Making the Punishment Fit the Crime and the Criminal: Attributions of Dangerousness as a Mediator of Liability1

This research examines how individuals use information regarding characteristics of crimes (e. g., crime severity) and characteristics of the offender (e. g, prior criminal record) to form an impression of the criminal as dangerous to society, and to make liability judgments. Two studies presented college students and community members with crime scenarios and asked for ratings of crime severity, likelihood of recidivism, perceived dangerousness of the offender, and liability. Type of crime, severity. and likelihood of recidivism significantly predicted both liability and perceived dangerousness. Further more, in crimes against people only, the effects of severity and recidivism on liability were partially mediated by individuals' perceptions of the offender as criminally dangerous. The discussion examines the implications of these findings for attribution theory and sentencing in the criminal‐justice system.     

How Effective Are the Things People Say to Apologize? Effects of the Realization of the Apology Speech Act

The Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989a) has identified five components of an apology speech act set: five strategies that speakers use to apologize. This study examines the effects of four of those strategies (illocutionary force indicating device, expression of responsibility, promise of forebearance, and offer of repair) on the judgments made by hearers about the speaker and about the apology. Each of the strategies is shown to have an independent effect in improving reactions to the speaker. Further, the magnitude of these effects appear to be roughly similar for each of the strategies. The things people say to apologize do seem to be effective in accomplishing the self-presentational goals of apologizers.     

A “Classic” Revisited: Students' Immediate and Delayed Evaluations of a Warm/Cold Instructor

Solomon Asch's classic (1946) warm/cold research was replicated in this study with introductory psychology professors, using students' evaluations of teaching (SET) as dependent variables. Students completed attributed course evaluation forms three times: (a) after receiving fabricated warm or 'cold" information but before seeing the instructor; (b) after a 30–minute exposure to the instructor in an introductory lecture; and (c) at the end of the semester. In the first administration, strong warm/cold differences were found for the social components of SET, and warm instructors were also judged as more lenient. In the larger courses of Instructor B (but not in the smaller courses of Instructor A), the cold instructor was judged higher than the warm one in academic components of SET. In the second administration, following a 30–minute exposure to the instructor, students' judgments changed considerably, most warm/cold effects disappeared, and, unlike the common reports in the literature, we found only a moderate level of perseverance. In the third administration, all warm/cold differences practically disappeared, with no evidence of prolonged perseverance. These findings were interpreted as demonstrating students' flexibility in accommodating their judgments to the accumulating real-life information. It was argued that although cognitive factors determine a certain level of perseverance (especially in a short exposure), motivational factors and cognitive style play a major role in determining whether initial judgments will persevere or not. Students' personal beliefs in human changeability were found related to their actual change in judgment, incremental theorists (those believing in changeability) showing more change than entity theorists (those believing in fixed, unchangeable traits). Thus, perseverance of judgments is also related to systematic individual differences in students' cognitive style.     

Multiple audience problem: a strategic communication perspective on social perception

Examined how communicators send mixed messages containing an explicit surface content and a covert hidden content. In Study 1, Ss wrote constrained essays presenting either an introverted or extraverted personality. Although authors reported manipulating essay credibility and readers reported relying on credibility to make their judgments, readers succumbed to correspondence bias. In Studies 2 and 3, Ss again prepared either constrained essays (Study 2) or constrained videotapes (Study 3) and included in them a hidden message that would be understood by only their friends but not by strangers. Observers then read these essays or watched these videotapes. Friends detected and decoded the hidden messages, whereas strangers did not. We discuss these findings in terms of social perception and strategic communication.