Do procedures for verbal reporting of thinking have to be reactive? A meta-analysis and recommendations for best reporting methods

Since its establishment, psychology has struggled to find valid methods for studying thoughts and subjective experiences. Thirty years ago, Ericsson and Simon (1980) proposed that participants can give concurrent verbal expression to their thoughts (think aloud) while completing tasks without changing objectively measurable performance (accuracy). In contrast, directed requests for concurrent verbal reports, such as explanations or directions to describe particular kinds of information, were predicted to change thought processes as a consequence of the need to generate this information, thus altering performance. By comparing performance of concurrent verbal reporting conditions with their matching silent control condition, Ericsson and Simon found several studies demonstrating that directed verbalization was associated with changes in performance. In contrast, the lack of effects of thinking aloud was merely suggested by a handful of experimental studies. In this article, Ericsson and Simon's model is tested by a meta-analysis of 94 studies comparing performance while giving concurrent verbalizations to a matching condition without verbalization. Findings based on nearly 3,500 participants show that the "think-aloud" effect size is indistinguishable from zero (r = -.03) and that this procedure remains nonreactive even after statistically controlling additional factors such as task type (primarily visual or nonvisual). In contrast, procedures that entail describing or explaining thoughts and actions are significantly reactive, leading to higher performance than silent control conditions. All verbal reporting procedures tend to increase times to complete tasks. These results suggest that think-aloud should be distinguished from other methods in future studies. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

The paradox of the question

What is the best question to ask an omniscient being? The question is intriguing; is it also paradoxical? We discuss several versions of what Ned Markosian calls “the paradox of the question” and suggest solutions to each of those puzzles. We then offer some practical advice about what do if you ever have the opportunity to query an omniscient being.     

Criminal thinking patterns, aggression styles, and the psychopathic traits of late high school bullies and bully-victims

This study explored the current psychological characteristics and criminal behavior history of individuals who retrospectively reported being bullies, bully-victims, victims, or controls (i.e. neither victims nor bullies) during their last 2 years of high school. College students (n = 960) completed measures of criminal thinking, aggression, psychopathy, and criminal behavior online. We predicted bullies and bully-victims would demonstrate the highest scores for criminal thinking, proactive aggression, psychopathy, and have the most criminal infractions. Bullies and bully-victims had significantly higher scores on criminal thinking, aggression, psychopathy, and criminal behaviors than victims or controls. Additionally, men were significantly higher in criminal thinking, aggression, psychopathy, and had more criminal acts than women. There were no gender by bully group interactions. Logistic regression analyses differentiated bully-victims from bullies. Bully-victims tended to be male, higher in criminal thinking, and higher in reactive aggression. In addition, bully-victims were distinct from victims, showing higher criminal thinking and higher proactive aggression.     

"Pray for those who mistreat you": effects of prayer on anger and aggression

Although some religious teachings have been used to justify aggression, most religious teachings promote peace in human affairs. Three experiments tested the hypothesis that praying for others brings out the more peaceful side of religion by reducing anger and aggression after a provocation. In Experiment 1, praying for a stranger led provoked participants to report less anger than control participants who thought about a stranger. In Experiment 2, provoked participants who prayed for the person who angered them were less aggressive toward that person than were participants who thought about the person who angered them. In Experiment 3, provoked participants who prayed for a friend in need showed a less angry appraisal style than did people who thought about a friend in need. These results are consistent with recent evolutionary theories, which suggest that religious practices can promote cooperation among nonkin or in situations in which reciprocity is highly unlikely.     

Confidence via correction: The effect of judgment correction on consumer confidence

At times, consumers are motivated to reduce the influence of a product recommendation on their judgments. Based on previous research, it is unclear whether this correction process will increase or decrease consumers' confidence in their judgments. We find that source credibility moderates the effect of correction on confidence: correction decreases confidence when a product recommendation comes from a high credibility source but increases confidence when the same message comes from a low credibility source. As a result, correction increases the effectiveness of recommendations from low credibility sources on purchase intentions. Notably, this “confidence via correction” effect is further moderated by elaboration, such that the effect is attenuated for high elaboration consumers. Our results have implications for understanding consumers' reactions to persuasive messages and for both marketing practitioners and consumer protection agencies using correction cues to influence message persuasiveness.     

Teaching moral reasoning through gesture

Stem‐cell research. Euthanasia. Personhood. Marriage equality. School shootings. Gun control. Death penalty. Ethical dilemmas regularly spark fierce debate about the underlying moral fabric of societies. How do we prepare today's children to be fully informed and thoughtful citizens, capable of moral and ethical decisions? Current approaches to moral education are controversial, requiring adults to serve as either direct (‘top‐down’) or indirect (‘bottom‐up’) conduits of information about morality. A common thread weaving throughout these two educational initiatives is the ability to take multiple perspectives – increases in perspective taking ability have been found to precede advances in moral reasoning. We propose gesture as a behavior uniquely situated to augment perspective taking ability. Requiring gesture during spatial tasks has been shown to catalyze the production of more sophisticated problem‐solving strategies, allowing children to profit from instruction. Our data demonstrate that requiring gesture during moral reasoning tasks has similar effects, resulting in increased perspective taking ability subsequent to instruction. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v/gAcRIClU_GY