Selective hypothesis testing

A diverse set of biases that have been found to characterize judgment may be similarly mediated by a process of selective hypothesis testing. Our paper begins with a definition of selective hypothesis testing and an explanation of how and when this process leads to error. We then review a diverse and often disconnected set of findings in the person perception, judgment, cognition, attitudes, attribution, and rule discovery literatures that can be explained by this process. Finally, we examine the question of why the selective testing of hypotheses occurs. Although the psychological literature suggests that selective hypothesis testing contributes to a variety of errors, in many contexts it may be a useful and efficient strategy that leads to satisfactory judgment.     

Stressful Life Events: A Revision and Update of the Social Readjustment Rating Scale

The widely used and cited Social Readjustment Rating Scale developed by Holmes and Rahe (1967) was comprehensively revised and updated. The new instrument, containing 51 major life events, was administered to a national sample of 5000. Respondents were asked to rate the stressfulness of each life event on a 1–100 scale. Completed surveys were returned by 3122 individuals (62.4%). Responses were analyzed using repeated measures MANOVA and profile analysis. Major results included: (a) statistically and practically significant differences in mean ratings for the 51 life events; (b) five overlapping themes in the top 20 rated life events—death and dying, healthcare, crime and the criminal justice system, financial/economic issues, and family-related issues; and (c) an amazing level of agreement concerning perceived life event stressfulness, regardless of gender, age, or income level.     

The Structure of Vocational Interests for Diverse Racial-Ethnic Groups

We investigated differences in the circular structure of Holland's interests types across racial-ethnic groups (African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, and Caucasians; N = 11,610). The samples consisted of college-bound persons who completed the revised Unisex Edition of the ACT Interest Inventory (UNIACT; Swaney, 1995), as well as comparison group of 10th graders ( N = 4,133) in the 1992 UNIACT norms sample. Analyses using a randomization test of hypothesized order, targeted principal components, and three-way multidimensional scaling suggest that Holland's model adequately represents the interest structures of both sexes in all the diverse samples.     

Sex stereotypes in occupational choice: The case for college women

The choice of a male dominated occupation rather than a traditionally feminine one is the single occupational variable which meaningfully divides a class of women who were studied intensively over the 4 yr of college. Women who choose occupations which employ largely men differ predictably from women who select feminine occupations in terms of familial influence, work values, work experience, role model influence and some collegiate activities. The two groups do not differ appreciably in sociability experiences or in relationships with parents, so it cannot be argued that the work plans of the pioneer women stem from social isolation, rejection, or lack of appropriate feminine socialization.     

A comparison of female supervisors in business and government organizations

This exploratory study compared the life style and interpersonal need orientation, leadership style, and perception of the organization structure of female supervisors in business and government organizations. The government group had a significantly higher formalistic and lower sociocentric and personalistic life style orientation; lower needs for expressed control, expressed affection, wanted inclusion, wanted affection, and a higher need for wanted control; were lower on consideration and higher on structure leadership dimensions; and perceived their organization as being more bureaucratic and less collaborative and coordinative than the business group. The findings were discussed in terms of the processes of individual-organization congruity and organizational socialization.     

The Effects of Censorship on Attitude Change: The Influence of Censor and Communication Characteristics1

The effects of censor characteristics and audiences' initial agreement with a censored communication on attitude change and desire to hear a communication were investigated. Subjects were informed that a communication taking a position with which they had originally agreed or disagreed had been censored. The censor was either an attractive or unattractive agent and his expertise on the topic of the speech was either high or low. The results indicated that in all cases except one, censorship led to an increased desire to hear the communication and attitude change toward the position of the communication. In the one exceptional case, when an attractive expert censor forbade a communication with which the audience disagreed, the subjects decreased their desire to hear the speech and did not change their attitudes on the topic of the communication. The results were interpreted as indicating that censorship arouses both reactance and balancing attempts but that balancing will be observed only in limited situations.     

DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT OF OTHER BEHAVIOR AND NONCONTINGENT REINFORCEMENT AS CONTROL PROCEDURES DURING THE MODIFICATION OF A PRESCHOOLER'S COMPLIANCE1

Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) and noncontingent reinforcement were compared as control procedures during the modification of a 3-yr-old preschooler's compliance. The recorded reinforcer was teacher proximity (within 3 ft (0.9 m) of the subject for at least 5 sec) which was often accompanied by positive verbal comments that varied in content across experimental conditions. The verbal content during contingent reinforcement might have been: “Thank you for picking up the blocks”; during noncontingent reinforcement: “You're wearing a pretty dress”; and during DRO: “I don't blame you for not picking up because it isn't any fun”. Contingent reinforcement increased compliance in all manipulation conditions. Noncontingent reinforcement decreased compliance during two reversal conditions. However, the behavior was variable and did not decrease to the low levels reached during the two DRO reversals.