When reactance effects persist despite restoration of freedom: Investigations of time delay and vicarious control

Two studies are reported indicating that changes in attractiveness induced by psychological reactance are eliminated by a restoration of freedom only if the restoration occurs immediately following the threat. When the restoration was delayed, changes in attractiveness were attenuated but were still significant, no matter whether the restoration occurred by chance or was under subjects' vicarious control. A threat immediately followed by a restoration, however, may be perceived as one event, and thus may not be very threatening. Therefore, the absence of reactance effects after immediate restoration may be due to a weak induction of reactance rather than to a reduction of reactance. To this extent, the incomplete reduction of reactance effects found after delayed restoration, on the other hand, calls into question earlier conclusions (based on immediate restoration) that reactance is completely reduced by restoration of freedom and that reactance effects will no longer be obtained.     

Immoral,infectious, or both? How disgust sensitivity predicts judgments of violations against COVID-19 mitigation actions

Violations against mitigation actions to prevent the spreading of the SARS-CoV-2 virus causing COVID-19, such as not wearing a mask or not practicing social distancing, were seen as immoral and could also increase the likelihood of spreading the virus. In two studies (N1 = 318, N2 = 293), we found that moral and pathogen disgust sensitivity differentially predicted perceptions of such COVID-19 violations against mitigation actions, framed as a moral, pathogen, or on a good-bad dimension, albeit in a less specific way than initially hypothesized (e.g., regarding the pathogenic framed violations, not only pathogen but also moral disgust was associated with higher perceptions of infectiousness). These results suggest that individual differences, especially in pathogen disgust (and, more inconsistently, moral disgust), are important when evaluating violations against mitigation actions. Further research on the role of moral disgust is needed.     

Telling what they want to know: participants tailor causal attributions to researchers' interests

Based on a conversational analysis of experimental procedures and consistent with the principle of relevance, we predicted that participants' verbal responses will be influenced by their tacit inferences about the researcher's epistemic goals, derived from their knowledge of the researcher's academic affiliation. We tested this prediction in a core area of social‐personality and cultural psychology, causal attribution. University students provided causal attributions about mass murder cases, while the questionnaire identified the researcher either as a social scientist or a personality psychologist. The results indicated that attributions were overall more situational than dispositional, and as predicted, this main effect was qualified by an interaction between conversational cue and type of attribution. Thus, participants gave relatively more situational explanations when the letterhead of the questionnaire identified the researcher as a social scientist compared to when the researcher was identified as a personality psychologist. The reverse pattern emerged for dispositional attributions. Methodological and conceptual implications are discussed. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Decomposition can harm the accuracy of behavioural frequency reports

In survey research, the use of decomposition can lead to pronounced reporting errors as seen by overreporting and overall reporting error. A total of 87 subjects answered either decomposed or undecomposed questions concerning telephone calls made by them while at work. The questionnaire conditions varied the length of the reference period (1 week or 6 months), and the type of call (local or long‐distance). Decomposition conditions introduced either spatial or temporal cues. In all comparisons, decomposed questions increased overreporting bias relative to undecomposed questions. In addition, undecomposed questions with a 1‐week reference period led to increased overreporting bias in comparison to undecomposed/6‐month questions. Results are consistent with a category split estimation model in which smaller categories are predicted to lead to overreporting, and larger categories to underreporting. Decomposition is not recommended for gaining retrospective reports of non‐distinctive, frequent events. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Commentaries on “Beyond statistical significance: Five principles for the new era of data analysis and reporting”

Three commentaries below provide different perspectives on data analysis and reporting. They generally focus on how the quality of the measures and manipulations determines the value of the analysis. Norbert Schwarz and Fritz Strack's comment is less on the right statistic and more on “sloppy reasoning, gaps between theoretical concepts and their operationalizations, and blissful ignorance of the situated nature of human thinking, feeling, and doing contribute more to the limited reproducibility of empirical findings than the choice of a particular test statistic.” They propose that particular effects are contextual and inappropriately labeled as true or false. Instead, our job is to focus on general constructs that make sense of the diversity of human experience and psychological reactions. Too often studies replicating psychological effects in the noisy and confounded conditions of the marketplace result in statistical uncertainty of garbage in, garbage out. Researchers instead need to look toward tests of specific interactions, which can clarify the influencing factors based on theoretical considerations. The second comment is by Andrew Gelman, an outstanding psychological statistician. He proposes that “once the data have been collected, the most important decisions have already been done.” He then provides four recommendations that enable the statistics to work appropriately. The first requirement of an effective study is to be sure that the measures address the construct of interest. Similar to the position of Schwarz and Strack, it is important to articulate the relevance of a statistically significant finding. The second recommendation seeks to curb large number of studies with inflated effect sizes built from narrow studies and unwarranted optimism. The third recommendation is to simulate data from a model and consider the distribution of possible results. That is often done to test a new analysis method, but it can be even more important in marketplace studies where novel characteristics of the sample and experimental conditions are included in the analysis. Finally, he recommends that one consider likely analyses needed before getting the data. Such foresight would encourage, for example, thinking about the kind of data needed to defend the equality of the control demographics against the treatment. The final commentary is by Stijn van Osselaer. He agrees that p-values reflect the detailed methods from a given study but do not focus on the problem of generalizability. Like Gelman, he sees designs focused on effect sizes may have generated too many studies that do not replicate. He contrasts broad explorations with narrowly defined existence tests that provide evidence that an effect exists somewhere but are mute on other contexts where they may apply. For theoretical problems relevant to applications, it is important to identify moderators through broad sampling across population characteristics, stimuli, and situations. He proposes that consumer psychologists should not try to do everything in one paper, but to build practically relevant, applicable knowledge across multiple articles. Different articles, authors, and research methods play various roles, with each article focusing on important stages in the process from generating hypotheses, providing existence proofs, and exploring their broad applicability. That pragmatic approach can integrate theoretical silos that seek to resolve complex human problems and has promise as a criterion for relevant publications.     

On the relationship between the redundant signals effect and temporal order judgments: parametric data and a new model

Paradigms used to study the time course of the redundant signals effect (RSE; J. O. Miller, 1986) and temporal order judgments (TOJs) share many important similarities and address related questions concerning the time course of sensory processing. The author of this article proposes and tests a new aggregate diffusion-based model to quantitatively explain both the RSE and TOJs and the relationship between them. Parametric data (13 stimulus onset asynchronies) from an experiment with pairs of visual stimuli (626-nm LEDs) confirm that, relative to central signals (3 degrees), peripheral signals (35 degrees) yield slower reaction times, more strongly modulated RSE time-course functions, and flatter TOJ psychometric functions. All of these qualitative features are well captured, even in quantitative detail, by the aggregate diffusion model.     

Accessibility experiences and the hindsight bias: I knew it all along versus it could never have happened

In two experiments, we tested accessibility experiences versus accessible content in influencing the hindsight bias when participants generated either thoughts about alternative outcomes or thoughts about known outcomes. Participants who had listed many thoughts (Experiment 1) and those who had contracted their brow muscles (Experiment 2) when considering alternate outcomes rated the known outcome as more likely than did than those who had listed two thoughts or who had not contracted their brows--a "backfire" effect. In contrast, but no less ironically, participants who had listed many thoughts and those who contracted their brows when considering known outcomes rated those outcomes as less likely--an "it could never have happened" effect. Both effects are due to subjective accessibility experiences, and their role in influencing and debiasing the hindsight bias is discussed.     

Index to Volume 29

Other Index

Index to Volume 29