The Effect of Intuitive Advice Justification on Advice Taking

How do you respond when receiving advice from somebody with the argumentation “my gut tells me so” or “this is what my intuition says”? Most likely, you would find this justification insufficient and disregard the advice. Are there also situations where people do appreciate such intuitive advice and change their opinion accordingly? A growing number of authors write about the power of intuition in solving problems, showing that intuitively made decisions can be of higher quality than decisions based on analytical reasoning. We want to know if decision makers, when receiving advice based on an intuitive cognitive process, also recognize the value of such advice. Is advice justified by intuition necessarily followed to a lesser extent than an advice justified by analysis? Furthermore, what are the important factors influencing the effect of intuitive justification on advice taking? Participants across three studies show that utilization of intuitive advice varies depending on advisor seniority and type of task for which the advice is given. Summarizing, the results suggest that decision makers a priori doubt the value of intuitive advice and only assess it as accurate if other cues in the advice setting corroborate this. Intuitively justified advice is utilized more if it comes from a senior advisor. In decision tasks with experiential products, intuitively justified advice can even have more impact than analytically justified advice. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Adjustment and acceptance beliefs in achievement settings: Implications for student wellbeing

Social Psychology of Education - Research suggests that when dealing with personal setbacks, secondary control (SC) adjustment and acceptance beliefs can foster psychological wellbeing. However,...     

The Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Roman Catholic Church: What Psychologists and Counselors Should Know

Recent events regarding child sexual abuse committed by Roman Catholic priests in the Archdiocese of Boston and elsewhere have yet again resulted in a tremendous amount of media attention and frenzy regarding this topic. During 2002 alone, approximately 300 American Catholic priests, including several bishops, were accused of child sexual abuse. Many were forced to resign their positions while others were prosecuted and went to prison. Curiously, there still exist many myths and misperceptions about priests who sexually abuse children and their victims. Since psychologists and other mental health professionals are likely to interact with many who have been impacted by these recent events, it is important for them to have some basic understanding of the various myths and misperceptions about sexual abuse committed by Roman Catholic priests.     

Scandalous: Christian identification,sex guilt,and the mediated demonization of the participants in the AshleyMadison scandal

In 2015, AshleyMadison.com (AshleyMadison) was hacked, leading to the release of site members’ personal information. The exposed members faced public scrutiny, judgment, and other negative outcomes. In this study, we examined predictors of the demonization of the AshleyMadison participants (i.e., AshleyMadison members, owners, hackers) to help explain victim derogation. We attempted to discern the role religiosity and sexual guilt played in the demonization of the AshleyMadison hacking participants. We predicted sexual guilt would mediate between religiosity and demonization of the AshleyMadison hacking participants. Our findings indicate that religiosity alone does not predict demonization. Instead, sex guilt was a necessary part of the equation and mediated between participants’ religiosity and the amount they demonized the different groups.     

Moving Beyond Anger and Depression: The Effects of Anxiety and Envy on Maladaptive Coping

According to general strain theory (GST), life stressors, or strains, lead to different types of negative emotions, some of which increase the likelihood of maladaptive coping. A considerable body of research testing GST focuses on anger and depression as manifestations of negative emotionality. Less research considers other types of negative emotions (e.g., anxiety and envy). The current study addresses this void in the literature through the use of surveys administered to a university-based sample. We also consider whether the effects of negative emotions vary by sex. The implications of our findings for theory, research, and mental health providers are discussed.     

Irrelevant Information and Mediated Intertemporal Choice

Results from 4 experiments suggest that currencies such as loyalty‐program points are overvalued. Different allocations of the same quantity of points across the same number of purchases (e.g., 100 points for each first, 200 for each second, 300 for each third purchase vs. 200 for each first, second, and third purchase) yielded irrelevant trends and should have led participants to ignore loyalty points as a basis for choice. However, choices were influenced by points even when consumers were provided with other truly discriminating information (e.g., price) and the irrelevance of the loyalty points was readily discernable. This implies that irrelevant information can influence choice when other, easily justifiable bases for decisions are available and, therefore, that irrelevant information can function as more than a tie‐breaker. Other implications for research on irrelevant attributes, medium effects, intertemporal choice, and loyalty programs are discussed.     

Guidance on conducting and reviewing systematic reviews (and meta-analyses) in work and organizational psychology

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are means of summarizing and synthesizing research evidence in a given topic area. They can be used to define the current state of knowledge and how confident we can be in that knowledge, to identify evidence gaps, and to provide recommendations for policy and practice based on the best available evidence. At European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, our editorial stance is explicitly to encourage the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The purpose of this editorial is to provide some guidance to authors and journal referees on the (technical) features of good systematic reviews.