Attributions of Responsibility for Obesity: Narrative Communication Reduces Reactive Counterarguing Among Liberals

Informed by theory and research on attributions and narrative persuasion, we compared the effectiveness of narrative and nonnarrative messages in changing attributions of responsibility for causes and solutions related to obesity in the United States. We randomly assigned 500 adults to view one of three messages (narrative, evidence, and a hybrid of the two) emphasizing environmental causes of obesity, or a no‐exposure control condition. The narrative condition increased the belief that societal actors (government, employers) are responsible for addressing obesity, but only among liberals. This pattern of results was partially explained by the success of the narrative condition in reducing reactive counterarguing, relative to the evidence condition, among liberals. We conclude with theoretical and practical implications.     

Local Opposition to the Construction of a Nuclear Power Station: Differential Salience of Impacts1

This study examined attitudes among 290 residents of three villages in South-West England toward proposals to build a nuclear power station nearby. Respondents were split into four groups according to whether they were neutral or in favor of a new power station either locally or elsewhere in the UK (Group PN), against one locally but neutral or pro elsewhere (LO), or moderately (MO) or extremely (XO) against a new power station both locally and elsewhere. The perceived impact of a nuclear power station on local life was assessed by 30 items. The PN group expected most benefit or least damage on all 30 items. On a majority of items the mean ratings of the LO group resembled those of the XO's more than did those of the MO's. A stepwise discriminant analysis yielded two interpretable functions. The first reflected a trend over the groups in the order PN-LO-MO-XO and was marked particularly by concern with impact on personal peace of mind. The second fuction discriminated the LO's from the other groups, suggesting that they were relatively less concerned with specifically nuclear risks, but more concerned with environmental conservation.     

Mothers' & fathers' explanations of observed interactions with their children

Mothers and fathers were asked via an open-ended interview technique to explain specific interactions with their children that had been noted during a period of family observation in the home. Explanations were obtained for behavior in five interactional contexts (e.g., interactions involving discipline and interactions encouraging the child to be independent). The explanations were classified first to determine the extent to which they referred to what might have been actual thoughts at the time of the behavior. Second, they were content analysed to determine how much parents perceived themselves as responding to the child, versus how much they presented their behavior as arising from their own dispositions, purposes, and experiences. Results showed that most of the explanations did not contain what could be considered conscious cognitions at the time of the behavior. This suggests parents might have been responding automitically in the situation. Also, parents did not perceive their behavior as being mainly in response to the child. Instead they primarily saw themselves as the agents of their own actions. The latter trend varied in degree according to the interactional context. Mothers seemed more child centered in their explanations than fathers. Implications are examined for future research on links between parental cognition and behavior, and for the methods adopted to study parental cognitions. Questions are raised about the extent to which parents planfully determine their behavior and the extent to which they are aware of the reasons for their behavior.     

Functional measurement approach to self-estimation in multiattribute evaluation

Multiattribute analysis depends on measurement of values and weights. Unless these measures reflect the decision maker's true values and weights, the multiattribute formula may put a less-preferred alternative in first place. To avoid such disordinality requires stringent measurement conditions: First, the values and weights must be on linear (equal interval) or ratio (known zero) scales. Second, these scales must satisfy a condition of common unit across disparate attribute dimensions. Most methods of range adjustment beg both of these measurement questions. Functional measurement theory can solve both problems and so can be useful in multiattribute analysis. Past work has established the operation of a general cognitive algebra as an empirical reality. The averaging model, in particular, makes possible the definition and estimation of weights and values as distinct psychological parameters. It can also solve the problem of common unit. Cognitive algebra thus provides a grounded theoretical foundation on which to develop self-estimation methodology, in which decision makers provide direct estimates of their values and weights. The logic is straightforward. Functional measurement can analyze global judgments to obtain validated psychological scales. These scales may then be used as validational criteria for the self-estimates. Procedures to eliminate biases in the self-estimates can thus be tested and refined in well-learned multiattribute tasks, such as judgments of meals, in which global judgments are trustworthy. Once developed, such self-estimation procedures may be used with some confidence for general multiattribute analysis. A number of studies from 20-odd years of work on the theory of information integration are summarized to show good, although not unmixed promise for self-estimation.     

Of private talk and public print: General pre-trial publicity and juror decision-making

The term ‘general pre-trial publicity’ refers to trial-related information that is prominently in the news, and that affects jurors in wholly unrelated cases. Two experiments explored the impact of general pre-trial publicity on juror decision-making. In Experiment 1 mock jurors who earlier read a newspaper article about a defendant mistakenly identified and subsequently convicted of a crime he did not commit were less likely to convict the defendant in an unrelated case than were jurors who read instead about a series of heinous crimes or who had no pre-trial publicity. Experiment 2 demonstrated that this effect is somewhat stronger when the general pre-trial publicity concerns a case that closely resembles the one jurors must decide than when the two cases are dissimilar. These data are discussed in terms of the availability of relevant information in memory. People may evaluate the probability of a defendant's guilt by the ease with which similar or relevant examples come to mind.