Drawing conclusions: Instructing witnesses to draw what happened to them

We reviewed the child and the adult literature on the impact of witnesses drawing what happened on the number of details recalled and the accuracy of the reported details. Most experiments reported a beneficial effect of drawing what happened (or drawing the scene) on the number of details reported primarily in free recall and sometimes also in cued recall. The consensus across studies was that drawing protocols did not negatively impact the accuracy of reported details (when accuracy was attainable) unless suggestive details were drawn. These results were largely consistent regardless of interviewer expertise or protocol used. Draw-and-tell instructions should be considered by forensic investigators for the following reasons: (1) the beneficial effect on number of details recalled with no detriment to accuracy, (2) the added benefit for children who need additional interviewer support, and (3) the ease at which the instruction can be implemented with minimal expertise or training. However, more ecologically valid research is needed to establish the efficacy of drawing (1) in forensic interviews, (2) in the presence of misinformation, (3) across instances of repeated event memory, and (4) across sequential interviews.     

特质自我控制对食物线索注意偏向的影响及干预：来自眼动的证据

采用眼动技术,以BMI指数处于正常范围的女性为被试,考察特质自我控制对食物线索注意偏向的影响以及注意偏向训练在改变注意偏向强度上的干预效果。结果发现,对于高热量食物线索,低特质自我控制水平女性表现出了更强的注意偏向;注意偏向训练有效降低了低特质自我控制水平女性对高热量食物线索注意偏向的强度。上述结果表明,特质自我控制影响个体对食物线索的注意偏向,注意偏向训练能有效改变个体对食物线索注意偏向的强度。     

Development and Evaluation of an Online Intervention for Reducing Hostile Interpretation Bias: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Hostility is a trait-level construct characterized by a generally suspicious and cynical view of other people that results in a tendency to interpret ambiguous social situations in hostile or threatening ways. Cognitive behavioral treatments for hostility have high dropout rates, which may be due to hostile beliefs interfering with treatment engagement. As such, there is a need for an alternative approach to prevent dropout and enhance engagement. The current study therefore developed and tested a 1-session, 40-minute online intervention targeting hostility. It was hypothesized that the hostility intervention would be rated as acceptable as indexed by self-report and completion rates. It was also hypothesized that the hostility intervention would be associated with greater reductions in hostility as compared to a control intervention. Finally, it was hypothesized there would be indirect effects of intervention condition on anger and aggression via changes in hostility.Undergraduates (N = 101) who reported elevated hostility and hazardous alcohol use were randomized to complete either the hostility intervention or a control condition targeting physical health habits. Results showed that individuals randomized to the hostility intervention found the intervention to be highly acceptable and all participants completed the intervention in its entirety. The hostility intervention was associated with significantly faster reductions in hostile interpretations than the control condition with medium to large effects. There were significant indirect effects of intervention condition on month one follow-up anger and aggression via changes in hostile cognitions. This proof-of-concept study provides initial evidence that a brief, single-session intervention may be a promising approach for reducing hostility and its correlates.     

All's well that ends well? Outcome bias in pilots during instrument flight rules

The objective of the present study was to examine if the Outcome Bias also occurs in pilots flying under instrument flight rules (IFR). In a scenario-based survey, 60 pilots evaluated weather-related decisions made by hypothetical pilots. Participants rated the decisions as better, less risky, and regarded the probability that they would have made the same decision as higher when they were followed by a positive outcome, than when they were followed by a negative outcome. This effect showed likewise for novice pilots and for experienced pilots. These findings could be relevant for the flight-related decision-making of pilots, which sometimes is affected by the decisions made by third-party pilots. In particular, decisions made by other pilots that have led to positive outcomes might be hastily followed, whereas those that have led to negative outcomes might be hastily rejected.     

Do health beliefs about COVID-19 predict morbidity? A longitudinal study

In a highly powered (N ≈ 5000), six-months longitudinal study (December 2020-May 2021), we tested the assumption that beliefs concerning COVID-19 and the precautions against it predicted morbidity. Six months after having filled out a survey measuring beliefs about the disease and the precautions against it, participants reported if they were or had been ill with COVID-19. A lower likelihood of being or having been ill with COVID-19 was predicted by personal optimism concerning infection, perceived personal control over infection, perceived effectiveness of precautions, and self-reported personal or better-than-average adherence to the precautions. A higher likelihood of being or having been ill with COVID-19 was predicted by perceived personal control over a good outcome of an infection, egocentric impact perception concerning the impact of the disease, perceived difficulty of adherence to the precautions, and both personal and egocentric impact perception concerning the impact of the precautions. Comparative optimism did not predict morbidity, nor did personal optimism concerning severe disease or a good outcome, perceived personal control over severe disease, and moralization of the precautions. We discuss implications for public health communication.     

The associations of cultural worldviews,political orientation,and trust with COVID-19 risk beliefs in the U.S.

Given that risk beliefs predict engagement in behaviors to prevent disease, it is important to understand the factors associated with risk beliefs. In the present paper, we conducted path analyses to investigate the associations of belief systems (political orientation and cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy) with COVID-19 risk beliefs (i.e., perceived likelihood, perceived severity, and worry about disease; Studies 1 and 2), and the indirect effect through trust in information sources in these relationships (Study 1). Two online panels of U.S. adults were surveyed at three timepoints during the COVID-19 pandemic (Study 1: baseline n = 1,667, 1-year follow-up n = 551; Study 2: n = 404). Results of path analyses indicated that, across studies and timepoints, when controlling for political orientation, trust, and demographic factors, greater individualism had consistent significant direct effects on lower perceived severity and worry about COVID-19, whereas greater hierarchy had consistent significant direct effects on lower perceived severity. However, after accounting for cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy (and trust and demographic factors), none of the associations among political orientation and any of the three COVID-19 risk beliefs were significant. The test of indirect effects indicated that individualism and hierarchy were indirectly associated with lower perceived severity of and worry about COVID-19 through less trust. The findings suggest that cultural worldviews of individualism and hierarchy play a role in shaping people's risk beliefs.     

A test of vaccine endorsement by political in- versus out-group sources: Effect on vaccination likelihood and exploration of mediation through perceived bias and liking

This study investigated whether political endorsements from in- versus out-group political elites would influence likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination. In March 2021, we ran an experiment with Democrats and Republicans in the United States to examine whether they would be more likely to get vaccinated following endorsements by former Presidents Obama or Trump. Participants reported greater likelihood of getting vaccinated if the vaccine was endorsed by an elite from their own rather than the opposing party. This effect was driven by Trump, who increased vaccination likelihood among Republicans but decreased it among Democrats. We also investigated the mechanisms underlying this persuasion effect and found that perceived bias and liking were plausible mediators, whereas perceived trustworthiness and expertise were not. This study highlights the potential of having endorsements from both Democrat and Republican political elites to increase support for health behaviors in a politically charged climate.     

Mapping physical characteristics in face images to social judgements

Sutherland and Young (Br. J. Psychol., 113, 2022, 1056) provide a comprehensive and timely overview of recent developments in research on social judgements of faces, emphasizing the utility of data-driven approaches. Here, we expand on this theme, focusing on how data-driven approaches can provide new insights into the physical characteristics in face images that best predict social judgements.     

We need to move beyond rating scales,white faces and adult perceivers: Invited Commentary on Sutherland & Young (2022), understanding trait impressions from faces

Sutherland and Young's perspective is a timely and rigorous examination of trait impressions based on facial cues. We propose three strtegies to further advance the field: incorporating natural language processing, including diverse facial stimuli, and re-interpreting developmental data.