Construal levels and self-control

The authors propose that self-control involves making decisions and behaving in a manner consistent with high-level versus low-level construals of a situation. Activation of high-level construals (which capture global, superordinate, primary features of an event) should lead to greater self-control than activation of low-level construals (which capture local, subordinate, secondary features). In 6 experiments using 3 different techniques, the authors manipulated construal levels and assessed their effects on self-control and underlying psychological processes. High-level construals led to decreased preferences for immediate over delayed outcomes, greater physical endurance, stronger intentions to exert self-control, and less positive evaluations of temptations that undermine self-control. These results support a construal-level analysis of self-control.     

Transcending the "here": the effect of spatial distance on social judgment

Construal level theory proposes that increasing the reported spatial distance of events produces judgments that reflect abstract, schematic representations of the events. Across 4 experiments, the authors examined the impact of spatial distance on construal-dependent social judgments. Participants structured behavior into fewer, broader units (Study 1) and increasingly attributed behavior to enduring dispositions rather than situational constraints (Study 2) when the behavior was spatially distant rather than near. Participants reported that typical events were more likely and atypical events less likely when events were more spatially distant (Study 3). They were also less likely to extrapolate from specific cases that deviated from general trends when making predictions about more spatially distant events (Study 4). Implications for social judgment are discussed.     

Perceptual learning and reasons-responsiveness

Perceptual experiences are not immediately responsive to reasons. You see a stick submerged in a glass of water as bent no matter how much you know about light refraction. Due to this isolation from reasons, perception is traditionally considered outside the scope of epistemic evaluability as justified or unjustified. Is perception really as independent from reasons as visual illusions make it out to be? I argue no, drawing on psychological evidence from perceptual learning. The flexibility of perceptual learning is a way of responding to new epistemic reasons. The resulting perceptual experiences are epistemically evaluable as justified or unjustified.     

THE EFFECTS OF VIEWING SAME-GENDER PHOTOGRAPHIC MODELS ON BODY-ESTEEM

This study was designed to investigate the effects of viewing samegender photographic models on women and men's body-esteem. Women and men completed body-esteem scales before and after viewing pictures of same-gender photographic models (experimental group) or landscapes (control group). Women scored significantly lower than men on the body-esteem scale [F(1, 90) = 58.5, p < .001]. Women [F(1, 90) = 8.70, p < .05] and men [F(1, 90) = 4.17, p < .05] in the experimental group showed a significant decrease in body-esteem after seeing the photographs and the controls showed no significant change [women F(1, 90) = 0.57; men F(1, 90) = 0.00]. Results suggest that upward comparisons are made by women and men when viewing attractive same-gender models.     

COGNITIVE PROFILES OF READING-DISABLED CHILDREN:

Abstract— A comprehensive cognitive appraisal of elementary school children with learning disabilities showed that within the language sphere, deficits associated with reading disability are selective. Phonological deficits consistently accompany reading problems whether they occur in relatively pure form or in the presence of coexisting attention deficit or arithmetic disability. Although reading-disabled children were also deficient in production of morphologically related forms, this difficulty stemmed in large part from the same weakness in the phonological component that underlies reading disability. In contrast, tests of syntactic knowledge did not distinguish reading-disabled children from those with other cognitive disabilities, nor from normal children after covarying for intelligence.