“License to Fail”: Goal definition,leader group prototypicality,and perceptions of leadership effectiveness after leader failure

Leaders who fail to achieve group or organizational goals risk losing follower endorsement. We propose a model in which leader characteristics (leader group prototypicality—the leader’s representativeness of group identity) and goal definition (a maximal goal that ideally would be reached vs. a minimal goal that ought to be reached) interact to affect leadership perceptions after failure. Group prototypical (vs. non-prototypical) leaders are proposed to receive more trust in leadership and, therefore, to be evaluated as more effective by their followers after failing to achieve a maximal goal, but not after failing to achieve a minimal goal. This model was supported in a series of four studies including experimental, field, and scenario paradigms. In addition, we showed that this model holds only after failure and not after success, and more for followers who identify strongly (vs. weakly) with their group.     

Beyond control of variables: What needs to develop to achieve skilled scientific thinking?

We identify three aspects of scientific thinking beyond the control-of-variables strategy that we claim are essential for students to master as a foundation for skilled scientific thinking. The first is strategic and involves the ability to coordinate effects of multiple causal influences on an outcome. The second is a mature understanding of the epistemological foundations of science, recognizing scientific knowledge as constructed by humans rather than simply discovered in the world. The third is the ability to engage in skilled argumentation in the scientific domain, with an appreciation of argumentation as entailing the coordination of theory and evidence. We present new empirical data with respect to the first two of these competencies, supporting the claim that they are not well developed by early adolescence and warrant attention and provision of effective kinds of scaffolding.     

线索呈现位置对概率类别学习的影响

当前概率类别学习中主要存在多系统和单系统两种观点之争, 而持不同观点的研究者在其实验中分别采用了不同的线索位置呈现方式, 因此本研究采用经典的天气预测任务通过操纵线索位置的呈现方式来进一步探讨其对概率类别学习的影响。本研究包括2个实验：实验1考察所有线索位置固定和随机对概率类别学习系统的影响; 实验2通过单线索模式下线索位置固定考察概率类别学习的策略。结果发现, 当所有线索的呈现位置固定时, 概率类别学习是外显学习; 而当所有线索的呈现位置随机时, 概率类别学习是内隐学习; 而当只在线索单独出现时固定其位置, 概率类别学习仍是内隐学习。结果表明, 线索位置的不同呈现方式会影响概率类别学习中外显和内隐学习系统的竞争, 研究支持了多系统观点, 且概率类别学习的主要策略可能是多线索策略而不是单模式策略。     

The effects on the predictive variance of a new subject’s score for a new test

Abstract: It is often required to predict the scores or their variations under interest. Ishii and Watanabe (2001) investigated, in the context of psychological measurement, the Bayesian predictive distribution of a new subject’s scores for tests and subjects’ scores for a new test. In this paper, the Bayesian posterior predictive distribution of a new subject’s scores for a new parallel test were considered. And the effects of the number of subjects, the number of the tests, and the test reliability were investigated. Then, it was found that, under assumptions that (co)variance parameters are known, the predictive variance of a new subject’s score for a new test was equal to the predictive variances of the new subject’s scores for the existent tests. It was also found that the effect of the number of subjects was relatively large and the effect of the number of tests was relatively small, when a new subject’s scores for existent tests were not observed.     

Prediction Errors and Attention in the Presence and Absence of Feedback

ABSTRACT— Contemporary theories of learning typically assume that learning is driven by prediction errors—in other words, that we learn more when our predictions turn out to be incorrect than we do when our predictions are correct. Results from the recording of electrical brain activity suggest one mechanism by which this might happen; we seem to direct visual attention toward the likely causes of previous prediction errors. This can happen very rapidly—within less than 200 milliseconds of the error-causing object being presented. It is tempting to infer that if learning is driven by prediction errors, then little can be learned in the absence of feedback. Such a conclusion is unwarranted. In fact, the substantial learning that is sometimes the result of simple exposure to objects can also be explained by processes of directing attention toward the likely causes of previous prediction errors.     

Adolescent Place Attachment, Social Capital, and Perceived Safety: A Comparison of 13 Countries

In adolescence, children become increasingly independent and autonomous, and spend more time in neighborhood settings away from home. During mid-to-late adolescence, youth often become more critical about the place they live. Their attachment to home and even community may decrease as they explore and develop new attachments to other specific places. The aim of this study is to understand how 15-year-old students from 13 countries perceive their local neighborhood area (place attachment, social capital and safety), and how these different community cognitions are interrelated. We hypothesize that their place attachment predicts safety, and that the relationship is mediated in part by social capital. Result show that, despite cross-cultural differences in neighborhood perceptions, the proposed theoretical model fits robustly across all 13 countries.     

Intergroup trust and reciprocity in strategic interactions: Effects of group decision-making mechanisms

I examined the impact of the consensus-making mechanism, where members reach a common decision via an intra-group discussion, on intergroup trust and reciprocity in a strategic setting. Data from a trust game generated the following results. First, compared to individual decision-makers, consensus groups exhibited (a) lower psychological trust, (b) higher behavioral trust, after controlling for psychological trust, and (c) lower reciprocity. Second, compared to decisions made by group-representatives, who are responsible for unilateral decisions on behalf of their groups, group consensus decisions were more trusting but less reciprocating. Thus, the specific decision-making mechanism adopted by groups in a strategic interaction may profoundly change the nature and the interplay of the interaction. Lastly, results show that the level of behavioral trust is driven by reciprocity expectations, while the level of reciprocity behavior, measured as a proportion of the trust received, does not change systematically with the level of trust experienced.     

When do children learn from unreliable speakers?

Children do not necessarily disbelieve a speaker with a history of inaccuracy; they take into account reasons for errors. Three- to five-year-olds (N = 97) aimed to identify a hidden target in collaboration with a puppet. The puppet’s history of inaccuracy arose either from false beliefs or occurred despite his being fully informed. On a subsequent test trial, children’s realistic expectation about the target was contradicted by the puppet who was fully informed. Children were more likely to revise their belief in line with the puppet’s assertion when his previous errors were due to false beliefs. Children who explained this puppet’s prior inaccuracy in terms of false belief were more likely to believe the puppet than those who did not. As children’s understanding of the mind advances, they increasingly balance the risk of learning falsehoods from unreliable speakers against that of rejecting truths from speakers who made excusable errors.     

Social influence on predictions of simulated stock prices

Herding in financial markets refers to that investors are influenced by others. This study addresses the importance of consistency for herding. It is suggested that, in financial markets perceptions of consistency are based on repeated observations over time. Consistency may then be perceived as the agreement across time between investors' predictions. In addition, consistency may be related to variance over time in each investor's predictions. In an experiment using a Multiple Cue Probability Learning paradigm, 96 undergraduates made multi‐trial predictions of future stock prices given information about the current price and the predictions made by five fictitious others. Consistency was varied between the others' predictions (correlation) and within the others' predictions (variance). The results showed that the predictions were significantly influenced by the others' predictions when these were correlated. No effect of variance was observed. Hence, participants were influenced by the others when they were in agreement, regardless of whether they varied their predictions over trials or not. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.