examined by varying the proportion of problems for which clues were given. Informed subjects given clues for only half of the problems benefited (though perhaps not fully) from being informed, without incurring any cost from being misdirected on the unclued problems. The discussion focuses on some ways in which accessing relevant information may affect problem solving.     

Cognitive mediators of reactions to rape

Subjects were exposed to slides that primed different concepts associated with aggression, close personal interactions between men and women, and women as sex objects. Then, as part of an ostensibly unrelated study, they read the testimonies of several rape victims and made judgments concerning both the victim and the alleged rapist. Exposure to negative consequences of aggression apparently threatened subjects' beliefs in a just world, leading subjects to interpret rape incidents in ways that reaffirm this belief (i.e., it strengthened subjects' beliefs that the defendant should be punished, but it also caused them to attribute more responsibility for the incident to the victim). Portrayals of close personal relationships between men and women increased male subjects' beliefs that rape victims were responsible for the incident, but had the opposite effect on female subjects' beliefs. Portrayals of women as sex objects decreased male subjects' beliefs in the victim's credibility and increased their beliefs that she was responsible for the incident; however, it had the opposite effects on female subjects' judgments. Despite their effects on judgments of the rape victim, priming manipulations did not affect beliefs that the defendant should be convicted. Implications of these results for the effects of the public media on attitudes and beliefs about rape are discussed.