Do letter features migrate? A note of caution

Summary The feature-integration model of visual information processing (Treisman & Gelade, 1980) predicts perceptual errors based on the incorrect grouping of stimulus features in multi-element displays. Experiment 1 examined the frequency of such errors with a tachistoscopic bar probe task using letters and novel patterns with a production response. A substantial proportion of the errors did involve figures that were not present in the display but contained combinations of features which had been present. Such errors were especially prominent with novel patterns. The results with letters suggested that such responses were due to guessing, not feature migration, and this was confirmed by Experiment 2. In the second study, responses were collected for single character displays but were scored as if they had been responses to the multielement displays in Experiment 1. The results showed the same high proportion of illusory conjunction errors as the previous results and it was concluded that both results were due to guessing. Spatial confusions in the bar probe task with letters appear to involve whole characters, not character features.This research was supported by grant A-9581 from the National Science and Engineering Council of Canada to the senior author. This research was reported as a paper to the annual meeting of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, 1981. Ian Morrison is now a post-doctoral fellow at the Department of Psychology, Carnegie-Mellon University.     

On the role of experience versus motivation in predicting the own-race effect

The other-race effect (ORE) is a longstanding phenomenon in experimental psychology, where recognition for same-race faces is superior than for other-race faces. The present research pits two competing theories of perceptual expertise and social motivation against each other to see which is the more robust predictor of the ORE. In Study 1, we measured Black and White participants' prior contact with individuals from the other-race (i.e. expertise) as well as their expected level of future interaction with other-race individuals (i.e. motivation). Of the two theories, anticipated interaction (i.e. motivation) emerged as a significant predictor of the ORE. Study 2 followed the same design, measuring motivation with a self-report assessment of how much participants are willing to have cross-race friendships. Here, neither experience nor motivation predicted the ORE, though an ORE was established. Differences in measures that assess motivation and the experience versus motivation debate are discussed.     

A systematic review of relationship sacrifices from 2002 to 2021: Moving toward inclusivity

We conducted a systematic review of research on relational sacrifices in romantic relationships from 2002 to 2021 [N = 115 studies] to answer three questions: Q1: Whose voices and vantage points are represented in the research?; Q2: What types of questions are valued?; Q3: What are the reflections and connections about relational sacrifices that were learned during the review? To address Q1, we coded sample demographics of study participants on geographical location, race/ethnicity, education/income/SES, gender (i.e., gender differences explored and beyond gender binaries), sexual orientation, age, and disability, using a coding system of 1 (exclusion/absence) to 5 (focus on context-relevant experiences for underrepresented samples). Results for Q1 showed that the most frequent codes were 1 (exclusion/absence) for information about the samples' disability status, education/income/SES, and both codes for gender (i.e., gender differences explored and beyond gender binaries); when demographic information was reported, the most frequent codes were 2 (compensatory addition) for age, sexual orientation, geographical location, and race/ethnicity. To address Q2, we coded for aspects of the study designs and conceptual dimensions of sacrifice. Results for Q2 showed that a majority of the studies in our review used quantitative and close-ended measures emphasizing behavioral frequency of sacrifice. For Q3, we include our own reflections and connections about relational sacrifices, questioning research methods, and challenging assumptions drawn from existing research to move toward a more inclusive science.     

Implicit and explicit COVID-19-vaccine harmfulness/helpfulness associations predict vaccine beliefs,intentions, and behaviors

We investigated the role of implicit and explicit associations between harm and COVID-19 vaccines using a large sample (N = 4668) of online volunteers. The participants completed a brief implicit association test and explicit measures to evaluate the extent to which they associated COVID-19 vaccines with concepts of harmfulness or helpfulness. We examined the relationship between these harmfulness/helpfulness COVID-19 vaccine associations and vaccination status, intentions, beliefs, and behavior. We found that stronger implicit and explicit associations that COVID-19 vaccines are helpful relate to vaccination status and beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine. That is, stronger pro-helpful COVID-19 vaccine associations, both implicitly and explicitly, related to greater intentions to be vaccinated, more positive beliefs about the vaccine, and greater vaccine uptake.     

Pandemic precarity: A multi-level study of neoliberal precarity and COVID-Related outcomes in the United States

Neoliberalism is the political-economic system that has characterized the United States for the past half century. Structurally, neoliberalism has involved privatization, deregulation, and government divestment from public health systems. Cultural psychologists have begun to outline the ways that neoliberalism is reflected in attitudes, ways of being, and ideologies, such as in the form of heightened individualism, justification of inequality, depoliticization, and precarity. We argue that neoliberal structures and psychologies may contribute to deleterious outcomes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We demonstrate that neoliberalism at the US state level (n = 51) is associated with higher COVID mortality and case fatality rates, as well as lower vaccination rates (Study 1). We also demonstrate that individual-level (n = 8280) neoliberal ideology predicts less adaptive beliefs and attitudes such as the belief that the federal response to the pandemic was too fast and belief in COVID-related misinformation (Study 2). We demonstrate using multilevel modeling that state-level neoliberalism predicts individual-level COVID-related attitudes, which is explained in part by heightened neoliberal ideology in more neoliberal states (Study 2). This study contributes to an understanding of the structural and cultural psychological factors that have contributed to the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic in the US.     

Tightness shifts in the U.S. and China: Implications of tightening or loosening norms during the coronavirus pandemic

Emergent research identifies cultural tightness-looseness as an important factor for understanding cross-national outcome differences during the coronavirus pandemic. Because perceived tightness-looseness can be measured as an individual-level difference rather than a nation-level difference, and because tightness-looseness may shift during large-scale crises, we investigated whether such shifts occurred early in the coronavirus pandemic in both China (a relatively tight nation, n = 3642) and the U.S. (a relatively loose nation, n = 3583) across three cohorts. Tightness increased across cohorts in China and reduced across cohorts in the U.S. These changes transmitted corresponding indirect effects whereby compliance and institutional trust (scientific and government) about the pandemic were increased in China across cohorts, but decreased in the U.S. across cohorts. These patterns extend advice that national governments can increase compliance and trust via “tightening” by cautioning against norm-setters signaling the reverse (that norms about compliance are loose) given the outcomes observed in the U.S. samples.     

Reviews of current books

Pastoral Psychology -