An attributional analysis of excuse giving: studies of a naive theory of emotion

We conducted four studies that pertained to excuses given for a broken social contract. In an initial field investigation, participants recalled occasions in which they had given true and false reasons for not fulfilling a social obligation. Communicated reasons tended to be external to the person, uncontrollable, and unintentional (e.g., "My car broke down"), whereas withheld reasons tended to be internal, controllable, and either intentional (e.g., "I did not want to go") or unintentional (e.g., "I forgot"). The external uncontrollable excuses were anticipated to lessen the anger of the wronged party. In a subsequent simulation study, excuses based on the categories detected in Experiment 1 were manipulated and related to anger ratings. The same pattern of results was displayed, with intent and negligence provoking the highest anger ratings. The final two studies involved laboratory manipulation of a communicated reason for coming late to an experiment. In Experiment 3, a confederate conveyed either an internal controllable, an external uncontrollable, or no reason for making a subject wait, whereas in Experiment 4, subjects were detained and created their own good, bad, any, or no excuse for being tardy, which was communicated to a second, waiting subject. A consistent pattern of good excuse/external uncontrollable reason and bad excuse/internal controllable reason was displayed; offering no excuse resulted in the same judgments as giving a poor excuse. Relative to the external uncontrollable reasons, internal controllable excuses for being late augmented aversive emotional reactions, increased negative personality ratings, and resulted in a desire for no further social contact.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Making Rorschach interpretation as good as it can be

This article delineates six guidelines for enhancing the quality and utility of interpretations derived from the Rorschach inkblot method. These include (a) using all of the available structural, thematic, and behavioral data in arriving at interpretations; (b) focusing interpretive statements primarily on personality processes and drawing clinical conclusions and recommendations secondarily on the basis of identified personality processes; (c) addressing interpretations to both personality strengths and personality weaknesses to attend equally to adaptive capacities and maladaptive tendencies; (d) formulating and conveying interpretations at appropriate levels of certainty to distinguish clearly between probable fact and possible conjecture; (e) pursuing and expressing both nomothetic and idiographic implications of interpretations to the fullest possible extent, recognizing that personality is best described by considering both how people resemble and how they differ from each other; and (f) grounding the implications of interpretations in each respondent's cultural context to take adequate account of the mediation of cultural relativism between personality characteristics and their adaptive consequences.     

The shifting sands of a professional identity

I decided while an undergraduate that I wanted to be a psychologist. Beyond that, I'm still not sure what I'll do when I grow up. This brief autobiography maps the shifting sands of my professional identity: from psychotherapist to developmental psychopathologist and then to primary concerns with education and training, from psychologist to academic administrator and then back again, to forensic psychologist and on to whatever may come next. Through all of these shifts in focus, however, there has been one recurring theme--the appeal of being an assessment psychologist. The events that kept bringing me back to assessment, whatever else my focus at the time, are recorded in the story that follows.     

Whom would you rather help: an acquaintance not responsible for her plight or a responsible sibling?

When 2 persons--an acquaintance who could not have avoided a problem and a close relative who is responsible for her own plight--ask for help, attribution theory and sociobiology conflict about who will receive help. Attribution theorists assume that the nonresponsible acquaintance will be supported, but sociobiologists argue that the responsible sibling will receive help. The authors tested the hypothesis that characteristics of the situation affect which theory better predicts help giving. The results confirmed that in situations that do not affect life and death, a nonresponsible acquaintance would receive more help than a responsible sibling. But in life-or-death situations, inasmuch as the reproductive fitness of the person in need is in danger, a responsible sibling would be supported more than a nonresponsible acquaintance.     

Developments in research in personality assessment

Progress in personality research requires an adequate data analysis link between concepts of what people are like and observations of how they are likely to behave. Advances in computer technology have strengthened this link but also have made it necessary for investigators to be wary of lack of selectivity and trivialization in their research designs.     

Public Confession and Forgiveness

ABSTRACT In this article, we report investigations of four role-playing experiments and one laboratory manipulation that examine the effects of confession on forgiveness and other related judgments. The basic paradigm in the simulation studies was to reveal that a political figure or student in a class confessed either following or not following an accusation, or denied personal responsibility for the act. Among the variables manipulated were the attributions for the wrongdoing and the spontaneity of the confession. The dependent variables in one or more investigations included the perceived personal character of the trangressor, attributions of responsibility for the act, affective reactions of sympathy and anger, forgiveness, and behavioral judgments such as sanctioning and voting likelihood. In the laboratory manipulation study, a mixed-motive game setting was used in which a confederate confessed to having prior knowledge that resulted in his winning the game. We then examined whether this admission influenced subsequent cooperation and competition, as well as the other players' perceptions of the confederate's personality and character. Confession was found to have strong beneficial effects, particularly when given without a prior accusation and in ambiguous causal situations.