Morning and evening people: Examination of an identifying scale and of social- and self-perceptions of personality differences

An experiment was conducted aimed first at establishing the reliability and validity of a measure of individual differences in sleeping schedules. Two samples of subjects completed a questionnaire concerning their sleeping behavior which was scored according to the diurnal or nocturnal pattern of their responses. The scores were then used to classify subjects as morning people or evening people. Both the internal reliability and cross-time reliability of the scale were assessed and found to be high. In addition, three indices of construct validity, obtained 4 months after the administration of the scale, supported its validity. In a second part of the experiment, subjects classified as either morning or evening people rated themselves on a set of behavioral and personality dimensions. Another sample of subjects indicated their perceptions of morning people and evening people in general, along the same dimensions. It was found that subjects did have strong beliefs about personality and behavioral differences between morning people and evening people. However, the self-perceptions of the actual morning and evening people did not differ, thereby casting doubt on the validity of popular stereotypic perceptions about the two groups.     

Social stereotypes and judgments of individuals: An instance of the base-rate fallacy

Social stereotypes may be defined as beliefs that various traits or acts are characteristic of particular social groups. As such, stereotypic beliefs represent subjective estimates of the frequencies of attributes within social groups, and so should be expected to “behave like” base-rate information within the context of judgments of individuals: specifically, individuating target case information should induce subjects to disregard their own stereotypic beliefs. Although the results of previous research are consisten with this prediction, no studies have permitted normative evaluation of stereotypic judgments. Because the hypothesis equates base rates and stereotypes, normative evaluation is essential for demonstrating equivalence between the base-rate fallacy and neglect of stereotypes in the presence of individuating case information. Two experiments were conducted, allowing for normative evaluation of effects of stereotypes on judgments of individuals. The results confirmed the hypothesis and established the generalizability of the effect across controversial and uncontroversial, socially desirable and socially underirable stereotypic beliefs. More generally, an examination of the differences between intuitive and normative statistical models of the judgment task suggest that the base-rate fallacy is but one instance of a general characteristic of intuitive judgment processes: namely, the failure to appropriately adjust evaluations of any one cue in the light of concurrent evaluations of other cues.     

Perceptions of counsellor effectiveness: A study of two country groups

The perceptions of United States' (US) and Singaporean college students on directive and nondirective counselling approaches were examined. A total of 103 Singaporean students, studying in Canada and the US, and 108 US students participated in the study. Simulated counselling interviews of the two approaches were presented to students through videotapes. After watching the counselling sessions, students rated the counsellor with the Counsellor Effectiveness Rating Scale; they also were asked to write comments about the counselling session. A multivariate analysis yielded a two-way interaction effect by country of origin. Counsellor expertise was rated significantly higher by Singaporean students observing the nondirective style, while US students rated the directive style higher. Qualitative responses from students were also examined. Implications are discussed.