Paternal care in the social and diurnal striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio): laboratory and field evidence

Paternal care is rare in mammals, occurring mainly in carnivores and neotropical primates, in which the difficulties of long generation time and large individuals lead to small sample sizes. Here, the authors show that paternal care can be easily studied in the four-striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio) because (a) captive males show all the patterns of parental care as do females, with the obvious exception of nursing; (b) in the field, wild males act amicably toward juveniles and retrieve pups experimentally presented to them; (c) the striped mouse facilitates experimental approaches in captivity because it has a short generation period and can be kept in large numbers; and (d) the striped mouse is diurnal, not only making observations in captivity easier but also enabling direct observations in the field.     

Organizational Mediators Siding With or Against the Powerful Party?1

Instead of being impartial, a mediator may side with one party as a function of the disputants' power differences, the mediator's legitimacy judgments, or the disputants' capacity to sanction the mediator. According to the power balancing theory, a mediator sides with the party that has a power disadvantage vis-à-vis the other party. The theory on siding postulates that the mediator sides with the party having more legitimate claims and/or more sanction capacity. A questionnaire study showed that organizational mediators side with the less powerful rather than the more powerful party, especially when this weaker party has equal rather than less capacity to sanction the mediator. Thus, the tendency to balance power is moderated by the mediator's self-interest. Additionally, mediators tend to favor the party they see as more legitimate.     

Effects of gain—loss frames on satisfaction with self–other outcome-differences

This research concerned satisfaction with outcome-differences (advantageous inequity, equity, or disadvantageous inequity) as a function of the individual's gain or loss frame, other's gain or loss frame, the cooperative or noncooperative nature of the relationship, and their interactions. After reading a scenario, subjects rated on a satisfaction-dissatisfaction scale a series of outcome-pairs providing themselves and another party with outcomes. Consistent with Equity Theory, results showed that gain framed individuals found equity more pleasing than advantageous inequity, which in turn was preferred over disadvantageous inequity, but only when the decision making context was coopera- tive rather than noncooperative. In a noncooperative context, gain framed individuals were as pleased with equity as with advantageous inequity. Contrary to Equity Theory, but consistent with Prospect Theory, loss framed individuals were relatively insensitive to outcome-differences and the nature of the relationship. Results finally suggested that advantageous inequity was preferred less when the other party had a loss rather than gain frame, albeit only under cooperative circumstances.     

Time pressure and closing of the mind in negotiation

Research on time pressure (TP) in negotiation has considered strategic choice (demands and concession making) but largely ignored information processing. Based on Lay Epistemic Theory ([Kruglanski, 1989]) it is hypothesized that TP reduces motivation to process information systematically, and the time needed to negotiate an agreement, and that it produces greater reliance on cognitive heuristics when placing demands, and less integrative agreements. Two studies revealed that effects of time constraint on information processing in negotiation were due to higher need for cognitive closure under high TP. Study 1 also showed that negotiators use stereotypes about the opponent as a heuristic cue more under high rather than low TP. Study 2 revealed that negotiators under high TP were less likely to revise their unfounded fixed-pie perceptions during negotiation and, therefore, reached less integrative agreements. Implications for motivated information processing in negotiation are discussed.     

The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation

Based on work by Fiske (1992), we argue that power differences influence information search strategies during negotiation. Experiment 1 showed that negotiators with less power ask more diagnostic than leading questions, and more belief-congruent than incongruent questions, when facing a competitive rather than cooperative partner. Experiment 2 suggested that this result was caused by stronger accuracy and impression motivation among less powerful negotiators. Experiment 3 showed that belief-congruent rather than incongruent questions produce more positive impressions during negotiation. And when less powerful negotiators are asked leading questions about their willingness to cooperate (compete), they responded with lower (higher) demands. The results are discussed in terms of a motivated information-processing model of negotiation.     

Motivation Gains in Computer‐Supported Groups1

One challenge in computer‐supported groups is the maintenance of high performance motivation of group members because face‐to‐face interaction and social control are restricted. Based on research on the Kohler effect (Hertel, Kerr, & Messe, 2000), we expected high motivation of group members when their individual effort is highly instrumental for the group's success. First, a task paradigm was developed and validated to measure motivation in a computer task. Then, this paradigm was used to explore group members’ motivation in computer‐supported dyads without face‐to‐face contact. Consistent with our expectations, motivation (and performance) of the group members was high and even exceeded the baseline of individual work (thus revealing motivation gains) when the individual's contribution was highly instrumental for the dyad's success (i.e., weaker coworker under conjunctive task demand). When instrumentality was low (i.e., weaker coworker under additive task demand), inconclusive results were obtained. Overall, the results demonstrate that motivation gains can be produced in computer‐supported dyads, even without face‐to‐face interaction.     

What we want to do versus what we think we should do: an empirical investigation of intrapersonal conflict

People often feel torn between what they want to do and what they believe they should do. As a result, they experience intrapersonal conflict. For example, people know that they should avoid credit card debt, but they want to splurge on just one more purchase. Following Loewenstein's ( 1996 ) temporal perspective to understanding internal conflict and inconsistency, we offer three studies that empirically demonstrate (1) a distinction between the want self and the should self, (2) that behavior is more closely linked to the want self, (3) that the want self is the self that is temporally inconsistent, and (4) that adopting a want versus should perspective can have a significant impact on actual behavior. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Personal and parents’ life stories in patients with borderline personality disorder

Patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) display disturbances in understanding self and others. We examined whether these disturbances extended to how patients described their personal and parents’ life stories and to measures of identity, alexithymia, empathy, and emotional intelligence. Thirty BPD patients and 30 matched control participants described personal and parents’ life stories and completed measures of identity disturbance, alexithymia, empathy, and emotional intelligence. Compared to the controls, patients with BPD described their personal and their parents’ life stories more negatively and with fewer themes of agency and communion fulfillment. Patients and controls showed equally complex reasoning about their personal life stories, but patients displayed less complexity and more self‐other confusion, when reasoning about their parents’ stories. Patients also differed from controls on identity disturbance, alexithymia, and empathy. The results suggest that patients’ storied understanding of themselves and others are disturbed and should be taken into account to better understand BPD.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Ceteris</Emphasis>-<Emphasis Type="Italic">Paribus</Emphasis> Qualifiers

Antecedent-strengthening, a trivially valid inference of classical logic of the form: P → Q ? (P & R) → Q, has a counterpart in everyday reasoning that often fails. A plausible solution to the problem involves assuming an implicit ceteris paribus (CP) qualifier that can be explicated as an additional conjunct in the antecedent of the premise. The qualifier can be explicated as ‘everything else relevant remains unchanged’ or alternatively as ‘nothing interferes’. The qualifier appears most prominently in the context of the discussion of laws in the sciences, where these laws are often expressed with a CP qualifier. From an analysis of the qualifier’s role in the problem of antecedent-strengthening, we can learn more about CP qualifiers in general and in their application to the laws used in the sciences.