Do apes and children know what they have seen?

Chimpanzees and young children understand much about what other individuals have and have not seen. This study investigates what they understand about their own visual perception. Chimpanzees, orangutans, and 2.5-year-old children were presented with a finding game in which food or stickers were hidden in one of two or three tubes. We varied whether subjects saw the baiting of the tubes, whether subjects could see through the tubes, and whether there was a delay between baiting and presentation of the tubes to subjects. We measured not only whether subjects chose the correct tube but also, more importantly, whether they spontaneously looked into one or more of the tubes before choosing one. Most apes and children appropriately looked into the tubes before choosing one more often when they had not seen the baiting than when they had seen the baiting. In general, they used efficient search strategies more often than insufficient or excessive ones. Implications of subjects' search patterns for their understanding of seeing and knowing in the self are discussed. Accepted after revision: 7 January 2001 Electronic Publication     

Tactics to obtain a hidden food item in chimpanzee pairs (Pan troglodytes)

Five dyads of chimpanzees were tested in a competitive situation, as a pilot study to examine chimpanzees' understanding of conspecifics' knowledge. A human experimenter baited one of five containers in an outdoor enclosure. Chimpanzee A (witness) could see where the food was hidden, while chimpanzee B (witness-of-witness) could not see the baited place but could observe the chimpanzee A watching the food being hidden. Then the two were released into the enclosure. This procedure was repeated for a certain number of days along with a control condition in which neither could see the baited location. The witness-of-witness developed tactics to forestall the witness in two pairs. The witness misled the witness-of-witness by taking a route to an empty container in several cases. These episodes might represent examples of deception. Tactics and counter-tactics thus developed through the interaction between the witness and the witness-of-witness, illustrating the high social intelligence of chimpanzees. An examination of the changes in tactics suggests a possibility that the witness-of-witness understands the witness's knowledge of the location of hidden food. Accepted after revision: 22 May 2001 Electronic Publication     

Culture and Causal Cognition

East Asian and American causal reasoning differs significantly. East Asians understand behavior in terms of complex interactions between dispositions of the person or other object and contextual factors, whereas Americans often view social behavior primarily as the direct unfolding of dispositions. These culturally differing causal theories seem to be rooted in more pervasive, culture-specific mentalities in East Asia and the West. The Western mentality is analytic, focusing attention on the object, categorizing it by reference to its attributes, and ascribing causality based on rules about it. The East Asian mentality is holistic, focusing attention on the field in which the object is located and ascribing causality by reference to the relationship between the object and the field.     

Retaliation to personalistic attack

Jones and Davis's [1965. Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press] notion of “personalism” was experimentally tested in a situation in which behavior had negative hedonic relevance for the recipient. It was hypothesized that (1) if a person is attacked by another person, this victim will react more negatively than when no attack occurs and that (2) a victim who is singled out for attack will react more negatively compared with victims of an undistinctive attack (i.e., when the actor behaves similarly toward the victim and a third person). A 2 × 2 design was employed with “Victim of attack” as the first factor (no attack vs. attack) and “Behaviour toward a third person” as the second factor (no attack vs. attack). The main dependent variable was the number of attacks by the victim toward the attacker (retaliation). Thirty‐two students took part in the experiment. Victims of attack retaliated more against the attacker than those who suffered from no attack. Victims of a personalistic attack retaliated more than victims of an undistinctive attack. The results, confirming both hypotheses, support an attributional view on harm‐doing and contradict the notion of retaliation as pure behavioral reciprocity. Aggr. Behav. 25:91–96, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Mindful social inferences: Decentering decreases hostile attributions

While research indicates that mindfulness can benefit individual well-being, less is known about its potential impact in the interpersonal domain. In the current research, we examined whether a central element of mindfulness—decentering—decreases hostile attributions in ambiguous social situations. We hypothesized that decentering from experiences—observing and considering them as mental events that arise and disappear—hampers the development of hostile attributions. A series of three laboratory studies, two of which were high-powered and pre-registered, demonstrated that decentering decreases hostile attribution in response to ambiguous social scenarios as compared to immersion instructions, and as compared to baseline. Additionally, the results suggest that decentering may be particularly beneficial in reducing hostile attribution bias among participants high in trait rumination. The current findings provide initial insights into the effect of decentering on the development of hostile attribution bias, and the association between mindfulness and interpersonal responses more generally.     

Anger arousal,deindividuation, and aggression

We tested the notion that angered persons' aggression would be increased through a process of excitation transfer when they are deindividuated, but that individuated subjects would be most aggressive in circumstances under which they could use the information that they had ingested an arousing drug as a pretext for their aggression. Sixty-two male undergraduates participated under either deindividuated or individuated conditions, ingested either 350 mg of caffeine or a placebo, were informed that they had either taken a stimulant or a nonarousing drug, and were all angered by a confederate. According to prediction, when deindividuated and aroused by caffeine the amount of noxious stimulation subjects delivered to the provocateur was greater if they believed that the drug they had taken was nonarousing than if they thought it was a stimulant; in contrast, individuated subjects' aggression was greater when aroused subjects believed the drug was a stimulant. The results are discussed in terms of excitation transfer and the effect of aggression inhibition on the use of information about one's arousal.     

领导领域中归因理论的研究述评

领导领域中的归因研究对于把握领导过程、组织绩效评估以及领导成员关系等问题均具有重要的理论与实际意义。文章回顾了自领导归因理论提出以后,领导归因领域中包括有关模型构建、验证与发展、内隐归因在内的相关研究;同时,对归因偏差、归因风格、领导成员关系、人格特质、领导类型、情绪、文化及相关人口学变量等因素与领导归因的关系研究进行了系统梳理;最后,分析、总结了该领域以往研究的不足及今后的研究趋势     

Testosterone and attribution of successful competition

Mood, personal merit, and/or its perception have been suggested to be mediating factors in testosterone responses to competition. Previously we have found that personal contribution and attribution were related to testosterone levels after successful competition. To confirm such associations, two basketball teams (n = 17 players) that emerged as winners in two actual matches were studied. Salivary testosterone levels and mood were measured before and after the games. Individual contribution to the outcome was assessed, and personal satisfaction and causal attribution of outcome were reported by players. Testosterone concentrations increased to near significance in Team 1 but not in Team 2, who attributed their victory more to luck than did Team 1. This latter team showed notably decreased vigor, and both teams showed fatigue at the end of the match. Post‐match testosterone levels were only significantly, negatively related to external attribution. The results support the idea that causal attribution of the outcome is contributing to the variance of the testosterone responses to real confrontations where the outcome is highly dependent on personal merit. Aggr. Behav. 26:235–240, 2000. © 2000 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

What is personality? Two myths and a definition

This article addresses the longstanding problem that the field of personality psychology remains in need of a consensus formulation of its core subject matter, that of the nature of “personality” itself. Part 1 of the article presents some reminders about the traditional pre-empirical status of concepts in science. Part 2 introduces and calls into question two widely accepted but nonetheless questionable propositions about the nature of personality: (a) that the term refers to an underlying causal entity within a person, and (b) that the study of personality is the study of the whole person. Part 3 presents a definition of “personality”, discussion elaborating and clarifying this definition, and an explication of the ways in which it differs from previous definitions. Part 4 discusses some benefits that accrue both to having a consensus definition in general, and to acceptance of the present definition in particular.