Effects of perspective taking on courtroom decisions

Four experiments examined the hypothesis that perspective taking with a defendant would lead to greater empathy, which would mediate lowered perceptions of culpability, with lowered culpability mediating a lower probability of guilt and recidivism. Experiments 1 and 2 established that perspective taking leads to a lower probability of guilty verdicts and recidivism, mediated by a decreased perception of the defendant's culpability. Experiment 2 showed that it does so by increasing empathy. Experiment 3 showed that perspective taking also heightens the perception of culpability through increased empathy for the victim. Experiment 4 showed that decreased culpability is in part driven by leniency, which is also a function of empathy. We tie our findings into other research investigating links between empathy and perspective taking.     

Social tuning of the self: consequences for the self-evaluations of stereotype targets

These experiments examined how social interactions with individuals who ostensibly have stereotype-relevant views affect the self-evaluations of stereotype targets. Participants believed they were going to interact, or actually interacted, with a person who ostensibly had stereotype-consistent or stereotype-inconsistent views about their social group. Consistent with shared reality theory, participants' self-evaluations (Experiments 1, 2, and 3) and behavior (Experiment 2) corresponded with the ostensible views of the other person when affiliative motivation was high. This occurred even when it was likely to be detrimental to participants' nonaffiliative outcomes (Experiment 3). Experiment 4 showed that self-evaluative shift away from the ostensible views of another person was a function of social distance motives, also consistent with shared reality theory.     

She Looks like She’d Be an Animal in Bed: Dehumanization of Drinking Women in Social Contexts

The purpose of the present research was to examine the perceptions of women who drink in social contexts through the lens of dehumanization (Haslam 2006). Across three experiments, we manipulated the presence of alcohol by depicting a woman at a bar with a bottle of beer or a bottle of water and measured dehumanization. As hypothesized, women were dehumanized more in the alcohol condition than in the water condition by men (Experiments 1–3) and women (Experiments 2 and 3). Notably, the presence of alcohol compared to water had no impact on dehumanization of men (Experiment 2). Also, as hypothesized, perceived intoxication emerged as a significant mediator of the link between alcohol condition and dehumanization in Experiments 1 and 2, and alcohol quantity predicted greater dehumanization in Experiment 3. Extending the present work to prior work in this area, Experiment 3 also examined the links among alcohol, perceived sexual availability, and dehumanization, revealing that perceived sexual availability mediated the link between alcohol and dehumanization. Implications for theories of dehumanization, alcohol, and social perception as well as practical implications of these findings are discussed.

     

Paying the Way: The Ticket to Gender Equality in Sports

Past research shows that consumers tend to equate higher prices with higher value. However, it remains unclear whether consumers of athletic events follow the predictions of equity theory when attributing value to particular teams. We conducted 3 studies to investigate the existence and consequences of a disparity between men's and women's college basketball ticket prices. In Study 1, a survey of 303 NCAA Division I programs demonstrated that the gender of a basketball team is a primary indicator of the price of a ticket, such that women's tickets are significantly less expensive than men's tickets nationwide, even after controlling for a number of contextual factors (e.g., win–loss records, size of the schools). Consistent with equity theory, Studies 2 and 3 revealed that such a price disparity can result in lower evaluation of women's teams than men's. These findings indicate a need to consider the costs and benefits of maintaining differences in ticket prices within a context of gender inequity.     

Acknowledging One's Physical Disability in the Interview: Does “When” Make a Difference?

The current research investigates acknowledgments that physically disabled individuals make in an interview setting, and examines whether the timing of an acknowledgment makes a difference to the impressions that evaluators form. A total of 137 participants watched an interview of a disabled applicant who (a) made no acknowledgment about the disability; or who acknowledged the disability at the (b) beginning, (c) middle, or (d) end of a job interview. Applicants who did not acknowledge or who acknowledged at the end of the interview were perceived less favorably than were those who disclosed earlier in the interview. Furthermore, participants' perceptions of the applicant's psychological well-being mediated the effect of acknowledgment timing on hiring-related outcomes. Results are discussed in terms of self-presentational strategies that physically disabled individuals might adopt and the importance of establishing one's psychological well-being early in the impression-formation process.     

Moral credentialing by association: the importance of choice and relationship closeness

People express more prejudice if they have established their "moral credentials." Five studies explored the acquisition of moral credentials through associations with racial minorities, particularly close relationships that are personally chosen. Participants choosing to write about a positive experience with a Black person (Study 1) or Hispanic person (Study 2) subsequently expressed more preference for Whites and tolerance of prejudice than did other participants. In Study 3, the credentialing effect of choice was diminished when participants were given an incentive for that choice. Participants in Study 4 who wrote about a Black friend were more credentialed than those who wrote about a Black acquaintance, regardless of whether the experience was positive or negative. Study 5 suggested that participants strategically referred to close associations with minorities when warned of a future situation in which they might appear prejudiced.