Correspondence and mediational properties of the Fishbein model: An application to adolescent alcohol use

The generalizability of the Fishbein model for behavior prediction was extended to a new field behavior, alcohol drinking by adolescents. The model's two components (i.e., attitudes and normative beliefs) varied in their predictive importance depending on the behavior's situational context. Following this field demonstration, two issues related to properties affecting the model's predictive effectiveness were investigated. First, it was found that the predictability of alcohol-drinking intentions (BI) declined when attitudes (A_act) and normative beliefs (NB) did not correspond with BI in terms of alcohol type (beer, liquor, or wine) and drinking situation (home, party, or pub). A second experiment tested the hypothesis that exogenous variables (those other than A_act and NB) would have a direct influence on BI. A comprehensive test was provided within the context of Jessor's multivariate predictive system for adolescent alcohol use. Present data indicate only a marginal increase in explained variance occurred when applying this system, thereby generally indicating the sufficiency of the Fishbein model's two components.     

Dissonance and self-perception: An integrative view of each theory's proper domain of application

The literature concerning the controversy between dissonance and selfperception theories is reviewed. It is proposed that the two theories be regarded not as “competing” formulations but as complementary ones and, furthermore, that each theory is applicable only to its own specialized domain. Self-perception theory, it is suggested, accurately characterizes attitude change phenomena in the context of attitude-congruent behavior and dissonance theory attitude change in the context of attitude-discrepant behavior. Attitude-congruent is defined as any position within an individual's latitude of acceptance; attitude-discrepant as any position in the latitude of rejection. An experimental test of these notions produced confirming evidence. Subjects who were given an opportunity to misattribute any potential dissonance arousal to an external stimulus did not change their attitudes, relative to low choice subjects, if they were committed to endorsing a position in their latitude of rejection. If the commitment concerned a position in the latitude of acceptance, however, these subjects did exhibit attitude change relative to low choice subjects.     

Further evidence for meaning change in impression formation

Hamilton and Zanna (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, 29, 649–654) demonstrated that the meaning of an attribute as rated on connotatively related scales changed as a function of context desirability. This finding was viewed as supporting a meaning change interpretation of context effects in impression formation. Kaplan (Memory and Cognition, 1975, 3, 375–380, Exp. 1) found that similar changes also occurred on scales unrelated in meaning to the test attribute and argued that changes on both kinds of scales were due to halo effects produced by the contexts. Controlling for possible scaling artifacts, the first experiment reported here showed that substantially greater changes occurred on related than on unrelated scales. Kaplan (1975, Exp. 2) also found that the magnitude of context-induced differences in judgments of trait likability was not increased by creating contexts denotatively related to the test attributes. Adding measures of connotative meaning, the second experiment in this paper showed that substantially greater context-induced changes did occur on related meaning scales and, in contrast to Kaplan, on trait likability for the denotatively related contexts. The results of each experiment are consistent with a meaning change position but would not be expected on the basis of the halo effects model.     

The effects of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards in a risk-taking situation

This study varied both the intrinsic and extrinsic rewards associated with performing a task in a risk taking situation. When the task performed to win a prize provided little if any intrinsic reward, subjects liked and tried for prizes that were easy to obtain. In contrast, when the task was intrinsically rewarding, subjects liked and tried for those prizes that were somewhat more difficult to obtain. In addition, subjects were more likely to like and try for prizes easier to obtain when the extrinsic reward was high.     

自主欺骗决策过程与结果评价的ERPs研究

本研究基于事件相关电位技术,以32名大学生为研究对象,采用2(诱发条件：高奖赏、低奖赏)×3(反馈类型：欺骗成功、欺骗失败、诚实)的组内实验设计,以点判断任务操控被试的自主欺骗水平,并结合欺骗及时反馈范式来操纵被试的结果评价。结果发现：(1)在决策过程,做出欺骗决策比诚实决策诱发更大波幅的P300;(2)在结果评价过程,相比欺骗成功反馈和诚实反馈,欺骗失败反馈诱发更负的FRN波幅。结果显示个体做出欺骗决策比诚实决策需要更多的注意资源参与和心理努力,并且对欺骗失败反馈的敏感度远高于欺骗成功反馈和诚实反馈。这一定程度上揭示了个体做出欺骗决策和面对欺骗结果时的心理和神经机制,为教育者采取必要措施来降低和预防青少年欺骗行为奠定了研究基础。     

汉字亚词汇部件语音加工的P200效应

亚词汇加工是词汇识别研究中的一个重要领域,本研究考察了早期ERP成分P200如何受到汉字亚词汇部件语音信息的影响。在ERP实验中,被试对顺序呈现的启动字和目标字对进行语义判断。实验中“启动字-目标字”字对共享一个共同的可发音或不可发音的部件（如“吹-砍”、“扬-场”）。对目标字的P200效应分析显示：与部件不发音的目标字相比,部件可发音的目标字所诱发的P200显著增强。这种增强的ERP效应表明P200对汉字识别中亚词汇部件的语音加工非常敏感,其效应变化受到亚词汇语音的单独调节,同时也表明在汉字识别的早期阶段亚词汇部件语音信息就已被激活并在汉字加工中起重要作用。     

Why a "word order difference" is not always a "word order" difference: a reply to Weyerts,Penke, Münte,Heinze, and Clahsen

We present evidence that the supposed processing advantage for an SV_finO word order over an SOV_fin word order in German argued for by Weyerts, Penke, Münte, Heinze, and Clahsen (2002) is supported by neither experimental nor theoretical evidence. Specifically, we show (a) that the frontocentral negativity for an SOV_fin in comparison to an SV_finO word order in Weyerts et al.'s Experiments 2 and 3 is reducible to more general differences in the electrophysiological responses elicited by nouns versus verbs in a sentence context, and (b) that the P600 difference between the two word orders in Experiment 2, as well as the reading time differences in Experiment 1, result from the fact that the two supposedly ungrammatical conditions actually differ in their degree of ill-formedness. We conclude that there is no evidence for a processing disadvantage for SOV_fin, thus reconciling Weyerts et al.'s results on German sentence processing with the grammatical regularities of German.