Face-saving and entrapment

Entrapping conflicts are those in which individuals: (1) have made substantial, unrealized investments in pursuit of some goal, and (2) feel compelled to justify these expenditures with continued investments, even if the likelihood of goal attainment is low. It was hypothesized that entrapment (i.e., amount invested) would be influenced by the relative importance individuals attach to the costs and rewards associated with continued investments. Two experiments tested the notion that entrapment would be more pronounced when costs were rendered less important (and/or rewards were made more important). In Experiment 1, half of the subjects were instructed beforehand of the virtues of investing conservatively (Cautious condition), whereas half were informed of the advantages of investing a considerable amount (Risky condition). Investments were more than twice as great in the Risky condition. Moreover, consistent with a face-saving analysis, (1) the instructions had a greater effect on subjects with high rather than low social anxiety, and (2) individuals with high social anxiety who participated in front of a large audience were more influenced by the instructions than were individuals with low social anxiety who participated in front of a small audience. In the second experiment, the importance of costs and rewards were varied in a 2 × 2 design. As predicted, subjects invested significantly more when cost importance was low rather than high. Contrary to expectation, reward importance had no effect. Questionnaire data from this study also suggested that entrapment was at least partially mediated by the participants' concern over the way they thought they would be evaluated. Theoretical implications are discussed.     

Self-esteem,anxiety, and the avoidance of self-focused attention

The present study was designed to provide converging support for the hypothesis that individuals with low self-esteem (low SEs) find self-focused attention more anxiety provoking, relative to people with high self-esteem (high SEs). Subjects were premeasured for their self-esteem and given a brief opportunity to “practice” two tasks that they believed they would be required to perform in a later part of the experiment. One task was practiced in front of a self-focusing stimulus—a large mirror (mirror task)—whereas the other was not (no-mirror task). Subjects evaluated the tasks after they had practiced each one. Consistent with the notion that self-focused attention is more anxiety provoking for individuals with lower self-esteem, it was observed that: (1) relative to high SEs, lowmedium SEs rated the mirror, but not the no-mirror, task as less enjoyable, and (b) low-medium, but not high, SEs preferred to avoid the mirror task for the alleged upcoming part of the experiment. Subjects high in dispositional private selfconsciousness also wanted to avoid the mirror task, particularly if they were also low in self-esteem. Contrary to prediction, success-failure feedback from a previous task had no effect on subjects' task preferences. Theoretical explanations and implications are discussed.     

Hemispheric specialization in reading and word recognition

Three experiments dealing with hemispheric specialization are presented. In Experiment 1, words and/or faces were presented tachistoscopically to the left or right of fixation. Words were more accurately identified in the right visual field and faces were more accurately identified in the left visual field. A forced choice error analysis for words indicated that errors made for word stimuli were most frequently visually similar words and this effect was particularly pronounced in the left visual field. Two additional experiments supported this finding. On the basis of the results, it was argued that word identification is a multistage process, with visual feature analysis carried out by the right hemisphere and identification and naming by the left hemisphere. In addition, Kinsbourne's attentional model of brain function was rejected in favor of an anatomical model which suggests that simultaneous processing of verbal and nonverbal information does not constrict the attention of either hemisphere.     

Lateral preferences and writing hand posture in left-handers: A reply to Levy

In reply to the commentary from J. Levy about a recent article of ours (A. Searleman, C. Porac, & S. Coren, 1984, Brain and Cognition, 3, 86–93), we find that she has shifted the level of analysis from between-sex comparisons (as demanded by our original hypothesis) to within-sex comparisons. Since she is addressing a different set of questions, we therefore find no compelling reasons to alter any of our conclusions or the confidence that we have in these conclusions.     

Speech versus sign comprehension in autistic children: analysis and prediction

Autistic children have severe problems in acquiring language. For this reason, special techniques have been developed to teach them speech and sign language. It is not known, however, whether these children will profit more from speech or sign training. The research literature implies that verbal imitative ability may predict language learning characteristics particularly in the speech modality. In view of this possibility, two groups of autistic children--good versus poor verbal imitators--were studied within the context of a receptive label acquisition task. Good imitators acquired receptive speech whereas poor imitators typically did not. Both groups acquired receptive signs. The results were discussed in terms of the role that imitative ability may play with respect to language acquisition in this population.     

Performance evaluation: On choosing to know the related attributes of others when we know their performance

It was hypothesized that people will choose to find out about the performance attributes of others who perform similarly to themselves if they believe the attributes are related to performance. Subjects within a group of nine were supposedly given different amounts of practice prior to taking a test on which performance was said to be either related or unrelated to practice. After taking the test, each subject was given his score, his rank order in the group, and the score obtained by each of the other group members. The subject was then allowed to find out about the number of items practiced by one other person in the group. A second choice was also given. On both first and second choices, subjects in the related condition chose to learn about others who were adjacent to them in the rank order. Subjects in the unrelated condition chose to learn about others with extreme scores. First choices in both conditions were strongly biased upward, supporting the unidirectional drive hypothesis.