The Public and Private Use of Consensus-Raising Excuses

ABSTRACT Two experiments tested the proposition that people use consensus-raising excuses more in private than in public when the audience has information that could refute subjects' claims about others In Experiment 1, subjects received success or failure feedback and made public or private attributions to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck In Experiment 2, subjects received positive or negative feedback and evaluated themselves and others on the trait Task difficulty attributions and evaluations of others are consensus-raising measures Consistent with our hypothesis, subjects receiving negative feedback in Experiment 1 claimed that the task was more difficult, and in Experiment 2 evaluated the other more negatively in private than in public.     

Socializing Attribution: Generalization to “Real” Social Environments1

Social status variables have been shown to influence attributional judgments, but their effects have been demonstrated almost entirely in experimental settings. The influence of such statuses in experimental settings may differ from their influence in natural settings. We examined the influence on attributional judgments of the status characteristics of both subjects and actors in conjunction with variations in the degree of “real world” characteristics of both subjects and social context. These comparisons were drawn through a partial replication of earlier research investigating the effects of a social status variable, victim sex, and a situational variable—type of assault—on attributions about an assault victim. The social status characteristic, victim sex, had less influence on attributions in an adult juror sample than in a student sample and testimony-related characteristics were more influential in the adult juror sample than in the student sample. Thus, the categories of variables that influence attributions appear to depend on the context of judgment and on the breadth of subjects' life experience. These findings are discussed and we conclude with the caution that careful identification of the differences produced by context and subject characteristics is necessary to support generalization of laboratory-based research.     

The effects of contextual information and gender on the prediction of hypnotic susceptibility

Council, Kirsch, and Hafner (1986) obtained empirical support for the hypothesis that significant correlations between questionnaire measures of absorption and hypnotic susceptibility are an artifact of subjects' beliefs about their own hypnotizability. We tested this hypothesis in a two-session experiment. During Session 1, subjects completed questionnaire measures of absorption, mystical experience, daydreaming frequency, and paranormal beliefs. During Session 2, subjects were tested for hypnotic susceptibility. Subjects were also exposed to one of three information manipulations: They were told about hypnotic testing either before or after filling out the questionnaires or were not told about hypnotic testing. The information manipulation moderated the prediction of susceptibility by the questionnaire measures for women, but not for men. For women, scores on the absorption questionnaire predicted susceptibility only when subjects were informed about hypnotic testing. In the told-after condition, this effect generalized to all of the remaining questionnaire measures. For men, none of the questionnaires was a reliable predictor of susceptibility.     

Effects of Social Demand on Reports of Self-Monitored Blood Glucose in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that social demand could substantially affect reports of self-monitored blood glucose (BG) in adolescents with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Of 34 patients initially enrolled in the study, 10 were excluded because they did not bring any BG records with them to an outpatient clinic appointment. The remaining 24 patients were randomly assigned to either a low or high social demand condition that provided instructions for monitoring of BG for the week following the appointment. The subjects' BG records were quantified to provide frequency of measurement and mean reported BG for the week prior to and after the clinic visit. Five subjects did not return their BG records for the week following the intervention. The analyses were therefore based on the 19 subjects from whom complete records were obtained. The 12 subjects in the low social demand group and 7 subjects in the high social demand group were equivalent with regard to age, duration of diabetes, socioeconomic status, and glycosylated hemoglobin. Frequency of BG measurement was similar in both groups during both weeks. The mean BG value reported in the week prior to intervention was similar for the groups. However, analyses of the post-intervention BGs revealed that subjects in the low-demand group reported significantly higher BGs compared to pre-intervention and to subjects in the high-demand group. These findings suggest that self-monitoring and reporting of BG is a social behavior that is affected by the demand characteristics of the interpersonal patient-health provider relationship. Because optimal treatment planning for individuals with diabetes requires accurate BG records, care must be taken to interpret them in light of the social demand characteristics associated with clinical assessment.