Adolescent Ego-Development Trajectories and Young Adult Relationship Outcomes

Adolescent ego-development trajectories were related to close-relationship outcomes in young adulthood. An adolescent sample completed annual measures of ego development from ages 14 through 17. The authors theoretically determined and empirically traced five ego-development trajectories reflecting stability or change. At age 25, the sample completed a close-relationship interview and consented for two peers to rate the participants'ego resiliency and hostility. Participants who followed the profound-arrest trajectory in adolescence reported more mundane sharing of experiences, more impulsive or egocentric conflict-resolution tactics, and less mature interpersonal understanding in their young adult relationships, and their young adult peers described these participants as more hostile. Participants who attained or maintained higher levels of ego development in adolescence reported more complex sharing of experiences, more collaborative conflict-resolution strategies, and greater interpersonal understanding, and their young adult peers rated them as less hostile and as more flexible.     

Dual processes in reasoning?

Previous results have shown that the introduction of negatives into the sentences used in a deductive problem affected behavior in a systematic way which was independent of the logical structure of the problem. In the present investigation, the subjects were asked to justify their responses when reasoning about such sentences. In accordance with previous results, the responses were dominated by the terms in the sentences regardless of whether they were negated. However, the justifications did vary when negatives were introduced in accordance with the logical consequences of the responses. The interpretation of these justifications as causes of behavior seemed implausible. It was suggested that they were rationalizations, or that there was at least some form of dual processing between behavior and conscious thought.     

MATCHING BIAS IN THE SELECTION TASK

A previous study (Evans, 1972) found that subjects tend to match rather than alter named values when constructing verifying and falsifying cases of conditional rules. It was suggested that this tendency (‘matching bias’) might account for the responses normally observed in Wason's (1968, 1969) ‘selection task’. This suggestion was tested by giving subjects the selection task with conditional rules in which the presence and absence of negative components was systematically varied, to see whether subjects consistently attempted to verify the rules (Wason's theory) or whether they continued to choose the matching values despite the presence of negatives, which would reverse the logical meaning of such selections. Significant matching tendencies were observed on four independent measures, and the overall pattern, with matching bias cancelled out, gave no evidence for a verification bias, indicating instead that the logically correct values were most frequently chosen.     

Operationalizing relational turbulence theory: Measurement and construct validation

This study assessed measures operationalizing concepts in relational turbulence theory (Solomon, Knobloch, Theiss, & McLaren, 2016). Studies of relational turbulence in marriage have used measures developed in research on dating couples; therefore, one goal was evaluating these variables in a general population sample of married individuals (N = 1,469). A second goal addressed problems in measures of relational uncertainty by assessing alternative scales. Third, associations between relational turbulence theory variables and measures of cognitive, emotional, and communicative phenomena were estimated. Fourth, the distinctiveness of relational turbulence measures relative to measures of other relational qualities was assessed. The conclusions advance new, Likert relational uncertainty scales and highlight the validity of relational turbulence constructs as distinctive predictors of cognitions, emotions, and communication.     

What's "up" with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine

"God" and "Devil" are abstract concepts often linked to vertical metaphors (e.g., "glory to God in the highest," "the Devil lives down in hell"). It is unknown, however, whether these metaphors simply aid communication or implicate a deeper mode of concept representation. In 6 experiments, the authors examined the extent to which the vertical dimension is used in noncommunication contexts involving God and the Devil. Experiment 1 established that people have implicit associations between God-Devil and up-down. Experiment 2 revealed that people encode God-related concepts faster if presented in a high (vs. low) vertical position. Experiment 3 found that people's memory for the vertical location of God- and Devil-like images showed a metaphor-consistent bias (up for God; down for Devil). Experiments 4, 5a, and 5b revealed that people rated strangers as more likely to believe in God when their images appeared in a high versus low vertical position, and this effect was independent of inferences related to power and likability. These robust results reveal that vertical perceptions are invoked when people access divinity-related cognitions.