Imagining and Explaining Hypothetical Scenarios: Mediational Effects on the Subjective Likelihood of Health‐Related Outcomes1

Imagining and explaining hypothetical events have been shown to increase the subjective likelihood of those events occurring. At the same time, it has been suggested that reducing unrealistic optimism about health risks (i.e., increasing the subjective likelihood of negative health outcomes) might motivate health‐protective behavior. In exploring the implications of these issues for health‐promotion goals, 2 experiments (Ns= 334 and 328) involving postal questionnaires are reported in which attempts are made through the use of imagine‐and‐explain scenarios to manipulate the subjective likelihood of a negative outcome (heart disease) and of a positive outcome (reducing fat consumption). The greater success of the manipulation of dietary change expectations than of heart disease expectations suggests the potential benefits of focusing directly on planning goal strategies in relation to health beneficial behaviors.     

The Effect of Later Life Parental Divorce on Adult‐Child/Older‐Parent Solidarity: A Test of the Buffering Hypothesis1

The present study examined the effect of later life parental divorce on solidarity in the relationship between the adult child and older parent. This examination was achieved by testing the buffering hypothesis. A cross‐sectional quasiexperimental pre‐post treatment design was used (Cook & Campbell, 1979), with retrospective pretests and data from 100 adult‐child/older‐parent dyads. The ANOVA results show that the mother/adult‐child relationship with a higher degree of predivorce solidarity responded to later life parental divorce with less disruption of affectional solidarity and associational solidarity than those with a lower degree of predivorce solidarity. Thus, the current research provides modest evidence (for the mother/adult‐child relationship) to support the buffering hypothesis. We found no evidence of a buffering effect for the father‐child relationship.     

Throwing Away the Key: Measuring Prison Reform Attitudes1

The American prison system is larger than ever and ranks among the largest in the world. Yet, prisons have received little research attention relative to other issues in forensic psychology. In an effort to study one facet of the prison system, a scale for measuring attitudes toward prison reform was developed. The 12‐item scale has a single factor measuring whether people feel prisons should be tougher or softer on inmates. Several studies with diverse samples found that the scale has a consistent factor structure, good reliability, and a coherent pattern of relationships to other psychological variables. The scale appears to be a promising tool for studying how people want to treat those who have been officially rejected by society.     

Rumination, fear, and cortisol: an in vivo study of interpersonal transgressions.

The authors sought to examine whether rumination about psychologically painful, though nontraumatic, interpersonal transgressions is associated with increased salivary cortisol. They measured salivary cortisol, rumination about a transgression, fear and anger regarding the transgressor, perceived painfulness of the transgression, and positive and negative mood in 115 undergraduates who had experienced an interpersonal transgression during the previous 7 days. They obtained measurements on as many as 5 occasions separated by approximately 14 days each. On occasions when participants reported that they had been ruminating to a degree that was greater than was typical for them, they had higher levels of salivary cortisol than was typical for them. The rumination- cortisol association appeared to be mediated by fear of the transgressor. Rumination about even moderately painful but nontraumatic life events and associated emotions are related to biological changes that may subserve social goals such as avoiding social threats. Items from the rumination scale are appended.     

Ist Mathematik eine Sprache?

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

Creative Fixation is No Laughing Matter: The Effects of Funny and Unfunny Examples on Humor Production

How do people come up with humorous ideas? In creative cognition research, exposure to good examples sometimes causes fixation (people get “stuck” on the examples) but other times sparks inspiration (people's responses are more creative). The present research examined the effects of funny and unfunny examples on joke production. A sample of 175 adults read scenarios that they completed with funny responses. All participants were instructed to be funny, but before responding they read (a) funny responses as examples of good responses to emulate, (b) unfunny responses as examples of poor responses to avoid, or (c) no examples. The participants’ own responses were rated for funniness and for similarity to the example responses, and response times were recorded. Reading either funny or unfunny examples, compared to no examples, caused people to come up with funnier jokes. Similarity to the examples was low in all conditions, so fixation was relatively modest, but people who saw unfunny examples spent more time coming up with their responses. Taken together, the findings support the growing literature showing that examples are often inspiring rather than constraining, and they imply that good and bad examples spark creative thought via different paths.