Social exclusion and pain sensitivity: why exclusion sometimes hurts and sometimes numbs

Some research indicates that social exclusion leads to increased emotional- and physical-pain sensitivity, whereas other work indicates that exclusion causes emotional- and physical-pain numbing. This research sought to examine what causes these opposing outcomes. In Study 1, the paradigm used to instantiate social exclusion was found to moderate the social exclusion-physical pain relation: Future-life exclusion led to a numbing of physical pain whereas Cyberball exclusion led to hypersensitivity. Study 2 examined the underlying mechanism, which was hypothesized to be the severity of the "social injury." Participants were subjected to either the standard future-life exclusion manipulation (purported to be a highly severe social injury) or a newly created, less-severe version. Supporting our hypothesis, the standard (highly severe) future-life exclusion led to physical-pain numbing, whereas the less-severe future-life exclusion resulted in hypersensitivity. Implications of these results for understanding the exclusion-pain relation and other exclusion effects are discussed.     

Visual‐motor and executive functions in children born preterm: The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test revisited

Böhm, B., Lundequist, A. & Smedler, A.‐C. (2010). Visual‐motor and executive functions in children born preterm: The Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test revisited. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 376–384. Visual‐motor development and executive functions were investigated with the Bender Test at age 5½ years in 175 children born preterm and 125 full‐term controls, within the longitudinal Stockholm Neonatal Project. Assessment also included WPPSI‐R and NEPSY neuropsychological battery for ages 4–7 ( Korkman, 1990 ). Bender protocols were scored according to Brannigan & Decker (2003) , Koppitz (1963) and a complementary neuropsychological scoring system (ABC), aimed at executive functions and developed for this study. Bender results by all three scoring systems were strongly related to overall cognitive level (Performance IQ), in both groups. The preterm group displayed inferior visual‐motor skills compared to controls also when controlling for IQ. The largest group differences were found on the ABC scoring, which shared unique variance with NEPSY tests of executive function. Multiple regression analyses showed that hyperactive behavior and inattention increased the risk for visual‐motor deficits in children born preterm, whereas no added risk was seen among hyperactive term children. Gender differences favoring girls were strongest within the preterm group, presumably reflecting the specific vulnerability of preterm boys. The results indicate that preterm children develop a different neurobehavioral organization from children born at term, and that the Bender test with a neuropsychological scoring is a useful tool in developmental screening around school start.     

Implicit and explicit attitudes respond differently to increasing amounts of counterattitudinal information

This research examined the processes by which explicit and implicit attitudes changed to systematically differing levels of counterattitudinal (CA) information. Explicit attitudes changed quickly in response to relatively small amounts of CA information, reflecting rule‐based reasoning. On the other hand, implicit attitudes changed more slowly in the face of CA information, reflecting the progressive accretion of evaluation‐attitude object pairings. Thus, explicit attitudes were extremely malleable and changed quickly when CA information was presented, however, implicit attitudes revealed a slow, linear change trajectory resulting from the on‐going accrual of information about the attitude object. Implications for the processes underlying implicit and explicit attitudes are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Positivity can cue familiarity

Given that familiarity is closely associated with positivity, the authors sought evidence for the idea that positivity would increase perceived familiarity. In Experiment 1, smiling and thus positively perceived novel faces were significantly more likely to be incorrectly judged as familiar than novel faces with neutral expressions. In Experiment 2, subliminal association with positive affect (a positively valenced prime) led to false recognition of novel words as familiar. In Experiment 3, validity judgments, known to be influenced by familiarity, were more likely to occur if participants were in happy mood states than neutral mood states. Despite their different paradigms and approaches, the results of these three studies converge on the idea that, at least under certain circumstances, the experience of positivity itself can signal familiarity, perhaps because the experience of familiarity is typically positive.     

Familiar eyes are smiling: on the role of familiarity in the perception of facial affect

Quickly and accurately perceiving others' facial affect is paramount for successful social interaction. This work investigates the role of familiarity in helping us to interpret others' facial emotions. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants viewed several faces, some familiar and some novel, and judged how happy each face appeared. As predicted, results showed that familiar faces were perceived as happier than were novel faces. In Experiment 3, participants again viewed several faces, some familiar and some not, and rated the perceived anger or happiness of these faces. As expected, familiar faces were perceived as happier and less angry than were novel faces. Thus, these results suggest that familiarity is one cue we use to interpret the facial affect of others. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Fluency and Attitudes

The goal of this article is to review how, when, and why fluency, or processing ease, affects attitudes. The current article first defines fluency and then discusses its direct impact on attitudes, noting that fluency usually makes attitudes more positive and that it does so for a wide array of attitude objects. Mechanisms and moderators of these direct effects are also described. The article then summarizes how fluency can affect attitudes indirectly, through its impact on other judgments (like perceptions of confidence or truth) and on cognitive operations (like information processing). The article ends by highlighting a few areas where additional research is likely to reap impressive benefits.     

“We” are familiar but “It” is not: Ingroup pronouns trigger feelings of familiarity

The notion that language can shape social perception has a long history in psychology. The current work adds to this literature by investigating the relationship between ingroup-designating pronouns and perceptions of familiarity. In two experiments, participants were exposed to nonsense syllables that were primed with ingroup (e.g., we) and control (e.g., it) pronouns before perceptions of the syllables’ familiarity (Experiments 1 and 2) and positivity (Experiment 2) were assessed. Because previous work has shown that ingroup pronouns are perceived positively (Perdue, Dovidio, Gurtman, & Tyler, 1990), and that positivity can trigger familiarity (e.g., [Garcia-Marques et al., 2004] and [Monin, 2003]), we predicted that syllables primed with ingroup-designating pronouns would be perceived as more familiar and positive than would syllables primed with control pronouns. These predictions were confirmed. Additionally, Experiment 2 provided suggestive evidence that the effect of ingroup pronouns on perceived familiarity is mediated by positivity. Implications of these results for the literatures on how language shapes intergroup biases and on how positivity triggers feelings of familiarity are discussed.     

Effects of a group stereotype on memory for behaviors performed by a group member

Participants were provided with a group impression prior to receiving behavioral information pertaining to a group member. The group impression conveyed a below average level of intelligence or an above average level of intelligence. In addition, the distribution of intelligence scores within the group was unimodal in one condition and bimodal in another condition. The behavioral information pertaining to the individual group member was predominantly intelligent or predominantly unintelligent, thereby affording the on‐line formation of an intelligent or unintelligent personal impression regarding the group member. After receiving the behavioral information, participants recalled the behaviors and rated the group member along the intelligence dimension. Recall and judgment data revealed that the group impression functioned as the dominant expectancy that influenced processing of the behavioral information. Moreover, the effect of the group expectancy was substantially greater in the unimodal condition than in the bimodal condition. Presence of a group impression appears to reduce the tendency for participants to derive a personal impression on‐line, and reduce the tendency for participants to rely on a derived personal expectancy when encoding behaviors performed by a group member. Potential moderators of this effect are discussed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Positive mood, attribution, and the illusion of familiarity

We investigated the positivity-cues-familiarity effect and the hypothesis that it is caused by a misattribution of positivity to a sense of familiarity. Participants were put in a positive or neutral mood state, and then either did or did not complete a mood-manipulation check question. Participants then rendered old/new judgments of stimuli to which they allegedly had been subliminally exposed. When participants did not complete the mood-manipulation check question, and thus the source of their affect was unclear, they showed the positivity-cues-familiarity effect: those in a positive mood identified more of the stimuli as old than did those in a neutral mood. However, those who had completed the mood-manipulation check question, and for whom the source of their affect was obvious, did not show the positivity-cues-familiarity effect. These findings support the notion that a misattribution process is responsible for the positivity-cues-familiarity effect.