The Effects of Task Characteristics on Covariation Assessment: The Impact of Accountability and Judgment Frame

The impact of personal accountability and judgment frame on strategies for assessing covariation between two binary variables was examined in two experiments. Using a task designed to discriminate between the use of four different strategies varying in degree of sophistication it was found that subjects accountable to an audience with unknown views displayed use of more complex strategies than subjects who were not accountable. In addition, contrary to a recent attribution model (Cheng & Novick, 1992), subjects were less likely to use the conditional probability rule when the judgment question was framed in terms of causality rather than covariation, and covariation judgments did not always parallel causality judgments.     

反思自我评价的性质

反思自我评价是指个体对于他人如何看待自己的知觉;它对自我概念、种族认同的形成起着重要作用。反思自我评价并不完全准确,它受熟悉性,自尊水平等多种因素的影响。关于反思自我评价的形成,目前主要有三种理论：直接观察模型、他人反馈模型和自我理论模型。由于中西方在文化、社会和历史背景上的不同,应加强建构适合我国文化背景的反思自我评价理论;另外,也应加强对反思自我评价研究的应用探讨。     

The self-attention-induced feedback loop and social facilitation

It has been proposed that self-directed attention leads to the engagement of a cybernetic feedback loop, by which discrepancies between present behavior and a standard of comparison are reduced. This analysis is applied to performance facilitation effects, which are more typically explained in terms of drive theories. Though these two approaches to motivation make similar behavioral predictions in this context, they assume different mediating states. Support is noted for the assumptions that mirror presence and audience presence induce self-focus, and that they lead to comparison with salient behavioral standards. Support for the assumption that these manipulations increase arousal is also reviewed, and is challenged on methodological grounds. The attentional analysis is used to derive predictions regarding changes in physiological state over the course of a typical social facilitation procedure. An experiment is reported which confirmed these predictions. Discussion centers on how to interpret physiological changes in terms that are compatible with control theory, how to account for social impairment phenomena in terms of the present model, and the conceptual relationship between mirror presence and audience presence as experimental manipulations.     

Taking the edge off of disagreement: linguistic abstractness and self‐presentation to a heterogeneous audience

The use of linguistic abstraction in self‐presentation was examined. Participants, whose goal it was to be liked by recipients, presented their political views to an audience of two people. Participants learned beforehand that the two recipients had the same political views as the participant, that both had different political views from the participant, or that one had similar views to and one had dissimilar views from the participant. Theorising that variations in the degree of linguistic abstractness used by participants when describing their political views were related to their social goals, it was hypothesised that participants would describe their political views at a higher level of linguistic abstractness when communicating with a similar agreeing audience than when communicating with a mixed audience. Results confirmed this hypothesis. The role of linguistic abstractness in achieving self‐presentational goals is discussed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The possessive self as a barrier to conflict resolution: effects of mere ownership, process accountability, and self-concept clarity on competitive cognitions and behavior

The authors propose that people have difficulty managing conflict because they quickly develop ownership of arguments and positions they use in the dispute, that these arguments and positions become part of their (extended) self-concept, and that any opposition or counterargumentation therefore becomes an ego-threat. Four studies reveal that individuals value arguments and beliefs more when these are associated with the self and that anticipated or real opposition triggers ego-defensive cognition and behavior, including competitive communication, retaliatory responses, negative perceptions of the partner, and attitude polarization. These effects were weaker when epistemic needs were raised through process accountability or when individuals had high rather than low self-concept clarity. The authors conclude that because people develop ownership of arguments and make these part of their self-concept, conflict is difficult to manage and bound to escalate.     

Toward More Effective Stakeholder Dialogue: Applying Theories of Negotiation to Policy and Program Evaluation1

Borrowing from the negotiation literature, we tested 2 factors that might improve stakeholder dialogue in program and policy evaluation. Undergraduate stakeholders (61 pairs) engaged in dialogue about their universities' alcohol policies. Pairs were randomly assigned to levels of accountability audience and dialogue structure. The audience for the videotaped dialogue was described as holding either (a) views about the policy similar to the participant's, consistent across audience members (homogeneous), or (b) mixed views, on both sides of the issue (heterogeneous). Pairs approached the dialogue with either (a) problem‐solving goals or (b) no particular strategy. Dyads accountable to a heterogeneous audience and given problem‐solving instructions exhibited the most effective dialogue. Accountability to a heterogeneous audience facilitated satisfaction with and optimism about dialogue. Accountability to homogeneous audiences and adopting no particular strategy yielded the least positive perceptions of dialogue. Implications for stakeholder dialogue, and for the role of social psychology in evaluation are discussed.     

Categorization and communication in the face of prejudice: when describing perceptions changes what is perceived

In the face of prejudice against an ingroup, common ground for communication exists when people use similar social categories to understand the situation. Three studies tested the hypothesis that describing perceptions of prejudice can fundamentally change those perceptions because communicators account for the common ground in line with conversational norms. When women (Study 1), African Americans (Study 2), and Americans (Study 3) simply thought about suspected prejudice against their ingroup, categorization guided their perceptions: Participants assimilated their views of the prejudiced event toward the perceptions of ingroup members but contrasted away from the perceptions of outgroup members. Conversely, when participants described their perceptions, they contrasted away from the given category information and actually arrived at the opposite perceptions as those who merely thought about the prejudiced event. Study 3 identified an important qualification of these effects by showing that they were obtained only when participants could assume their audience was familiar with the common ground. Implications are discussed for understanding the role of communication in facilitating and inhibiting collective action about prejudice.     

Rethinking the Inoculation Analogy: Effects on Subjects With Differing Preexisting Attitudes

Inoculation messages employed in past studies have been consistently preventative. Yet, if inoculation strategies are to be used in mass media campaigns, researchers need to know what the effects will be on all audience members—not just those known to support a message sponsor’s position. A 3‐phase experiment was conducted involving 558 participants. Linear regression analyses identified that initially supportive, neutral, and opposed subjects exposed to the inoculation message reported significantly more positive attitudes toward the study topic of agricultural biotechnology following an attack message than did their respective controls. The inoculation message contributed to significantly increased threat levels among initially neutral and opposed subjects and marginally increased counterarguing output among initially supportive and neutral subjects. Additionally, counterarguing partially mediated final attitudes for inoculated supportive subjects.     

权力、社会动机和问责对谈判知觉、行为和结果的影响

采用工作面试的谈判任务,运用模拟实验方法,探讨了不同权力谈判者(人事经理与应聘者)的社会动机在不同问责条件下对谈判的影响。156名(78组)大学生按同性别陌生人进行一对一的模拟谈判。结果表明:(1)包含亲社会人事经理的谈判组整体的固定馅饼知觉偏差较小。(2)问责提高了相同社会动机谈判组的联合收益和问题解决行为,但减少了混合社会动机谈判组的联合收益和问题解决行为。     

The closeness-communication bias: Increased egocentrism among friends versus strangers

People commonly believe that they communicate better with close friends than with strangers. We propose, however, that closeness can lead people to overestimate how well they communicate, a phenomenon we term the closeness-communication bias. In one experiment, participants who followed direction of a friend were more likely to make egocentric errors—look at and reach for an object only they could see—than were those who followed direction of a stranger. In two additional experiments, participants who attempted to convey particular meanings with ambiguous phrases overestimated their success more when communicating with a friend or spouse than with strangers. We argue that people engage in active monitoring of strangers’ divergent perspectives because they know they must, but that they “let down their guard” and rely more on their own perspective when they communicate with a friend.     

Why and when peer prediction is superior to self-prediction: the weight given to future aspiration versus past achievement

Peer predictions of future behavior and achievement are often more accurate than those furnished by the self. Although both self- and peer predictions correlate equally with future outcomes, peers tend to avoid the degree of overoptimism so often seen in self-predictions. In 3 studies, the authors tested whether this differential accuracy arises because people give more weight to past behavior when predicting others, but emphasize agentic information, in particular data about their aspiration level, when predicting the self. Studies 1 and 3 showed that the exact same participants rated past behavior more diagnostic of future performance when predicting another person but viewed aspiration-level data as more valuable when someone else was trying to predict them. In Studies 2 and 3 (predicting an upcoming exam score and performance in a lab task, respectively), participants gave greater weight in self-predictions to aspiration-level data than did a yoked peer, who instead gave greater weight to evidence of past achievement. This differential weighting explained why peer predictions tended to be less optimistic and, thus, more accurate. Discussion centers on strategies for predicting future behavior and why people may remain ignorant of their own incompetence despite feedback.     

Strategies for social inference: a similarity contingency model of projection and stereotyping in attribute prevalence estimates

Most models of how perceivers infer the widespread attitudes and qualities of social groups revolve around either the self (social projection, false consensus) or stereotypes (stereotyping). The author suggests people rely on both of these inferential strategies, with perceived general similarity moderating their use, leading to increased levels of projection and decreased levels of stereotyping. Three studies featuring existing individual differences in perceived similarity as well as manipulated perceptions supported the predictions, with similarity yielding increased projection to, and decreased stereotyping of, various in-groups and out-groups. Evidence that projection and stereotyping may serve as inferential alternatives also emerged. The model and accompanying results have implications for research on social comparison and projection, stereotyping and prejudice, and social inference.     

Encountering Dissimilar Views in Deliberation: Political Knowledge,Attitude Strength,and Opinion Change

Conversing with diverse points of view stands as the central tenet of deliberative democracy, yet empirical evidence has suggested mixed outcomes related to perspective change as a result of deliberative encounters. I propose a difference‐driven model that suggests individual predispositions moderate the processing of dissimilar views when changing policy preferences. My analysis is based on a random sample of over 400 voters at a California‐wide deliberative event, where participants discussed proposals for reforming the state politics. I find that encountering more and different arguments transforms policy attitudes. Yet it is more difficult for people to change their minds on issues about which they hold strong beliefs. Some evidence suggests that different psychologies are at play for people who enter deliberation with substantial or weak political knowledge and for those who deliberate while holding strong or moderate prior opinions. Well‐grounded strong opinions are resistant to change, while well‐grounded moderate opinions are persuadable in deliberative groups. Uninformed positions can become entrenched in like‐minded groups, yet they can be adjusted once participants deliberate with dissimilar views, especially opinions that are held strongly without good informational ground. The findings urge deliberative forums that introduce participants to diverse perspectives to foster a considered public opinion.     

How people think “if only …” about reasons for actions

When people think about how a situation might have turned out differently, they tend to imagine counterfactual alternatives to their actions. We report the results of three experiments which show that people imagine alternatives to actions differently when they know about a reason for the action. The first experiment (n = 36) compared reason – action sequences to cause – effect sequences. It showed that people do not imagine alternatives to reasons in the way they imagine alternatives to causes: they imagine an alternative to an action more than an effect, and to a cause more than a reason. The second experiment (n = 214) and the third experiment (n = 190) both show that different sorts of reasons have different sorts of effects on how people imagine alternatives to actions. People imagine an alternative to an action (the protagonist went to a ball) less often when they know the reason for the action was an obligation (he had to participate in fundraising) compared to when they know about a weaker reason (he wanted to meet a famous violinist) or no reason. The second experiment shows the effect for a social obligation and the third experiment replicates and extends it to a health obligation. We interpret the results in terms of the possibilities that people keep in mind about actions and their reasons.     

Ascribing Advantages to Social Comparison Targets

Three experiments examined how people perceive a social comparison target when a dimension important to identity is threatened and a relatively unfavorable social comparison is anticipated. All 3 experiments show that people will perceive or exaggerate advantages in a target, that make the target inappropriate for social comparison, when they anticipate a comparison with the target and are uncertain of the outcome. Experiments 2 and 3 show that reports of some target advantages are moderated by individual differences in self-esteem, such that people with low self-esteem are more likely than people with high self-esteem to perceive that a comparison target enjoys subtle, subjective advantages. Finally, Experiment 3 shows that the report of overt target advantages reflects actual perceptions on the part of the perceiver, and are not merely self-presentational claims intended to manage audience attributions.     

Accountability as a deterrent to self-enhancement: the search for mechanisms

Although self-enhancement is linked to psychological benefits, it is also associated with personal and interpersonal liabilities (e.g., excessive risk taking, social exclusion). Hence, structuring social situations that prompt people to keep their self-enhancing beliefs in check can confer personal and interpersonal advantages. The authors examined whether accountability can serve this purpose. Accountability was defined as the expectation to explain, justify, and defend one's self-evaluations (grades on an essay) to another person ("audience"). Experiment 1 showed that accountability curtails self-enhancement. Experiment 2 ruled out audience concreteness and status as explanations for this effect. Experiment 3 demonstrated that accountability-induced self-enhancement reduction is due to identifiability. Experiment 4 documented that identifiability decreases self-enhancement because of evaluation expectancy and an accompanying focus on one's weaknesses.     

SUPERORDINATE IDENTIFICATION, SUBGROUP IDENTIFICATION, AND JUSTICE CONCERNS:

Abstract— The diversity of American society raises concerns about whether authorities can maintain social cohesion amid competing interests and values The group-value model of justice suggests that authorities function more effectively when they are perceived as fair (e g, benevolent, neutral, and respectful) However, such relational evaluations may be effective only if authorities represent a group with which people identify In a diverse society, subgroup memberships may assume special importance People who identify predominantly with a subgroup may focus on instrumental issues when evaluating a superordinate-group authority, and conflicts with that authority may escalate if those people do not receive favorable outcomes Results indicate that subgroup identification creates problems for authorities only when people have strong subgroup subgroup identification and weak superordinate-group identification As long as people identify strongly with the superordinate group, even if they also identify strongly with their subgroup, relational issues will dominate reactions to authorities     

Accounting for the effects of accountability

This article reviews the now extensive research literature addressing the impact of accountability on a wide range of social judgments and choices. It focuses on 4 issues: (a) What impact do various accountability ground rules have on thoughts, feelings, and action? (b) Under what conditions will accountability attenuate, have no effect on, or amplify cognitive biases? (c) Does accountability alter how people think or merely what people say they think? and (d) What goals do accountable decision makers seek to achieve? In addition, this review explores the broader implications of accountability research. It highlights the utility of treating thought as a process of internalized dialogue; the importance of documenting social and institutional boundary conditions on putative cognitive biases; and the potential to craft empirical answers to such applied problems as how to structure accountability relationships in organizations.     

Effect of Identifiability,Rating Audience,and Conscientiousness on Rating Level

This paper investigated three factors, two related to accountability and one an individual difference factor, which may influence rating level: (1) identifiability, (2) to whom one feels accountable (audience), and (3) conscientiousness. In study 1, results from students who rated their instructors indicated that not only did raters relatively high in conscientiousness report feeling more accountability but also that identifiability and conscientiousness interacted in predicting rating level. Raters relatively low in conscientiousness provided higher ratings when identified but raters relatively high in conscientious did not provide higher ratings. Rating audience did not influence rating level. Study 2 replicated the findings from study 1: Low conscientious raters assigned higher ratings when identified than when anonymous but high conscientious raters did not assign higher ratings when identified. Implications are discussed.