Retracted: Judging the unexpected: Disconfirmation of situation‐specific expectancies

People's interactions with others typically take place in specific situations. Therefore, it is likely that expectancies of others are often situation‐specific. In two studies, we examined when and how this situation‐specificity of expectancies affects judgment.We showed that situation‐specific expectancies ‘“Michael is kind at work”’ lead to surprise and contrast effects when incongruent behavior refers to the same specific situation ‘work’, but not in other situations ‘general or home’, whereas general expectancies ‘“Michael is kind”’ lead to such surprise and contrast effects, regardless of the target situation. These results suggest that people sometimes are “situationalists” and do not always show dispositional biases. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Automatic analysis of altered gait in arylsulphatase A-deficient mice in the open field

In current research with laboratory animals, observing their dynamic behavior or locomotion is a laborintensive task. Automatic continuous monitoring can provide quantitative data on each animal’s condition and coordination ability. The objective of the present work is to develop an automated mouse observation system integrated with a conventional open-field test for motor function evaluation. Data were acquired from 86 mice having a targeted disruption of the arylsulphatase A (ASA) gene and having lowered coordinated locomotion abilities as a symptom. The mice used were 36 heterozygotes (12 females) and 50 knockout mice (30 females) at the age of 6 months. The mice were placed one at a time into the test setup, which consisted of a Plexiglas cage (53× 34.5 × 26 cm) and two fluorescent bulbs for proper illumination. The transparent cage allowed images to be captured from underneath the cage, so image information could be obtained about the dynamic variation of the positions of the limbs of the mice for gait reconstruction. Every mouse was recorded for 10 min. Background subtraction and color filtering were used to measure and calculate image features, which are variables that contain crucial information, such as the mouse’s position, orientation, body outline, and poßible locations for the mouse’s paws. A set of heuristic rules was used to prune implausible paw features and label the remaining ones as front/hind and left/right. After we had pruned the implausible paw features, the paw features that were consistent over subsequent images were matched to footprints. Finally, from the measured footprint sequence, eight parameters were calculated in order to quantify the gait of the mouse. This automatic observation technique can be integrated with a regular open-field test, where the trajectory and motor function of a free-moving mouse are measured simultaneously.     

Hardly thinking about others: On cognitive busyness and target similarity in social comparison effects

Two studies were undertaken to investigate the impact of other-self similarity on the outcome of social comparison effects when people are cognitively busy versus non-busy. Results demonstrate that when perceivers are able to devote sufficient cognitive resources to the comparison process, extremely similar others lead to assimilative self-evaluations, whereas moderately similar others lead to contrastive self-evaluations and dissimilar others lead to null effects. When perceivers are cognitively busy, however, both extremely and moderately similar others yield assimilation effects, whereas dissimilar others yield contrast effects.     

What drives self-affirmation effects? On the importance of differentiating value affirmation and attribute affirmation

In a series of studies, it is demonstrated that different types of self-affirmation procedures produce different effects. Affirming personally important values (value affirmation) increases self-clarity but not self-esteem. Affirming positive qualities of the self (attribute affirmation) increases self-esteem but not self-clarity (Study 1). As a consequence, attribute affirmation (which increases self-esteem) is more effective than value affirmation as a buffer against self-depreciating social comparison information. Attribute-affirmed participants more readily accept the self-evaluative consequences of threatening upward social comparisons than do value-affirmed participants (Study 2). However, value affirmation (which increases self-clarity) is a more effective buffer against dissonance threats. Value-affirmed participants showed less attitude change after writing a counterattitudinal essay than attribute-affirmed participants (Study 3).     

Retraction statement: Judging the unexpected: Disconfirmation of situation‐specific expectancies

The following article from European Journal of Social Psychology, “Judging the unexpected: Disconfirmation of situation‐specific expectancies” by Marret K. Noordewier and Diederik A. Stapel published online on 1 January 2009 in Wiley Online Library ( wileyonlinelibrary.com ), has been retracted by agreement between the co‐author, the journal Editor in Chief, Tom Postmes, and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed following the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel ( https://www.commissielevelt.nl/ ). The Levelt Committee has determined that this article contained data that was fabricated as supplied by Diederik A. Stapel. His co‐author was unaware of his actions, and not in any way involved. REFERENCE Noordewier, M. K. & Stapel, D. A. (2009). Judging the unexpected: Disconfirmation of situation‐specific expectancies. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 944–956. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.591     

Retraction statement: When nothing compares to me: how defensive motivations and similarity shape social comparison effects

The following article from European Journal of Social Psychology, “When nothing compares to me: How defensive motivations and similarity shape social comparison effects” by Diederik A. Stapel and Camille S. Johnson, published online on 26 September 2006 in Wiley Online Library ( wileyonlinelibrary.com ), has been retracted by agreement between the co‐author, the journal Editor in Chief, Tom Postmes, and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed following the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel ( https://www.commissielevelt.nl/ ). The Levelt Committee has determined that this article contained data that was fabricated by Diederik A. Stapel. His co‐author was unaware of his actions, and not in any way involved. REFERENCE Stapel, D. A. &; Johnson, C. S. (2007). When nothing compares to me: how defensive motivations and similarity shape social comparison effects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 824–838. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.390     

"What drives self-affirmation effects? On the importance of differentiating value affirmation and attribute affirmation": Retraction of Stapel and van der Linde (2011)

Reports the retraction of "What drives self-affirmation effects? On the importance of differentiating value affirmation and attribute affirmation" by Diederik A. Stapel and Lonneke A. J. G. van der Linde (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011[Jul], Vol 101[1], 34-45). This retraction follows the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel (further information on the investigation can be found here: https://www.commissielevelt.nl/). The Levelt Committee has determined data supplied by Diederik A. Stapel to be fraudulent. His co-author was unaware of his actions and was not involved in the collection of the fraudulent data. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2011-06457-001.) In a series of studies, it is demonstrated that different types of self-affirmation procedures produce different effects. Affirming personally important values (value affirmation) increases self-clarity but not self-esteem. Affirming positive qualities of the self (attribute affirmation) increases self-esteem but not self-clarity (Study 1). As a consequence, attribute affirmation (which increases self-esteem) is more effective than value affirmation as a buffer against self-depreciating social comparison information. Attribute-affirmed participants more readily accept the self-evaluative consequences of threatening upward social comparisons than do value-affirmed participants (Study 2). However, value affirmation (which increases self-clarity) is a more effective buffer against dissonance threats. Value-affirmed participants showed less attitude change after writing a counterattitudinal essay than attribute-affirmed participants (Study 3). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).