Major personality traits and regulations of social behavior: Cheaters are not the same as the reckless,and you need to know who you’re dealing with

This research explores the hypothesis that major personality traits are systematically associated with social regulation response tendencies. Specifically, the adaptive function of specific traits from ‘Big-Five’ and HEXACO models were evaluated in terms of how they are understood and utilized in predicting the behaviors of others. Big-Five factors of agreeableness and conscientiousness track tendencies to obey or break social contract and precautionary rules, but not discriminatively nor as predicted. HEXACO traits, however, provided discriminative patterns of associations between personality and response tendencies (within individuals and for third-person associations, cross-culturally) in greater accord with previous work. Honesty–humility is associated with social contract behaviors and conscientiousness is associated with precaution behaviors, consistent with conceptualizations as psychological adaptations for tracking fitness-relevant individual differences.     

Accuracy Motivations,Predispositions, and Social Information in Political Discussion Networks

This analysis studies how variation in individuals' motivation to form accurate judgments affects the process of political discussion. I use a small‐group experiment in which participants compete to elect the simulated candidate who best represents their true preferences. I manipulate economic incentives to control participants' accuracy motivations. The results show that accuracy‐motivated participants, compared to those with weaker accuracy goals, seek discussants with more expertise and a more diverse set of viewpoints, place greater emphasis on socially provided messages, and reduce emphasis on political predispositions. As a result of these differences, however, accuracy‐motivated participants rely more heavily on biased information. Hence, accuracy motivations do not produce more accurate judgments or better decisions. Although previous work on political discussion has largely ignored the role of motivations, these results suggest that accuracy motivations play an important but nuanced role in this process. Strengthened accuracy motivations increase individuals' exposure to political expertise and ideological diversity but also increase their potential to be misled.     

Negativity bias in defeasible reasoning

In defeasible reasoning, initially drawn conclusions can be withdrawn in light of new information. In this paper, we examine how the conclusions drawn from conditionals describing positive or negative situations can be defeated by subsequent negative or positive information, respectively. Participants were confronted with conditionals of the form “If [situation], then I am happy/sad” which were either followed by no additional information or by additional information describing situations of the same or the opposite valence. The participant's task was to decide on a question asking for a possible conclusion (“Am I happy?” vs. “Am I sad?”). We found a negativity bias in defeasible reasoning: negative information defeated positively charged conclusions more strongly than positive information defeated negatively charged conclusions. We discuss our results in relation to the new psychology of reasoning.     

Explaining Away and the Cognitive Science of Religion

In order to evaluate the claim that theistic belief can be explained away by science, four models of the relationship between science and theism are developed and their relevance to explaining away explored. These models are then used to evaluate an argument against theistic belief based on developments in the cognitive science of religion. It is argued that even if the processes that produce theistic belief are unreliable, this is insufficient to show that explaining away takes place. Indeed, given the difficulty of showing that the conditions for explaining away are met, it is very unlikely that such an argument can succeed.     

From reasonable preferences,via argumentation,to logic

This article demonstrates that typical restrictions which are imposed in dialogical logic in order to recover first-order logical consequence from a fragment of natural language argumentation are also forthcoming from preference profiles of boundedly rational players, provided that these players instantiate a specific player type and compute partial strategies. We present two structural rules, which are formulated similarly to closure rules for tableaux proofs that restrict players' strategies to a mapping between games in extensive forms (i.e., game trees) and proof trees. Both rules are motivated from players' preferences and limitations; they can therefore be viewed as being player-self-imposable. First-order logical consequence is thus shown to result from playing a specific type of argumentation game. The alignment of such games with the normative model of the Pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is positively evaluated. But explicit rules to guarantee that the argumentation game instantiates first-order logical consequence have now become gratuitous, since their normative content arises directly from players' preferences and limitations. A similar naturalization for non-classical logics is discussed.     

Party Support,Values, and Perceptions of Electoral Integrity

The legitimacy of the electoral process is crucial for the consolidation of democracy. We here focus on individual perceptions of electoral integrity (IPEI) and seek to understand what factors can explain different degrees of IPEI. In particular, we use the sixth wave of the World Values Survey (2010–14) to examine how antiauthoritarian values affect individuals' directional bias, driven by political party support, in evaluating electoral integrity. The results show that IPEI do depend on an interaction of political party support and the strength of antiauthoritarian values. However, the addition of the latter does not lead to a convergence of integrity evaluations among winners and losers, as may be expected under the assumption that antiauthoritarian values drive voters to more carefully monitor and evaluate the electoral process. Instead, it leads to greater polarization between electoral winners and losers. We explain the result with reference to the motivated reasoning literature on biased information processing: While antiauthoritarian convictions lead people to obtain more information on the electoral process, their political leanings bias their reading of this information, which in effect leads to stronger polarization in perceptions.     

Looking Back,Looking Forward: ISPP at 40 and Future Directions for Political Psychology

The ISPP Presidential Address typically is an opportunity for the President to outline his or her research contribution and trajectory, and the publication of the Address takes the form of a research article. Given that in 2017, ISPP celebrated its 40th conference and 2018 is its 40th anniversary as an academic society, the 2017 Presidential Address and this article are focused on the state of the Society; What have we achieved? How have we changed? Where are we heading? Looking back, ISPP is a more diverse and international society than in 1978, and it is confidently fulfilling its mission. Looking forward, three areas that warrant further attention are outlined: (1) The issue of a possible decline in scientific rationalism and threat of anti‐liberalism (2) challenges with measurement and prediction of political opinion, political attitudes, and voting behavior, and (3) as a maturing field, the need to establish common theoretical frameworks that integrate current knowledge such as building a case that humans are political animals. Each direction is briefly outlined with the aim of provoking thought and stimulating discussion and debate about the future of political psychology.     

类比推理的影响因素及脑生理基础研究

类比推理是不同于演绎,也不同于归纳的一种独立的推理形式。作为人类认知发展的中心能力之一,类比推理已逐渐成为当代认知研究的一个活跃领域。研究表明类比推理不仅受顺序、因果结构、上下文连贯性等项目特征的影响,并且与加工速度、工作记忆等其它认知能力有密切关系。有关类比推理的神经影像研究则主要发现大脑左半球前部和后部区域的参与,似可进一步从脑生理水平表明类比推理与工作记忆存在密切关系。     

The distribution matters: two types of sample-size tasks

Different studies on how well people take sample size into account have found a wide range of solution rates. In a recent review, Sedlmeier and Gigerenzer (1997) suggested that a substantial part of the variation in results can be explained by the fact that experimenters have used two different types of sample-size tasks, one involving frequency distributions and the other sampling distributions. This suggestion rested on an analysis of studies that, with one exception, did not systematically manipulate type of distribution. In the research reported in this paper, well-known sample-size tasks were used to examine the hypothesis that frequency distribution versions of sample-size tasks yield higher solution rates than corresponding sampling distribution versions. In Study 1, a substantial difference between solution rates for the two types of task was found. Study 2 replicated this finding and ruled out an alternative explanation for it, namely, that the solution rate for sampling distribution tasks was lower because the information they contained was harder to extract than that in frequency distribution tasks. Finally, in Study 3 an attempt was made to reduce the gap between the solution rates for the two types of tasks by giving participants as many hints as possible for solving a sampling distribution task. Even with hints, the gap in performance remained. A new computational model of statistical reasoning specifies cognitive processes that might explain why people are better at solving frequency than sampling distribution tasks. Copyright© 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.