Individual Differences in Commitment to Value‐Based Beliefs and the Amplification of Perceived Belief Dissimilarity Effects

The commitment to beliefs (CTB) framework (Maxwell‐Smith & Esses, 2012) proposes that there are individual differences in the extent to which people generally follow beliefs that are a reflection of their values. The current research hypothesized that CTB would amplify the effects of perceived belief dissimilarity or incompatibility, such that individuals higher in CTB would display more pronounced reactions to belief‐relevant groups, events, or individuals seen as incompatible with their value‐based beliefs. We tested our hypothesis in three studies that assessed participants' CTB and their perceptions of belief dissimilarity or incompatibility with regard to other religious groups (Study 1), political parties during a national election (Study 2), and their romantic partner (Study 3). CTB amplified the effects of perceived belief dissimilarity or incompatibility on people's biases toward other religious groups, voting intentions and behavior in a national election, and their evaluative and behavioral responses toward their romantic partner. These results collectively suggest that perceptions of belief dissimilarity or incompatibility are particularly important cues for individuals with higher levels of CTB as they encounter other people or events that are relevant to their beliefs.     

Multiscale integration: beyond internalism and externalism

Synthese - We present a multiscale integrationist interpretation of the boundaries of cognitive systems, using the Markov blanket formalism of the variational free energy principle. This...     

A Comparison of the Cross-Sectional and Sequential Designs when Assessing Longitudinal Mediation

Mediational studies are often of interest in psychology because they explore the underlying relationship between 2 constructs. Previous research has shown that cross-sectional designs are prone to biased estimates of longitudinal mediation parameters. The sequential design has become a popular alternative to the cross-sectional design for assessing mediation. This design is a compromise between the cross-sectional and longitudinal designs because it incorporates time in the model but has only 1 measurement each of X, M, and Y. As such, this design follows the recommendation of the MacArthur group approach, which stresses the importance of multiple waves of data for studying mediation. These 2 designs were compared to see whether the sequential design assesses longitudinal mediation more accurately than the cross-sectional design. Specifically, analytic expressions are derived for the bias of estimated direct and indirect effects as calculated from the sequential design when the actual mediational process follows a longitudinal autoregressive model. It was found that, in general, the sequential design does not assess longitudinal mediation more accurately than the cross-sectional design. As a result, neither design can be depended on to assess longitudinal mediation accurately.     

Henze on logic,creativity and art

Book Information The Indispensability of Mathematics. By Mark Colyvan. Oxford University Press. New York. 2001. Pp. 172. Hardback, £30.00.     

Strategies in relational inference

Three experiments are reported in which the relationships between task format, item type, and strategy usage were investigated for a two-dimensional relational inference task. Contrary to past findings with linear syllogisms, it was found that parallel presentation (presenting problem statements simultaneously) did not result in any increased use of deduction rule processes compared with serial presentation (presenting problem statements individually). Instead, the results suggested that mental models were used by the majority of subjects, and that multiple models were more likely to be constructed with parallel presentation. It is proposed that, in general, multiple model construction will be more frequent for deduction tasks where the cognitive load is relatively low. Hence, contrary to suggestions by Polk and Newell (1995), reasoning in this way appears to be prevalent and highly robust—where supported by task format—even where the use of this strategy is disadvantageous.     

Attachment Theory as a Framework for Understanding Responses to Social Exclusion

We argue that attachment theory may provide a useful framework for understanding individuals' reactions to social exclusion. Attachment theory suggests that social exclusion should prompt an individual to seek comfort from an accepting attachment figure. However, most experimental studies constrain individuals from seeking out an attachment figure to quell their distress, and may interfere with the process of recruiting internalized attachment figures. When the goal of recruiting attachment figure support is blocked, individuals may adopt deactivating strategies, such as emotional numbing, to reduce their distress. Alternatively, individuals may adopt hyperactivating strategies, such as ingratiating behaviors, to seek proximity to attachment figure substitutes. We conclude with recommendations for future avenues of exclusion research stemming from attachment theory.