Sex Differences in Judgments of Social Desirability

This study evaluates sex differences in the perceived desirability of personality behaviors and beliefs. Men and women (N = 149, M_age = 18.7) judged the social desirability scale values (SDSVs) of 150 personality statements as applied either to a male target or a female target. For comparison, some estimated SDSVs with no target sex specified. A separate sample of 537 respondents endorsed the 150 items via self‐report. Raters showed a high consensus in their SDSV judgments within conditions (α = .86 to .90) and no sex‐of‐rater effects across conditions. Substantial sex‐of‐target effects (p < .001), however, revealed many behaviors that were viewed as desirable for one sex but not for the other. The behaviors seen as more (less) desirable when applied to men rather than to women were endorsed more (less) by men than by women in the respondent sample. Similar results were found when no target sex was specified for the SDSV ratings, presumably because judges evaluated the behaviors as applied to a target of their own sex. The present results have important implications for the measurement and reporting of SDSVs, the evaluation of substance versus style in self‐reports, and the construction of desirability‐reduced personality inventories.     

Effects of Sex and Race of Perpetrator and Method of Killing on Outcome Judgments in a Mock Filicide Case

The present study examined college student mock jurors' judgments of legal insanity, outcome severity, and death-penalty decisions in a filicide case. The sex and race of perpetrator (Black or White) and method of killing (shooting or smothering) were varied in a between-subjects design. A 3-way interaction was found for outcome severity, supporting Jones & Davis' (1965) attributional principle of stronger dispositional attributions for unexpected behaviors. As predicted, White women were judged more severely when they used a gun compared to when they smothered, whereas White men were judged more severely when they smothered compared to when they used a gun. The most severe judgments were made for Black male perpetrators who used a gun. Results are discussed in terms of sex and racial stereotypes.     

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 Clear Evaluation Criteria on Sex Bias in Judgments of Performance

Previous research indicates that the work of women is often devalued rela- tive to that of men. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that such sex bias appears when judges follow ambiguous guidelines or criteria in making evalua- tions, but not when they tollow clear evaluation guidelines. In each experiment, male and female undergraduates evaluated a performance that was attributed to either a man or woman (an intellectual test performance in Experiment I; an artistic craft object in Experiment 11). Subjects followed either clear, explicit evaluation criteria or vague, ambiguous criteria. As predicted, female subjects Lyaluated the "female's" performance less favorably than the "male's" only when. criteria were vague. In contast, male subjects showed little evidence of sex bias, regardless of the criteria they followed. Discussion centers upon: (1) possible cognitive processes underlying the observed effects of clear criteria; and (2) potential practical applications designed to alleviate sex bias in naturalistic settings.     

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.     

Judgments Regarding Sexual Aggression as a Function of Sex of Aggressor and Victim

The effects of sex of aggressor and victim (male/female, female/male, male/male, female/female) on judgments regarding sexual aggression on a date were studied. Participants were 415 female and 279 male community college students (M age = 23.0 years; 47.3% European American, 18.6% Latin American, 7.5% African American, 7.8% South East Asian American, 3.7% Asian American, and 15.1% other) who read one of four vignettes describing a date in which forced intercourse occurred. Participants rated degree of disapproval of the aggressor's behavior from their own viewpoint (Participant Rating), the victim's viewpoint (Victim Rating), and the aggressor's viewpoint (Aggressor Rating). Results of 4 × 2 (Vignette × Participant Gender) ANOVAs of Participant Rating and Victim Rating indicated similar disapproval of the aggressor for all couple types except for female aggressor/male victim, for whom disapproval was significantly lower. The aggressor's overall behavior was rated as date/acquaintance rape by 46.6–55.4% of participants for all vignettes except the female aggressor/male victim vignette (18.7%).     

Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments

According to a two-step account of the mere-exposure effect, repeated exposure leads to the subjective feeling of perceptual fluency, which in turn influences liking. If so, perceptual fluency manipulated by means other than repetition should influence liking. In three experiments, effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments were examined. In Experiment 1, higher perceptual fluency was achieved by presenting a matching rather than nonmatching prime before showing a target picture. Participants judged targets as prettier if preceded by a matching rather than nonmatching prime. In Experiment 2, perceptual fluency was manipulated by figure-ground contrast. Stimuli were judged as more pretty, and less ugly, the higher the contrast. In Experiment 3, perceptual fluency was manipulated by presentation duration. Stimuli shown for a longer duration were liked more, and disliked less. We concluded (a) that perceptual fluency increases liking and (b) that the experience of fluency is affectively positive, and hence attributed to positive but not to negative features, as reflected in a different impact on positive and negative judgments.     

情绪状态对大学生道德判断能力的影响

采用道德判断测验(MJT中文版),以300名大学生为被试,考察了情绪状态对大学生道德判断能力的影响。结果发现:(1)大学生道德判断能力的年级差异显著;(2)情绪状态对大学生道德判断能力具有显著影响,快乐状态下的道德判断能力高于悲伤状态,这与国外的研究结论正好相反;(3)道德判断任务的自我相关性对大学生道德判断能力的影响不显著。     

Uninformative Anchors Have Persistent Effects on Valuation Judgments

Anchoring effects influence a wide range of numeric judgments, including valuation judgments, such as willingness‐to‐pay (WTP). However, prior research has not established whether anchoring only temporarily distorts responses or exerts persistent influence on preferences. This article presents three incentive compatible experiments examining the long‐term effects of random anchoring on WTP. Study 1 evaluated the persistence of anchoring effects over long durations, and showed that the strength of the effect decayed but did not disappear completely even 8 weeks later. In Study 2, a random anchor significantly influenced WTP after one week, regardless of whether WTP was also elicited immediately following the anchoring procedure, showing that consistency motivations do not account for persistence of anchoring effects. Study 3 showed relatively low anchors resulted in more stable valuations, compared with participants who reported WTP with no anchoring procedure. Together with the pattern of decay over time in Study 1, this suggests that anchoring facilitates the “imprinting” of valuation judgments for later retrieval. These studies show that anchoring effects can lead to lasting changes in valuation judgments, providing the first demonstration of long‐term persistence of constructed preferences as a result of an uninformative and arbitrary manipulation.     

Distinguishing Context Effects From Context Errors in Judgments of Behavior1

Context effects (assimilation and contrast) are examined in relation to accuracy in judgments of stimuli. Context effects are distinguished from context errors. This is shown to depend on one's definition of true scores, rater tendencies (leniency-severity) relative to true scores, and the direction and magnitude of observed context effects. The framework is illustrated empirically in a study of contrast effects involving performance judgments. Implications for reliability, validity, and agreement of behavior judgments in practice are explored.     

Effects of Defendant Background and Remorse on Sentencing Judgments

Previous evidence that subject sentencing judgments are mediated by considerations of equity led to the hypothesis that defendant remorse and an impoverished defendant background would each reduce subject sentencing judgments. Results from 48 male and 48 female student subjects showed that remorse had the predicted effect ( p < .02) but background did not. Regardless of the initial manipulation, sentences shifted significantly toward leniency ( p < .02) after subjects had engaged in group discussion. The effect for remorse is consistent with the contention that the equity principle extends to psychological factors, while the leniency shift raises the possibility that jury deliberations tend to favor the defendant.     

Ethical Situations and Their Effects on Judgments of Punishment

We compared the punitiveness of two groups following a manipulation in which participants were either able to cheat on a simple number-matching task, by taking more money then they rightfully earned, or prevented from doing so on the same task. After completing the task, participants read a number of small vignettes of politicians who had acted questionably, and then were asked to rate the scenarios on both how wrong the behavior was and how much punishment it deserved. Participants given the opportunity to cheat with impunity were significantly less punitive when judging questionable behavior on the part of elected officials.     

框架效应对公平判断影响的实验研究

本研究采用T(u)rnblom的概念框架和借鉴Eyal的框架公平原则的方法探讨了框架效应对公平判断的影响.研究揭示(1)在积极的框架方式下,被试在资源分配中认为非平均主义原则(如绩效、能力、努力、需要、工作年限)更公平;但总体上框架效应不显著.(2)被试对公平原则的评价受任务情境的影响.     

意图信息在物权判断和道德判断中的作用

意图会影响人们的道德判断,但尚不清楚意图在物权判断中的作用。本研究以266名非法学专业的大学生为被试,通过包含不同意图（恶意/善意/无意）的故事情境,考察了在损失求偿和获益分享情境中人们的物权判断和道德判断。结果发现,在损失求偿情境中,不管是出于善意、恶意还是无意,被试均判断行为者应当赔偿他人损失,但不认为无意的行为者应受谴责。在获益分享情境中,被试认为善意的行为者应分享给他人带来的收益且应受赞扬,但恶意的行为者不应分享收益和受赞扬。综合来看,物权判断比道德判断较少受意图信息的影响,反映人们的物权判断具有领域特异性。     

Mass and Shading Effects on Masculine-Feminine Judgments on the Rorschach

College students were used to test the hypotheses that judgment of an achromatic Rorschach Inkblot as ‘masculine’ is a function of largeness of mass, and darkness of shading, and judgment of one as ‘feminine’ is a function of smallness of mass and lightness of shading. It was also predicted that the sex of the judge does not influence these judgments.

The standard inkblots and mass and shading control blots were used with the semantic differential and a masculine-feminine sort technique.

The results generally supported the hypotheses tested with the ‘shading hypotheses’ receiving the strongest support. The results were related, with reservation, to the “father” and “mother” hypotheses of cards IV and VII.     

Overconfidence in Initial Self-Efficacy Judgments: Effects on Decision Processes and Performance

Judgments of task-specific, expected performance (i.e., self-efficacy) can affect the activities one chooses to pursue and the extent of effort devoted to these activities. However, relatively little is known about the accuracy of self-efficacy judgments or their effects on behavior, performance, and perceptions of performance in complex cognitive tasks. The results of a pilot study and experiment indicate that initial, "first-impression" self-efficacy judgments made in cognitively complex tasks are biased toward overestimates of personal ability (i.e., "overconfidence"). The experiment manipulated performance expectations to illuminate how overestimates of initial self-efficacy affect decision making. Inducing positive expectations produced overconfidence in choice accuracy, but did not increase effort, attention to strategy, or performance relative to mildly negative and strongly negative expectations. In contrast, inducing mildly negative expectations increased effort, attention to strategy, and performance relative to strongly negative expectations. The results suggest that the demotivational effects of initial negative expectations are more robust than the motivational effects of initial positive expectations. ln addition, inducing mildly negative expectations may improve performance more than positive expectations in at least some tasks and settings.     

Primacy Effects in Justice Judgments: Testing Predictions from Fairness Heuristic Theory

We tested predictions from fairness heuristic theory that justice judgments are more sensitive to early fairness-relevant information than to later fairness-relevant information and that this primacy effect is more evident when group identification is higher. Participants working on a series of three tasks experienced resource failures that interfered with their productivity and always had the possibility of explaining problems to a supervisor. In a manipulation of the timing of fairness-relevant experiences, the supervisor refused to consider explanations on the first, second, or third of three work trials (but did consider explanations on the other two trials) or the supervisor never refused to hear the explanations. Prior to the work periods, the participants either had or had not undergone a manipulation designed to induce greater identification with the work group. As predicted, the timing of fairness-relevant experiences showed a primacy effect on fairness judgments and acceptance of authority in the high identification conditions and no evidence of such an effect in the low identification conditions. The implications of the findings for understanding the psychology of justice and for real-world justice phenomena are discussed.     

Cryptonormative Judgments

A cryptonormative judgment, roughly speaking, is a judgment that is presented by the agent who makes it as non‐normative (either generally or in some particular respect), but that is in fact normative (either generally or in that particular respect). The idea of cryptonormativity is familiar from debates in social theory, social psychology, and continental political philosophy, but has to my knowledge never been treated in analytic metaethics, moral psychology or epistemology except in passing. In this paper, I argue, first, that cryptonormative judgments are pervasive: familiar cases from everyday life are most naturally diagnosed as cryptonormative judgments. Secondly, they reveal that normative judgment is a state that can be quite deeply non‐transparent to its bearer, in a way that is not, for example, assimilable to the phenomenon of self‐deception. Thirdly, they shed light on debates over amoralism and lend some support to a picture of normative psychology that links normative judgment constitutively to motivation. In the conclusion, I make some remarks about the social and political insidiousness of cryptonormativity, looking forward to future work.     

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.