The Public and Private Use of Consensus-Raising Excuses

ABSTRACT Two experiments tested the proposition that people use consensus-raising excuses more in private than in public when the audience has information that could refute subjects' claims about others In Experiment 1, subjects received success or failure feedback and made public or private attributions to ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck In Experiment 2, subjects received positive or negative feedback and evaluated themselves and others on the trait Task difficulty attributions and evaluations of others are consensus-raising measures Consistent with our hypothesis, subjects receiving negative feedback in Experiment 1 claimed that the task was more difficult, and in Experiment 2 evaluated the other more negatively in private than in public.     

Developmental sequences in the age of onset of disruptive child behaviors

Retrospective and prospective reports of the onset of disruptive child behaviors were analyzed in a sample of clinic-referred boys. The younger boys (ages 7–9 years), compared with the older boys (ages 10–12 years), showed the highest level of disruptive behavior and, judging from mothers' reports, had the fastest progression of onsets from less serious to more serious problem behaviors. Despite some overlap, developmental sequences in problem behavior within the domains of hyperactivity/inattention, oppositional behavior, and conduct problems were similar across the two age groups. This was also the case for developmental sequences of overt or confrontive problem behaviors and covert or concealing conduct problems. Sequences of the onset of oppositional behavior and conduct problems were validated through prospective data, based on the information from mothers, teachers, and boys themselves. The implications of the findings are discussed for the formulation of developmental pathways of behavior and the analysis of causal factors.     

On the self-serving function of social anxiety: shyness as a self-handicapping strategy

We tested the hypothesis that socially anxious or shy individuals use their anxiety symptoms as a strategy to control attributions made about their performances in social-evaluative settings (i.e., self-handicapping strategies). Specifically, we predicted that trait-socially anxious or shy persons would report more symptoms of social anxiety in an evaluative setting in which anxiety or shyness could serve as an excuse for poor performance than would individuals in (a) an evaluative setting in which shyness was precluded as an excuse or (b) a nonevaluative setting. Furthermore, we predicted that this self-protective pattern of symptom reporting would not occur for individuals who were not trait-socially anxious because these persons would not commonly use such symptoms as a self-handicapping strategy. Results supported these predictions for male subjects, but not for female subjects. Sex differences in the strategic use of shyness are discussed in relation to other research on sex differences in the etiology and correlates of social anxiety.     

The effect of subject's gender on judgments of similarity and choice of a comparison other

This study examined the implications for social comparison theory of the proposition that women have lower self-confidence than men when there is a socially defined standard of performance. To this end, it was hypothesized that women would judge themselves to be similar to a lower ranked person, whereas men would judge themselves to be similar to a higher ranked person. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that women would choose to see a score lower than their own, whereas men would choose to see a score higher than their own. The results on the measure of similarity indicated that men did judge themselves to be similar to a higher ranked person, whereas women showed no consistent preferences in their judgments of similarity. The results on the choice of a comparison other were not as clear-cut.