Selective attention: effects of cuing on the processing of different types of compound stimuli

Pigeons in a matching-to-sample experiment received (a) element samples (one of two colors or vertical or horizontal white lines), (b) separated compound samples (a color and a line element presented together), and (c) unified compound samples (vertical or horizontal colored lines). In Phase I, test stimuli were the two elements from one dimension; the dimension tested varied randomly when the sample was a compound. Element samples were matched better than unified samples, which were matched better than separated samples. In Phase II, two samples preceded the tests. On EC trials, the first sample (S1) was an element, and the second sample (S2) was a compound; on CE trials this order was reversed. One element of the compound sample was always the one appearing as the element sample on that trial (e.g., S1 = red, S2 = red-vertical). This element also served as the correct test alternative (e.g., test = red+ vs. green) except on probe trials when the correct test was the other element appearing in the compound (e.g., test = vertical+ vs. horizontal). Accuracy varied as a function of sample sequence when the compound was separated (EC greater than CE on nonprobe trials and CE greater than EC on prove trials). This pattern was not observed when the compound was unified. The data suggest that the element in EC trials served as a cue that increased processing of the cued dimension and decreased processing of the noncued dimension of separated compounds. However, both dimensions of unified compounds seem to have been processed regardless of cuing.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Do response time advantage and interference reflect the order of processing of global- and local-level information?

Navon's (1977) global precedence hypothesis was based primarily on the joint occurrence of two effects: a response time (RT) advantage for identifying global targets, and interference by global distractors on responding to local targets. Although the hypothesis has been questioned on the basis of experiments in which it has been shown that a local RT advantage and local interference can occur, it is still frequently assumed that these two effects are a valid measure of the order in which local and global levels of structure are processed. In the present experiment, this assumption was examined. Subjects identified target letters that occurred randomly at the global or local level in a divided-attention task. The visual angle subtended by the stimulus pattern was varied, a manipulation known to affect the relative speed of response to local- or global-level information. Local targets were identified faster than global targets at the larger visual angles, but there was no difference in RT at the smallest visual angle. Despite this change in RT advantage, the interference effect did not change as a function of the visual angle of the stimulus pattern. Moreover, global distractors interfered with responding to local targets but local targets had no effect on responding to global targets, which is exactly the opposite of the finding one would expect if RT advantage and interference reflected order of processing. These findings are not consistent with the assumption that RT advantage and interference reflect order of processing in a simple way.     

Ask and You Shall be Given: Request Size and Donations to a Good Cause1

In an attempt to replicate the findings reported in this Journal by Weyant and Smith (1987), members or recent donors to a Canadian civil liberties organization were asked to donate money under one of three conditions: (a) In the control condition, they were simply asked for a donation; (b) in the “smaller request” condition, they were asked to make a donation, but amounts of Canadian $30 to $100 were suggested; and (c) in the “larger request” condition, amounts of $50 to $250 were suggested. Unlike the Weyant and Smith studies, we found no difference in the proportion of respondents making a donation, but significant differences in the size of the donations made by those making donations. In our study, the most effective way of getting large donations was to ask for a large amount. It was suggested that the most likely explanations for the differences in the results of the two studies were the following: First, our target population were previous donors to the organization, whereas those in the Weyant and Smith studies were not likely to have been. Previous research suggests that those who had been donors previously are influenced, positively, by requests for a specific large donation, whereas those not previously approached are, if anything, negatively influenced. Second, our “larger request” appears to be within a plausible range for donations, whereas the larger request in the Weyant and Smith study may have been seen as being outside of the plausible range. In any case, however, we would recommend caution in drawing a conclusion about the most effective request size to encourage people to donate money to charity.     

A paradoxical prediction from locus of control

Individual differences in attribution have been little researched. Beliefs about locus of control have been taken to be stable and important differences between people. They may provide some of the background assumptions on which people base their explanations of actions, especially insofar as these explanations imply that the cause of an action was within the agent or his environment, and that the action was or was not under the agent's control. Respondents were therefore asked to fill in Rotter and Levenson locus of control questionnaires and to provide explanations or ask questions about several actions. It was hypothesized that internals would be inclined to go for explanations which were personal and implied high control, while externals would not. However, what emerged was the paradoxical finding that internals provided explanations which implied that the causes of the actions lay outside the agent, while externals provided ones which implied that the causes lay within. This result is discussed in terms of the difference between actions and outcomes, and the possibility that an important difference between people may be in the rigidity and simplicity of their beliefs about causality.     

Intentional response distortion during the COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 has abruptly and unexpectedly transformed nearly every aspect of work, including but not limited to increased unemployment rates and uncertainty regarding future job prospects. Response distortion has always been a concern given that many organizations rely on information that is self-reported by applicants regarding their potential employability (e.g., responses to self-reported personality instruments, resumes, interview responses). Drawing from the Valence-Instrumentality-Expectancy (VIE) theory of motivation, we propose that the uncertainty surrounding jobs may lead to amplified distorted responses on these measures in areas where COVID-19 was most salient. In a sample of 213 working adults [~50% female, age M = 38.48], the present study shows that increases in response distortion on a measure of conscientiousness were more pronounced as a function of (a) local COVID positivity rates and (b) job type, such that frontline workers distorted their responses the most. Findings are discussed in the context of VIE theory, personality measurement, and challenges with maintaining effective selection procedures.     

Rapport-building: Chat versus in-person witness interviews

Tactics recommended for rapport-building consist of verbal (e.g., finding common ground or shared experiences) and non-verbal (e.g., affirmations, displaying empathy) behaviours. Most of the research on rapport, however, has examined it in in-person contexts, where both verbal and non-verbal behaviours are present. In this study, we were interested in the effectiveness of rapport-building when conducting online witness interviews via chat, which de-emphasises the use non-verbal rapport behaviours, compared to traditional in-person interviews. Participants (N = 131) experienced a virtual reality (VR) scenario depicting a mock crime and were interviewed either in person or online via the chat function in Skype. Participants perceived rapport more positively when interviewed in person for three measures: attentiveness, trust and respect and expertise. Two other measures, cultural similarity and connected flow, were not perceived differently across interview medium. Participants interviewed online via chat disclosed similar amounts of crime-related information and were just as accurate as participants interviewed in person. We found that in-person interviews yielded better rapport ratings than interviews via chat but were equally productive in terms of the quality of information obtained, as measured by crime-related details and accuracy. If witnesses are to be interviewed via chat, investigators must carefully consider how to compensate for the lack of those non-verbal rapport tactics that influence witnesses' perceptions of attentiveness, trust/respect and investigator's expertise.