Traditional and Rank-Based Tests for Ordered Alternatives in a Cluster Correlated Model

Psychometrika - Methods for the analysis of one-factor randomized groups designs with ordered treatments are well established, but they do not apply in the case of more complex experiments. This...     

Experiencing Range in an Electric Vehicle: Understanding Psychological Barriers

Range of electric vehicles (EVs) has long been considered a major barrier in acceptance of electric mobility. We examined the nature of how range is experienced in an EV and whether variables from other adaptation contexts, notably stress, have explanatory power for inter‐individual differences in what we term comfortable range. Forty EVs were leased to a sample of users for a 6‐month field study. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of range experiences were performed, including regression analyses to examine the role of stress‐buffering personality traits and coping skills in comfortable range. Users appraised range as a resource to which they could successfully adapt and that satisfied most of their daily mobility needs. However, indicators were found that suggested suboptimal range utilisation. Stress‐buffering personality traits (control beliefs, ambiguity tolerance) and coping skills (subjective range competence, daily range practice) were found to play a substantial role in comfortable range. Hence, it may be possible to overcome perceived range barriers with the assistance of psychological interventions such as information, training, and interface design. Providing drivers with a reliable usable range may be more important than enhancing maximal range in an electric mobility system.     

Attitudes and Attraction: Optimism and Weight as Explanations for the Similarity–Dissimilarity Asymmetry

The positive link between attitude similarity and attraction is one of the fundamental outcomes in social psychology. However, attitude dissimilarity seems to be a stronger driver of this relationship than attitude similarity. The authors review the evidence on this similarity–dissimilarity asymmetry, and discuss two explanations. One is that people generally enter into interactions with optimism, and so supposedly neutral partners are often seen as mildly positive. Another is that dissimilar attitudes carry greater weight than similar attitudes in cognitive processes. Implications of these mechanisms for wider issues in person perception and attitude structure are discussed, connecting them with more recent theories of attitudinal ambivalence and evaluative space.