Prioritizing—The task strategy of the powerful?

Previous research has shown that power increases focus on the main goal when distractor information is present. As a result, high-power people have been described as goal-focused. In real life, one typically wants to pursue multiple goals at the same time. There is a lack of research on how power affects how people deal with situations in which multiple important goals are present. To address this question, 158 participants were primed with high or low power or assigned to a control condition, and were asked to perform a dual-goal task with three difficulty levels. We hypothesized and found that high-power primed people prioritize when confronted with a multiple-goal situation. More specifically, when task demands were relatively low, power had no effect; participants generally pursued multiple goals in parallel. However, when task demands were high, the participants in the high-power condition focused on a single goal whereas participants in the low-power condition continued using a dual-task strategy. This study extends existing power theories and research in the domain of goal pursuit.     

Methodological issues in judgment and decision-making research: Concurrent verbal protocol validity and simultaneous traces of process

This paper examines two dimensions of concurrent verbal protocol validity. First, whether verbalization affects process and outcome (reactivity) was examined by comparing concurrent verbal protocol traces with those from a computer search process tracing method, the latter being a complete trace of information acquisition from experimental materials. Earlier findings that verbalization affects time were confirmed. However, verbalization did not affect amount and pattern of acquisition or accuracy of judgments. Second, whether concurrent verbal protocols are complete was examined by comparing concurrent verbal protocol and computer traces that were simultaneously obtained in a treatment in which subjects verbalized as they acquired information from the computer. The verbal traces less completely captured information acquisition behavior than computer search. This suggests that, although concurrent verbal protocols provide greater insight into decision behavior than computer search, the latter is a more reliable information-acquisition trace. Thus, if information acquisition is of primary interest and if computer search activities can be naturally integrated into performing the primary task, computer search is preferred to concurrent verbal protocols. However, if information use or retrieval from long-term memory is of primary interest, concurrent verbal protocols are preferred to computer search. Finally, this paper examined whether the simultaneous use of concurrent verbal protocols and computer search provides traces of information acquisition and use that are as complete as when each method is independently applied. Although computer search tended to limit subjects verbalizations of evaluative operators, this effect may be eliminated by practice on the computer prior to collecting data.     

成就动机的多重目标理论

基于成就目标的三分法,Harackiewicz等人提出多重目标理论。该理论认为,学生在学习过程中采用多种类型的成就目标将会带来最佳的适应性结果,这种观点与单纯强调掌握目标正性作用的传统目标理论相对立。根据多重目标对成就结果的作用模式,理论学家分别提出了四种模型：累加目标模型、交互目标模型、特定目标模型以及选择目标模型。最近的实证研究支持了选择目标模型的观点,并为如何提升个体的成就水平提供了重要的理论依据。     

Reliability and validity of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List - Revised

A recent factor analysis of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List (MAACL) changed the Anxiety, Depression, and Hostility scales from bipolar to unipolar scales and added two new scales: Positive Affect and Sensation Seeking. Internal reliability of the MAACL-R scales, computed for normal and patient samples, was adequate for state and trait forms except for Sensation Seeking. Test-retest reliability in college students was higher for the trait form with retest intervals of from 2 to 8 weeks than for the state form with retest intervals of from 2 to 5 days. The pattern of correlations among self-, peer, and counselor ratings and the MAACL-R scales for normal and patient samples indicates improved discriminant validity and equally good convergent validity as the old scales. The use of standard scores that are indexed to the number of items checked reduced scale intercorrelations by controlling the acquiescence set.The financial support of the Weldon Springs Endowment Fund, University of Missouri at Kansas City, toward the completion of this research project is gratefully acknowledged.