Ability factors and cognitive processes

Several measures of the speed of information processing were related to ability factors derived from the Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Ninety-one college students took a battery of paper and pencil tests designed to measure four ability factors: fluid intelligence (Gf), crystallized intelligence (Gc), spatial visualization (Gv), and clerical perceptual speed (CPS). They also performed paper and pencil and computerized versions of three information processing tasks: mental rotations, letter matching, and sentence verification. Correlations among the ability measures, among the information processing measures, and between the two domains were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis. The four ability factors were found to be largely independent in this college population. Speed of letter-matching and sentence verification were highly correlated, but neither was related to speed of mental rotation. Mental rotation speed was strongly correlated with Gv; letter matching speed was correlated with CPS; and sentence verification speed was correlated with both Gc and CPS.     

Physical attractiveness and interpersonal influence

The relative success of influence attempts undertaken by attractive vs. unattractive fifth- and sixth-graders was investigated by giving subjects a monetary incentive contingent upon their influencing a peer's behavior. Compared to a control group which was not subject to peer pressure, three groups were successful: attractive males and attractive females with opposite-sex peers and unattractive males with same-sex peers. Attractive girls tended to be more successful than their unattractive counterparts in influence attempts directed toward peers of the opposite-sex. Unattractive males were more effective than attractive males with same-sex peers. Analysis of the influence strategies employed revealed markedly different styles of interpersonal influence, particularly between attractive males and attractive females. The former made considerably more influence attempts and were judged to be more persistent. This type of behavioral difference was not found for unattractive males compared to unattractive females.     

Learning on a response continuum: Comparison of a linear change and a functional learning model

Two reinforcement schedules were used to compare the predictive validity of a linear change model with a functional learning model. In one schedule, termed “convergent,” the linear change model predicts convergence to the optimum response, while in the other, termed “divergent,” this model predicts that a subject's response will not converge. The functional learning model predicts convergence in both cases. Another factor that was varied was presence or absence of random error or “noise” in the relationship between response and outcome. In the “noiseless” condition, in which no noise is added, a subject could discover the optimum response by chance, so that some subjects could appear to have converged fortuitously. In the “noisy” conditions such chance apparent convergence could not occur.The results did not unequivocally favor either model. While the linear change model's prediction of nonconvergence in the divergent conditions (particularly the “noisy” divergent condition) was not sustained, there was a clear difference in speed of convergence, counter to the prediction inferred from the functional learning model. Evidence that at least some subjects were utilizing a functional learning strategy was adduced from the fact that subjects were able to “map out” the relation between response and outcome quite accurately in a follow-up task. Almost all subjects in the “noisy” conditions had evidently “learned” a strong linear relation, with slope closely matching the veridical one.The data were consistent with a hybrid model assuming a “hierarchy of cognitive strategies” in which more complex strategies (e.g., functional learning) are utilized only when the simpler ones (e.g., a linear change strategy) fail to solve the problem.     

Anti-Autonomism Defended: A Reply to Hill

In the current issue of this journal, Scott Hill critiques some of my work on the “is”-“ought” controversy, the Hume-inspired debate over whether an ethical conclusion can be soundly, or even validly, derived from only non-ethical premises. I’ve argued that it can be; Hill is unconvinced. I reply to Hill’s critique, focusing on four key questions to which he and I give different answers.

Social comparison after success and failure: Biased search for information consistent with a self-serving conclusion

Based on the traditional and attributional perspectives on social comparison, it was hypothesized that the search for social comparison information after performance outcomes is biased so as to provide evidence consistent with a favorable self-evaluation. In Experiment 1, subjects were led to believe that they obtained 16 or 8 out of 20 items correct on a bogus social sensitivity test and were then led to expect that most other students performed either well or poorly on the test. They were then given the opportunity to inspect up to 50 scored answer sheets from previous subjects. Consistent with the hypothesis, failure subjects requested more information when they expected it to reveal that most students performed poorly than when they expected it to reveal that most students performed well; success subjects showed little interest in this additional information, regardless of their expectancies as to what it would reveal. Experiment 2 employed a different approach to manipulating performance outcomes and led subjects to expect that most other subjects performed better, the same, or worse than themselves. Regardless of their own performance, subjects showed the least interest in additional information in the higher score expectancy condition and the most interest in additional information in the lower score expectancy condition. The role that this information search bias may play in producing self-serving attributions for success and failure and maintaining positive self-evaluations was discussed.