Social anxiety and receptivity to interpersonal evaluation

Reactions to interpersonal evaluation were investigated among subjects chronically low and high in social anxiety, or shyness. Both groups of subjects expressed more positive affect after receiving favorable than after receiving unfavorable evaluations, supporting a “self-esteem” prediction. However, support for a “self-consistency” viewpoint was also found. In particular, low social anxiety individuals expressed more negative affect (anger) following negative than following positive feedback, while high social anxiety individuals expressed more unpleasant affect (distress) following positive than following negative interpersonal feedback. Additionally, low social anxiety subjects were alone in derogating the accuracy of negative feedback; high social anxiety individuals were indiscriminate in rating the two types of feedback as equally accurate. The role of interpersonal evaluation in the maintenance of social anxiety was discussed briefly.     

Self-Consciousness,Self-presentation,and Performance Under Pressure: Who Chokes,and When?

Choking under pressure by persons low and high in self-consciousness was examined as a function of two sources of performance pressure: audience and performance feedback. Subjects competed with an alleged opponent on a psychomotor task while alone, before a supportive (same team) audience, or a nonsupportive (opposing team) audience. Before the critical trial, subjects learned that their team was either somewhat ahead of or somewhat behind the opposing team. Self-consciousness, audience, and feedback interacted to affect performance during the critical trial. When disappointing the audience was likely, subjects low in self-consciousness choked. Subjects high in self-consciousness tended to choke when they were told that their team had fallen behind. It is suggested that persons who are low and high in self-consciousness experience different types of performance pressure due to disparate self-presentational motives.     

Do Students with Different Characteristics Take Part in Psychology Experiments at Different Times of the Semester?

ABSTRACT In this study we examined 15 personality and demographic differences between psychology students who took part in experiments at different times of the semester and different times of the day. In general, few significant relations were found and those that did emerge were small in magnitude. Females and freshmen signed up for experiments earlier in the semester. Females took part in their first experiment earlier in the semester, as did students who were Protestant and who came from smaller home towns. Students low in self-consciousness also tended to begin participating earlier. Extraverts participated earlier in the day than introverts. Results generally were consistent with previous findings of differences between research volunteers and non-volunteers. However, it was concluded that because of their small magnitude and inconsistency from site to site, with a few precautions experimenters probably need not be concerned that timing effects threaten the external validity of psychological research outcomes.     

Sensation seeking and financial risk taking in everyday money matters

The present study investigated the degree to which the previously established relationship between sensation seeking and risk taking associated with gambling could be extended to everyday financial matters (e.g., personal banking activities). The subjects, classified into high and low sensation seekers, were asked to make a series of everyday financial decisions that varied in their degrees of risk. Overall, the results indicate high sensation seekers displayed greater risk-taking tendencies in everyday financial matters than low sensation seekers. This difference in everyday financial risk taking between high and low sensation seekers was also found within each gender group. Implications and suggestions for future research involving sensation seeking in other personal and professional financial decision-making areas are also presented.     

The problem of business ethics: Oxymoron or inadequate vocabulary?

Recently critics have faulted American business schools for failing to impart to their students an understanding of ethics and its role in business. In this paper, we agree and attribute this situation, at least in part, to the need for a vocabulary of ethics and a failure to communicate Adam Smith's moral orientation to capitalism. So long as business schools fail to recognize explicitly that Smith, whoseThe Wealth of Nations serves as an intellectual backdrop for business school curricula, did in fact provide a place for ethics in capitalist economic relations (indeed, some would argue a dominant place), they will continue to advocate implicitly the theory of amorality in business—the idea that ethics has no place in business. By examining Smith's ethical arguments we can explicate the moral underpinnings of stakeholder analysis, a currently popular approach to management decision-making.Although we will use ethics and morality interchangeably in this paper, there is a distinction to be made. Ethics is the branch of philosophy concentrating on morality. Morality pertains to what is right and wrong.     

The problem of relapse in stuttering: Some thoughts on what might cause it and how to deal with it

Bloodstein recently wrote that “the most vital part of science is not accurate measurement or the insistence on empiricism. It is an attitude of inquiry into the how and why of things” [Bloodstein, O. Foreword. In: Maintenance of Fluency (E. Boberg ed.). New York: Elsevier, 1981, p. vii]. In the paper below, I present some unsubstantiated and no doubt controversial thoughts on the how and why of relapse in stuttering. The overall thrust of these thoughts is that stutterers have different propensities to stutter because of the inherent variability in their speech production systems. For this reason, for therapy to have long-range success, stutterers must learn to accept and deal with the inherent variability in their speech production mechanisms.     

Assertion modeling and stimuli effects on assertive behavior and self-efficacy in adolescents

The present investigation examined variations of modeling and stimuli with 61 adolescents selected for unassertive or aggressive behavior toward teachers. A 3 × 2 × 2 factorial design evaluated the effects of type of assertion modeling (three sessions of overt vs covert vs no-modeling), type of training stimuli (single involving teachers only vs multiple involving teachers, parents and peers) and type of initial behavior (unassertive vs aggressive) on behavioral role-play and self-efficacy. Modeling, particularly overt modeling, improved assertive behavior in teacher situations, peer situations and total teacher, parent, and peer situations. The use of single type stimuli improved self-efficacy in total teacher, parent and peer situations, and in novel situations involving others. Behavior but not self-efficacy was differentially affected by initial unassertive or aggressive behavior of participants. Self-efficacy and behavior were only moderately correlated. Results suggest effectiveness of short-term modeling with adolescents and different specificity properties of self-efficacy and assertive behavior.