Ambivalence and decisional conflict as a cause of psychological discomfort: Feeling tense before jumping off the fence

It has long been assumed that people experience evaluative conflict or ambivalence as unpleasant. In three studies we provide direct evidence for the assumption that ambivalence is unpleasant, but only when one has to commit to one side of the issue. In those situations ambivalence will be related to outcome uncertainty and feelings of discomfort. We examined this prediction using both self-reports and physiological measures. In a first study we manipulated ambivalence and whether or not participants had to take a clear stand vis-a vis the attitudinal issue and choose a position for or against it. Results indicate ambivalence was only related to physiological arousal when a choice had to be made. Feeling ambivalent about an issue without the necessity to choose did not result in higher levels of arousal. A second study replicated and extended these findings by including a measure of subjective uncertainty about the decision. Results showed the same pattern as in Study 1, and indicate that the relation between ambivalence and arousal is mediated by uncertainty about decisional outcomes. In the third and final study these findings are corroborated using self-report measures; these indicated that ambivalence-induced discomfort is related to specific (negative) emotions.     

Additive and synergistic relations of early mother–child and caregiver–child interactions and socioeconomic outcomes in adulthood

Prior theoretical and empirical studies have linked the first 3 years of children's life with later life outcomes. One primary explanation is the critical role these experiences play in children's early brain development (including their early language and cognitive abilities) and subsequent schooling achievement. The current study is a registered report with two complementary research objectives: (1) examine to what extent stimulating and responsive interactions with mothers and nonparental caregivers during the first 3 years of life show additive or synergistic associations with key socioeconomic outcomes in adulthood (i.e., educational attainment, salary, and employment status), and (2) examine to what extent academic skills (i.e., mathematics, vocabulary, and literacy) during childhood and adolescence mediate these associations. The sample included 1364 individuals from a birth cohort study who were followed until age 26. Mother–child interactions had positive associations with educational attainment and negative associations with full-time employment, though no synergistic associations were found for the socioeconomic outcomes. In addition, the indirect effects of mother–child interactions on educational attainment through mathematics were strongest for children with less stimulating and responsive caregiver–child interactions. Potential implications of these findings for developmental theory are discussed.     

What constitutes torture?: psychological impediments to an objective evaluation of enhanced interrogation tactics

Torture is prohibited by statutes worldwide, yet the legal definition of torture is almost invariably based on an inherently subjective judgment involving pain severity. In four experiments, we demonstrate that judgments of whether specific interrogation tactics constitute torture are subject to an empathy gap: People who are experiencing even a mild version of the specific pain produced by an interrogation tactic are more likely to classify that tactic as torture or as unethical than are those who are not experiencing pain. This discrepancy could result from an overestimation of the pain of torture by people in pain, an underestimation of the pain of torture by those not in pain, or both. The fourth experiment shows that the discrepancy results from an underestimation of pain by people who are not experiencing it. Given that legal standards guiding torture are typically established by people who are not in pain, this research suggests that practices that do constitute torture are likely to not be classified as such.     

Evaluating Eve: visceral states influence the evaluation of impulsive behavior

Impulsive behavior is a common source of stigma. The authors argue that people often stigmatize impulsive behavior because they fail to appreciate the influence visceral impulses have on behavior. Because people tend to underestimate the motivational force of cravings for sex, drugs, food, and so forth, they are prone to stigmatize those who act on these impulses. In line with this reasoning, in 4 studies, the authors found that participants who were in a cold state (e.g., not hungry) made less favorable evaluations of a related impulsive behavior (impulsive eating) than did participants who were in a hot state (e.g., hungry). This empathy gap effect was tested with 3 different visceral states--fatigue, hunger, and sexual arousal--and was found both when participants evaluated others' impulsive behavior (Studies 1 & 2) and when participants evaluated their own impulsive behavior (Study 3). Study 3 also demonstrated that the empathy gap effect is due to different perceptions of the strength of the visceral state itself. Finally, Study 4 revealed that this effect is state specific: Hungry people, for example, evaluated only hunger-driven impulses, and not other forms of impulse, more favorably.     

Visceral drives in retrospect: explanations about the inaccessible past

The present research demonstrates that the extent to which people appreciate the influence past visceral states have had on behavior (e.g., the influence hunger has had on food choice) depends largely on their current visceral state. Specifically, we found that when people were in a hot state (e.g., fatigued), they attributed behavior primarily to visceral influences, whereas when people were in a cold state (e.g., nonfatigued), they underestimated the influence of visceral drives and instead attributed behavior primarily to other, nonvisceral factors. This hot-cold empathy gap was observed when people made attributions about the past behavior of another person or themselves, and proved difficult to overcome, as participants could not correct for the biasing influence of their current visceral state when instructed to do so. These different attribution patterns also had consequences for people's satisfaction with their performance. Those who attributed their poor performance to visceral factors were more satisfied than those who made dispositional attributions.