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.     

Denial and Confirmatory Search: Paradoxical Consequences of Medical Diagnosis1

An experiment was conducted to examine the effects of medical diagnostic-test results on illness appraisal and the recall of symptoms and behavior. Subjects were tested for a fictitious enzyme deficiency and were told either that the test result was positive (deficiency present) or that it was negative (deficiency absent). In addition, some of the subjects were told the test was accurate 95% of the time and others were told it was accurate 75% of the time. As predicted, subjects judged the enzyme deficiency as less serious and more prevalent when presented with positive test results. Subjects with positive test results also recalled more behaviors that had been labeled as risk factors. Although positive test subjects tended to report more deficiency-related symptoms, diagnosis did not affect the free recall of general symptoms. In addition, information concerning the reliability of the diagnostic test had no effect on judgments or recall but did affect information seeking. Subjects with positive test results were less likely to request a definitive follow-up test when their results were unreliable. The results are interpreted as evidence for independent confirmatory search and denial processes following medical diagnosis.     

Disarmament Decisions as Social Dilemmas1

The individual deciding on a nuclear weapons production policy is faced with a dilemma in which a choice must be made to support one of several conflicting defense policies. In order to investigate the social-psychological variables that are related to armament policy decision making, a telephone survey was conducted in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Adult subjects (N= 110) responded to questions concerned with cognitive, attitudinal, and emotional responses to nuclear arms. Participants were also asked to choose a weapons production policy for the United States under conditions of continued and decreased Soviet nuclear arms production. Results indicated that respondents decisions about nuclear weapons production were related to their support for deterrence, the availability of their nuclear-related images, their emotional response to nuclear war, their attributions of responsibility for the prevention of nuclear war, and their political party affiliation. Distinctions between antinuclear decision-makers and pronuclear decision-makers are discussed.     

Influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: it is just not worth the risk

A modification of the procedure originally used by Davidson, Suppes, and Siegel (1956) to measure subjective utility was used to study the influence of positive affect on individuals' perceived value (utility) functions. Results indicated, as expected, that persons in whom positive affect had been induced showed a more negative subjective utility for losses than did controls. This indicates that losses seem worse to people who are feeling happy than to those in a control condition. The subjective utility functions of the two groups did not differ as much, however, when people were considering potential gain. Thus, at least in the situation tested in this study, potential gains did not seem to be more appealing (nor less so) for affect subjects than they did for controls. These findings are discussed in relation to theoretical issues in decision making and work suggesting that positive affect can promote increased sensitivity to losses in situations of potential meaningful loss.