Book Reviews

The Psychological Record -     

The impact of politeness and relationship on perceived quality of advice about a problem

Advice is a common but potentially problematic way to respond to someone who is distressed. Politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) suggests advice threatens a hearer's face and predicts that the speaker‐hearer relationship and the use of politeness strategies can mitigate face threat and enhance the effectiveness of advice messages. Students (N=384) read 1 of 16 hypothetical situations that varied in speaker power and closeness of the speaker‐hearer relationship. Students then read 1 of 48 advice messages representing different politeness strategies and rated the message for regard shown for face and for effectiveness. However, neither speaker‐hearer relationship nor politeness strategies was consistently associated with perceived threat to face or perceived advice effectiveness. We suggest revisions to politeness theory and additional factors that may affect judgments of face sensitivity and advice effectiveness.     

Face validity of test and acceptance of generalized personality interpretations.

After students in different groups took one of four "personality tests" that varied in face validity, they received a generalized personality interpretation. Even though the test lowest in face validity merely required the subject to circle digits, judged accuracy of the interpretation (a) was high for all tests (76-87% of the ratings in the various test groups were good or excellent) and (b) was independent of type of test upon which the interpretation was purportedly derived. From 46-60% of the subjects in the various groups "definitely liked" or "liked" the interpretation; likability was independent of face validity of the test. Judged accuracy and likability of the interpretation correlated positively and significantly. The willingness of individuals to accept generalized statements about themselves is a researchable problem area suggested by the present research.     

Aversive CSs suppress lever pressing for food but not the eating of free food

Forty rats received CER acquisition, half “on the baseline” (response lever present), half “off the baseline.” During initial CER extinction, Ss received: (a) normal CER extinction (lever available), (b) free food during CSs only (no lever), (c) free food during non-CSs only (no lever), or (d) free food during both CS and non-CS periods (no lever). While normal extinction Ss were highly suppressed in the presence of the CS, all free food groups readily ate but did not differ in eating latencies. On subsequent CER extinction trials on the baseline, those Ss which received free food during the CSs were no less suppressed than other Ss. These data offer no support for Estes' (1969) reciprocal inhibition explanation of CER and punishment, nor do they support a fear interpretation of CER.     

A Guide to Treatments That Work

The Psychological Record -