Case Study

My hormones made me do it!: Lying on behalf of your group

The text describes a number of common physiological measures, but did you know that your physiological reactions could be manipulated as well? A lot of recent research has investigated the role of oxytocin (a neuropeptide produced by the hypothalamus which can act as both a hormone and a neurotransmitter in your body) on group bonding and affiliation. A study by Shaul Shalvi from Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Carsten De Dreu from the University of Amsterdam (2014) [DOI: 10.1080/15534510.2014.893924] actually manipulated male participants’ exposure to oxytocin and then examined the extent to which they would lie on behalf of their group.

Some 60 male participants took part in this study; half were exposed to a placebo and half were exposed to oxytocin, all via a self-administered nasal spray. Next, participants were told that they were going to take part in an activity in groups of three, and any money each individual earned would be shared with the group. The activity entailed accurately predicting the outcome of a coin toss. Before each coin toss, the participants were asked to guess whether the coin would land on “heads” or “tails” and they were also told whether a successful prediction would lead the group to gain money, lose money, or neither. Because the participants never wrote down their predictions, they were at liberty to lie. But in which conditions, if any, would the participants be dishonest?

The researchers showed that more frequent, and more extreme rates of lying, occurred on the gain trials and when the males had previously been exposed to oxytocin. (How did the researchers know that the participants were lying? Over a series of coin tosses, people should report making correct predictions about 50% of the time. If the prediction rate grows above 50%, then that suggests that the participants are not being entirely honest). In the gain + oxytocin exposure condition, participants claimed to predict the outcome of the coin toss almost 80% the time. This level of dishonesty was not seen in any of the other conditions.

What is it about oxytocin that increases people’s dishonest behavior? Often, people feel that a lie is more justified if it is made––not on one’s own behalf––but on behalf of an in-group, such as one’s family or team. If oxytocin does, in fact, promote group cohesion and bonding, then it makes sense that exposure to oxytocin might motivate people to lie, especially if it benefits the group.

So, the next time you feel compelled to tell a little white lie to help your group, just sniffle a little bit and say, “The oxytocin made me do it.”

Reference

• Shalvi, S. & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2014). Oxytocin promotes group-serving dishonesty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1400724111]

Case Study

Demand characteristics

Aderman and Berkowitz (1970) [DOI: 10.1037/h0028770] asked 120 participants to listen to a recorded conversation between a person in need of help and a potential helper. The potential helper either did not help, helped and was thanked, or helped and was not thanked. Participants who imagined themselves being the person in need of help, or imagined being the potential helper who helped and was thanked, helped the experimenter the most, in contrast to participants who imagined themselves to be the non-helper.

Results showed that the mood of the participants mediated these effects; participants who imagined themselves being the thanked helper had pleasurable empathic experiences, while participants who imagined themselves as being the person in need experienced unpleasant empathic reactions, becoming more strongly motivated to help.

Wispe, Kiecolt, and Long (1977) [DOI: 10.2224/sbp.1977.5.2.249] replicated these mood effects on helping. However, in their second study, they demonstrated that these mood effects were only present when participants knew about the purpose of the research, and not when they were ignorant about being measured on helping behavior. This supports the demand characteristics hypothesis that the procedures used in empathy and helping studies suggest that results may be due to demand characteristics.

References

• Aderman, D., & Berkowitz, L. (1970). [DOI: 10.1037/h0028770]. Observational set, empathy, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,14, 141–148.
• Wispe, L., Kiecolt, J., & Long, R. E. (1977). [DOI: 10.2224/sbp.1977.5.2.249]. Demand characteristics, moods, and helping. Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 249–255.

Case Study

The importance of replication

Replicating obtained results is very important to make sure that the results are not coincidental. When replicating the obtained results, one can use different manipulations, materials, or ways of measuring the dependent variable. This may also lead to new interesting results, which could provide more insight into the content under investigation.

An example of this is the research by Stel and Vonk (2004), in which they demonstrated that mimicry enhances empathy and bonding processes. This was shown using video materials of a young woman talking with her therapist about either a happy or a sad event. Mimicking this woman resulted in participants feeling more empathy and bonding towards the target.

In order to replicate the mimicry effects obtained with these materials, Stel and Vonk (2005a, 2005b) used a different video. They presented participants with a scene from a reality soap about which, at the time the study was running, there was some debate regarding whether the actors were being “themselves,” or were acting. Using this video material, they replicated the effects of mimicry, but only for participants who thought the main person shown on the video was being herself, while mimicry effects were different for participants who thought she was acting. After replicating this effect in another study, they concluded that effects of mimicry of facial expressions depend on whether emotional expressions are perceived as real.

References

• Stel, M., & Vonk, R. (2004). The social consequences of facial mimicry: Effects on empathy, understanding, feelings of similarity, and liking. Manuscript submitted for publication. Stel, M., & Vonk, R. (2005a). Effects of facial imitation depend on whether the emotion is seen as real. Manuscript submitted for publication. (This paper is a revised and resubmitted version of an article written for Media Psychology, and is also published in the Dutch conference book shown below.)
• Stel, M., & Vonk, R. (2005b). Imitation effects of real and acted emotions [Imitatie-effecten bij echte vs. geacteerde emoties]. In E. Gordijn, J. Ouwerkerk, R. Holland, & A. Meijnders (Eds), Jaarboek Sociale Psychologie 2004. Delft: Eburon.

Case Study

Thin slices: I don’t need to read your poker face

As described in the text, research by Nalini Ambady and colleagues has shown that we, as perceivers, are surprisingly accurate at forming impressions from the thinnest slices of behavior. Recent research in this domain has shown that perceivers have the ability to determine someone’s socioeconomic status AND can tell who has the better hand in a game of poker––and these judgments only take a minute or less to make!

Participants in a study by Kraus and Keltner (2009) [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02251.x] were asked to watch 60-second clips of an interaction between two strangers. After the interaction, the participants were asked to give their best guess of each stranger’s socioeconomic status (SES). Surprisingly, the participants were very accurate at determining whether each individual was from a high or low SES background. In turn, these ratings were positively correlated with the strangers’ self-reported general SES, family income, and maternal education level. But, the strangers never discussed their socioeconomic background, so which nonverbal cues led to these impressive inferences by the participants?

Separate coding of the 60-second interactions revealed that high SES individuals tended to demonstrate more disengagement behaviors such as doodling and fidgeting. In contrast, individuals from low-SES backgrounds demonstrated more engagement behaviors such as good eye contact and head nodding. The researchers explained that individuals who have more material goods don’t need to rely on others as much, therefore they can demonstrate nonverbal behaviors that suggest they are more disengaged. In contrast, lower SES individuals may have less power and feel the need to ingratiate themselves with others, thereby showing their interaction partners that they are interested and engaged in the conversation. The next time you are in an interaction, think about the message you are sending with your nonverbal behaviors. Could you be communicating to others that you have a losing hand?

An interesting study by Slepian, Young, Rutchick, and Ambady (2013) [DOI: 10.1177/0956797613487384] provides support for the effectiveness of the infamous poker face. Participants in their study were asked to watch 20 brief (each clip was 1–2 seconds, on average), silent clips of professional poker players placing bets. Without seeing the actual cards, the participants were asked to guess how good of a hand each player had––again, after only seeing each player for 1–2 seconds. Now here’s where it gets interesting. The participants saw one of three different types of clips: unaltered video showing the poker player from the table up, video showing just the player’s face from the chest up, and video showing only the player’s arm as he pushed the chips forward to make his bet. Which perspective led to the most accurate guesses about the players’ cards?

Amazingly enough, these researchers showed that the most accurate predictions about the quality of each player’s hand came from viewing the 1–2 second clips of the players’ arms. In other words, brief glimpses of the players’ faces for any telltale tells did not help the participants guess the quality of the players’ cards. The old poker face really does work, at least in 1–2 second clips. But what about the arm movements led to the accurate predictions? In a third study, the researchers showed that participants were more likely to rate the arms that held winning hands to be smoother when pushing forth the chips and to be perceived as belonging to more confident players. In contrast, those with worse hands may have been more nervous and those feelings may have translated into jerkier arm movements when placing bets.

So, the next time you’re playing a game of poker, keep this research in mind. If you spot someone who demonstrates a lot of disengagement behaviors, you can assume that they are from a high SES background. If that same person is slightly uncoordinated and rough when placing their bet, then lady luck is surely on your side.

References

• Kraus, M. W. & Keltner, D. (2009). [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02251.x]. Signs of socioeconomic status: A thin-slicing approach. Psychological Science, 20, 99–106.
• Slepian, M. L., Young, S. G., Rutchick, A. M. & Ambady, N. (2013) [DOI: 10.1177/0956797613487384]. Quality of professional players’ poker hands is perceived accurately from arm motions. Psychological Science, 24, 2335–2338.

Case Study

Detecting deception

Research has shown that perceivers are remarkably accurate at picking up on a wealth of information from just the tiniest slices of nonverbal behavior. But are we, as perceivers, equally as good at figuring out who is lying to us?

One situation in which it is important to detect deception is in job interviews. Interviewers would like to believe that they can tell when people are being honest versus dishonest about their past experiences and qualifications, but can they? Researchers in Germany set out to test these questions (Reinhard, Scharmach, & Müller, 2013 [DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2013.01011.x]). The participants in this study were divided up into three groups. The first group of participants consisted of individuals who had a lot of experience conducting interviews in a professional setting. The second group of participants had conducted at least one interview, and the third group of participants had never conducted an interview. Each group was asked to watch 14 videos of a person applying for a job and describing a job that they had held previously. The participants were told that some of the job applicants were telling the truth about their previous job and that some of them were lying and had never actually held that previous job. The participants’ task was to indicate which of the applicants were telling the truth and which were lying.

The results showed that all of the participants, regardless of their experience conducting interviews, were equally bad at determining who was telling the truth and who was lying. So, in this case, greater experience in the context of the job interview did not confer any great lie detecting advantage.

Reference

• Reinhard, M., Scharmach, M., and Müller, P. (2013). [DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2013.01011.x]. It’s not what you are, it’s what you know: Experience, beliefs, and the detection of deception in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(3), 467–479.

Case Study

The 2 Faces of Attractiveness: Pitting the familiar against the average

If you’ve had a chance to read over the “You’re so HOT – AVERAGE!: The effect of face morphing on attractiveness” Research Activity then you know that people perceive average(d) faces to be more attractive than the original faces that make up those composites. But research on the mere exposure effect also shows that the more we see someone, the more we like them. So we should naturally have a preference for more familiar faces. Given this research, shouldn’t the faces we see every day be more attractive to us than composites of a bunch of faces put together?

Researchers from New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the U.S. decided to pit average faces against familiar faces and see which contender won out. Before conducting their study, the researchers hypothesized that perceivers would find morphed faces to be more attractive when they were composed of faces of people the perceivers did not know. In contrast, morphed faces of people the perceivers did know would be viewed as less attractive. Here’s why: people do not like ambiguity. When two familiar faces are morphed into one, their original, distinct identities become confused and the face becomes more difficult to classify. This experience can make the perceiver feel confused and slightly negative. In contrast, there is no ambiguity when viewing a morphed face comprised of people you’ve never met, therefore these morphed faces should be viewed as more attractive.

In their study, Halberstadt and colleagues (2013) [DOI:10.1177/0956797613491969] used pictures of celebrities from New Zealand and from the Netherlands as stimuli and had participants from both countries make ratings of morphed versions of these pictures. Celebrities were selected if they were well known in their respective country, but not at all well known in the other country. Once 28 celebrity pictures had been selected from each country, pairs of similar faces were morphed together, leading to a final collection of 14 celebrity pictures from both countries. The participants then viewed all 28 morphed faces as well as the original 56 faces from the two countries and rated how attractive each face was and how familiar it appeared.

The results showed that participants found the morphed faces from their own country to be less attractive than the original faces, whereas the morphed faces from the other country were perceived to be more attractive than the original faces. In addition, unaltered pictures of celebrities from one’s own country were perceived to be more familiar than the morphed versions. Pictures of celebrities from the other country, (whether unaltered or morphed) were seen to be equally unfamiliar.

So who wins this epic battle? It all depends on ease of processing. If a face is familiar to you, then seeing it in its unaltered form is easy to make sense of, therefore this face is seen as attractive. In contrast, morphing faces of familiar individuals makes less sense perceptually and that perceptual confusion leads perceivers to view those faces as less attractive. On the other hand, if you have no familiarity with a particular face, then whether it is a picture of the original face or a morphed version, it makes no difference in terms of ease of processing. In this instance, the average face wins and is seen as more attractive.

Reference

• Halberstadt, J., Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., Ip Wai, L., & Winkielman, P. (2013). [DOI:10.1177/0956797613491969]. Two faces of attractiveness: Making beauty-in-averageness appear and reverse. Psychological Science, 24, 2343–2346.

Case Study

Mere exposure

Zajonc (1968) demonstrated the mere exposure effect in three experiments. He showed participants stimuli with different exposure frequencies and asked them to rate their favorability towards the stimuli. The first experiment used nonsense words as stimuli, the second used Chinese-like characters, and the third used photos from a yearbook. The more the participants were exposed to a stimulus, the more they liked it. A wide variety of stimuli, in both lab and non-lab settings, have been shown to elicit the mere exposure effect.

However, Perlman and Oskamp (1971) [DOI:10.1016/0022-1031(71)90012-6] reported a study in which they showed a decrease in stimulus attractiveness over increasing exposures for negative stimuli. College students were exposed to pictures of stimulus persons with different cultural backgrounds a varying number of times, and were then asked to evaluate the stimulus persons. Results showed that positive exposure enhanced evaluations, and negative exposure decreased evaluations.

So it seems that the initial impression of a person is strengthened by exposure. This was also supported by Brickman, Redfield, Harrison, and Crandall’s (1972) [DOI:10.1016/0022-1031(72)90059-5] research demonstrating that participants, who did not like abstract paintings on initial viewing, showed a decrease in attractiveness when frequently exposed.

In response to these studies, Zajonc, Markus, and Wilson (1974) [DOI:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90071-7] argued that those reversed effects of negative stimuli were obtained via association, dissatisfying the conditions of the mere exposure. In their study, participants were presented with some stimuli that were initially positive and some stimuli that were initially negative, with different exposure frequencies. Afterwards subjects rated these stimuli on a number of affective dimensions. In all cases, except when negative affect was associatively paired with every stimulus exposure, affective responses became increasingly more positive with increasing exposures. So in all other cases than the association case, the exposure effect overcame an initially negative stimulus affect.

To conclude, exposure to stimuli, either positive or negative, leads to more positive evaluations when the conditions of the mere exposure hypothesis are satisfied.

References

• Brickman, P., Redfield, J., Harrison, A. A., and Crandell, R. (1972). [DOI:10.1016/0022-1031(72)90059-5]. Drive and predisposition as factors in the attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 8, 31–44.
• Perlman, D., & Oskamp, S. (1971). [DOI:10.1016/0022-1031(71)90012-6]. The effects of picture content and exposure frequency on evaluations of Negroes and whites. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7,503–514.
• Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, Monograph Suppl. No. 2, part 2.
• Zajonc, R. B., Markus, H., and Wilson, W. R. (1974). [DOI:10.1016/0022-1031(74)90071-7]. Exposure effects and associative learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 10, 248–263.

Case Study

Attribution to salient causes and discounting

Chapter 3 suggests two factors that determine the activation of stored knowledge; namely, the accessibility and the salience of relevant information. In addition, a third factor, the specificity of information, is also very important. Those three factors also influence the activation of situational information; first, situational information becomes salient as a function of its properties such as loudness, movement, and contrast. Second, primed or chronically accessible situational information may become momentarily accessible. Finally, situational information may become more specific to the extent to which it applies to the particular actor.

Gilbert et al. (1988 [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.733]; SP p. 69) demonstrated that extra effort is required to discount an initial impression. However this cognitive load did not impair perceivers’ awareness of the situational information Therefore, they argued that cognitive load constrains awareness of situational information. As Trope and Gaunt (2000) [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.344] have put this: “awareness of situational information and the ability to correct dispositional inferences on the basis of this information are separate and necessary conditions for discounting.” According to them, perceivers may be fully aware of salient situational demands, but fail to correct their initial dispositional inferences on the basis of this information when the ability to compute such corrections is impaired by cognitive load.

Trope and Gaunt (2000) [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.344] conducted three experiments to investigate how cognitive load and the salience, accessibility, and specificity of situational demands affect the utilization of these demands in drawing dispositional inferences from behavior. Each experiment varied a different knowledge activation factor (salience, accessibility, or specificity), cognitive load, and situational demands. In all three experiments, participants had to infer the actor’s attitudes or traits from his or her behavior. The results demonstrated that cognitive load eliminated discounting when situational information was low in salience, accessibility, or specificity. However, when situational information was more salient, accessible, or specific, it produced strong discounting effects, even when perceivers were under cognitive load.

References

• Gilbert, D. T., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1988). [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.733]. On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 733–740.
• Trope, Y., & Gaunt, R. (2000). [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.344]. Processing alternative explanations of behavior: Correction or integration? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 344–354.

Case Study

Unrealistic optimism

It is good to be optimistic, right? A lot of research would certainly back up that claim, but research by Dillard, Midboe, and Klein (2009) [DOI: 10.1177/0146167209343124] suggests that, in certain situations, being unrealistically optimistic can have negative consequences.

In their study, Dillard et al. measured how unrealistically optimistic college students were about their likelihood of experiencing alcohol-related problems. At two points in their freshman year and two points in their sophomore year, students were asked to indicate how likely they were, in comparison to other students of their same age and sex, to experience alcohol poisoning or alcoholism in their future. In addition, the students answered questions about their typical alcohol consumption and any alcohol-related negative events they had experienced recently (e.g., hangover, blackout, destruction of property, trouble with the law, etc.).

From these responses, the researchers were able to categorize the participants into those who were unrealistically optimistic that negative alcohol-related events would befall them and those who were more realistic or unrealistically pessimistic. The results showed that, over time, the unrealistically optimistic participants were more likely to experience negative alcohol-related events as compared to either the more realistic or pessimistic students.

In conclusion, looking on the sunny side of life may certainly be beneficial for your psychological health, but thinking that “It won’t happen to me” when it comes to alcohol might actually lead to a greater number of negative alcohol-related health outcomes in your future. So, please drink responsibly and realistically (and only if you’re of legal drinking age)!

Reference

• Dillard, A. J., Midboe, A. M. & Klein, W. M. P. (2009). [DOI: 10.1177/0146167209343124]. The dark side of optimism: Unrealistic optimism about problems with alcohol predicts subsequent negative event experiences.> Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1540–1550.

Case Study

Culture influences young people’s self-esteem

As described in the text, members of collectivistic cultures tend to have lower levels of self-esteem than members of individualistic cultures. In a recent study by more than 30 researchers from all over the world (Becker et al., 2014) [DOI: 10.1177/0146167214522836], the question was not “Who has higher vs. lower self-esteem?”, it was “what determines one’s self-esteem?” Over 4,800 teenagers were surveyed to determine whether living up to one’s respective cultural values has any influence on one’s self-esteem.

You may have always thought that your level self-esteem was determined by your own thoughts, feelings, and actions. That is partly true. But our self-esteem is also influenced by the extent to which we are a reflection of the values that are prioritized in our culture. For example, in many Western cultures, people’s self-esteem may be based on achieving status and feeling in control. In contrast, in many Eastern cultures, an important part of their self-esteem may be the extent to which people feel that they are doing their duty and putting others first.

The participants in this study were asked to answer the following question 10 times: “Who are you?” For example, individuals from Western cultures might respond with completions such as “I am awesome” or “I am a go-getter.” In contrast, people from Eastern cultures might respond with completions such as: “I am a brother” “I am a friend.” The participants then answered a number of questions in order to determine how much importance they placed on a number of values (i.e., being in control, doing your duty, helping others, and achieving social status). The scores from members of each country were averaged to determine how much weight each culture placed on each value.

The results showed that people’s self-esteem was influenced more by endorsing the values that one’s culture felt were important than by endorsing values each individual felt was personally important. More specifically, if one’s culture places importance on being in control and achieving social status (i.e., in Western cultures) then fulfilling those goals is an important part of one’s self-esteem. In contrast, if one’s culture places importance on doing one’s duty and helping others, then people will base their self-esteem on the fulfilment of those goals. It seems that living up to one’s cultural standards has an impact on people’s self-esteem all around the world!

Reference

• Becker, M., Vignoles, V. L., Owe, E., Easterbrook, M. J., Brown, R., Smith, P. B., Bond, M. H., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Brambilla, M., Aldhafri, S., Gonzalez, R., Carrasco, D., Paz Cadena, M., Lay, S., Schweiger Gallo, I., Torres, A., Camino, L., Ozgen, E., Guner, U. E., Yamako Lu, N., Silveira Lemos, F. C., Trujillo, E. V., Balanta, P., Macapagal, M. E. J., Cristina Ferreira, M., Herman, G., de Sauvage, I., Bourguignon, D., Wang, Q., Fulop, M., Harb, C., Chybicka, A., Mekonnen, K. H., Martin, M., Nizharadze, G., Gavreliuc, A., Buitendach, J., Valk, A., Koller, S. H. (2014). [DOI: 10.1177/0146167214522836].
Cultural bases for self-evaluation: Seeing oneself positively in different cultural contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 657–675.

Case Study

Bodily signs of emotion often intensify emotional feelings

The facial feedback hypothesis proposes a relation between emotional expressions and emotional feelings. Darwin (1872/1965) [DOI:10.1037/10001-014] noted that enhancing or inhibiting expressions influences the intensity of the corresponding emotions. Izard (1977) and Tomkins (1982) have proposed that the experience of emotions is affected by feedback from the muscles that are activated in the face (see Hess, Kappas, McHugo, Lanzetta, & Kleck, 1992 [DOI:10.1016/0167-8760(92)90064-I] for empirical evidence). This feedback mechanism applies to postures and vocal processes as well.

Adelmann and Zajonc’s (1989) [DOI:10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.001341] review investigated the role of emotional facial action in the subjective experience of emotion. They concluded that there is a positive association between facial efference and emotional experiences within participants. Facial expressions can modulate and initiate the experience of emotions. Support for the modulating function comes from Strack, Martin, and Stepper (1988) [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768] (see SP p. 117).

Several studies also demonstrated that facial expressions can initiate emotions. An example was reported by Zajonc et al. (1989) [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.395]; participants were asked to pronounce ü and o for one minute. Pronouncing ü causes an increase in forehead temperature, which is associated with negative feelings. Results showed that participants rated the o sound more positively than the ü sound. Zajonc et al. also included the sounds ah and e in their study, which produce a smile analog, and decrease forehead temperature, which is associated with positive feelings. The ah and e sounds were liked the most, while ü was least liked.

In general, Adelmann and Zajonc concluded that there are thus far no grounds to reject any theory on facial efference in the experience of emotion. McIntosh (1996) [DOI:10.1007/BF02253868] evaluated the possible mechanisms responsible for this facial effect on emotions. First, the Jamesian camp views the feedback effects as a part of the package of events that make up each emotion. Activating one part of the response set (for example, a smile) activates other parts of this set (for example, positive feelings). As noted, Zajonc et al. (1989) [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.395] argued that feedback effects are due to changing brain temperatures associated with specific feelings. Other researchers, however, see facial feedback as a by-product and suggest conditioning, self-perception, or dramaturgy plays an important role in those effects (see McIntosh, 1996 [DOI:10.1007/BF02253868]).

References

• Adelmann, P. K., & Zajonc, R. B. (1989). [DOI:10.1146/annurev.ps.40.020189.001341]. Facial efference and the experience of emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 249–280.
• Darwin, C. (1965). [DOI:10.1037/10001-014]. The expressions of the emotions in man and animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Original work was published in 1872).
• Hess, U., Kappas, A., McHugo, G. J., Lanzetta, J. T., & Kleck, R. E. (1992). [DOI:10.1016/0167-8760(92)90064-I]. The facilitative effect of facial expression on the self-generation of emotion. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 12,251–265.
• Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum.
• McIntosh, D. N. (1996). [DOI:10.1007/BF02253868]. Facial feedback hypotheses: Evidence, implications, and directions. Motivation and Emotion, 20,121–147.
• Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768]. Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 768–777.
• Tomkins, S. S. (1982). Affect theory. In P. Ekman (Ed.), Emotion in the human face (2nd ed., pp. 353–395). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Zajonc, R. B., Murphy, S. T., & Inglehart, M. (1989). [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.395]. Feeling and facial efference: Implications of the vascular theory of emotion. Psychological Review, 96, 395–416.

Case Study

Self-esteem and Facebook Use

Facebook is a world entirely of its own. It is a place where we can post even the most random bits of information and share such pearls of wisdom with the world. Perhaps you’ve noticed that people have different Facebook personalities. Some of your friends may frequently make positive comments about what they’re looking forward to. Others may enjoy sparking political debates, and some just want to complain.

The virtual world may seem like a safe haven to people; a place where they can express themselves without fear of judgment from others – at least not face-to-face judgment. This feature of Facebook frees up people who don’t feel as comfortable expressing themselves in face-to-face encounters – for example, people with low self-esteem.

Low self-esteem (LSE) is associated with less positive feelings about the self. People with low self-esteem often have more negative thoughts and, in interpersonal interactions, they are often more motivated to avoid rejection. Because of its virtual nature, then, Facebook might be just the place for LSE individuals to open up and express themselves. Because expressing yourself and sharing with others is good, right? Well, it depends on what you share.

Forest and Wood (2012, and yes, those are the authors’ last names) [DOI: 10.1177/0956797611429709] from the University of Waterloo, conducted three studies to examine the Facebook use of high versus low self-esteem individuals. In their first study, the researchers found that, indeed, participants with LSE felt more comfortable expressing themselves on Facebook than in person and thought that Facebook was a great place to connect with others. Given the greater amounts of negativity experienced by those with LSE, though, what type of information do they generally share?

In their second study, Forest and Wood (2012), assessed participants’ self-esteem and then asked them to log in to Facebook and submit their 10 most recent Facebook posts. Coders who were blind to the hypothesis then coded each post. The results showed that the posts by people with LSE were generally more negative and also expressed more negative emotional states such as anger, frustration, anxiety, and fear. In addition (without knowing the participants’ level of self-esteem), the coders rated the low self-esteem individuals as being less likeable, just from reading their posts. So, it seems that those with low self-esteem post more negative content and are liked less when they do. But, the individuals coding these posts were strangers to the participants. How might one’s friends react to posts such as these?

Before describing Study 3, ask yourself the following questions:

• Imagine that someone has just posted something negative on Facebook. Whose post will you be more likely to “Like” (if appropriate) and comment on: someone who generally tends to post positive information or someone who generally posts negative information?
• Now, imagine that someone has just posted something positive on Facebook. Whose post will you be more likely to “Like” and comment on: someone who generally tends to post positive information or someone who generally posts negative information?

Do you have some answers? Are you thinking of some specific people and posts? Well, read about Study 3 and see if you agree with the results…

In Study 3 by Forest and Wood (2012), participants again completed a self-esteem scale and they again submitted their 10 most recent Facebook posts. A separate set of individuals coded all of the same things as the previous study, in addition to one extra component. In this study, the coders also counted the number of “Likes” each post received as well as the number of people who commented on each post. What did they find? Forest and Wood found that people were more likely to comment/”Like” positive posts when they were made by someone with LSE (i.e., someone who usually posts negative information) than when they were made by someone with HSE. In contrast, negative posts made by HSE individuals (whose posts were presumably, usually more positive) resulted in a greater number of comments/“Likes” by their friends in comparison to such posts made by LSE individuals.

Are these results in line with your own personal experience? Forest and Wood (2012) suggested that people are more likely to comment on the positive posts made by LSE individuals because they are comparatively rare for such individuals. It can become tiresome reading the same old negative posts over and over again, so rather than commenting on (and thereby reinforcing posts such as these) one’s Facebook friends are more willing to reinforce the positive comments. In contrast, negative posts made by those with high self-esteem are less common and therefore comment-worthy. No one wants their usually upbeat, positive friend to be down in the dumps, so what better way to cheer him or her up than with an encouraging post on Facebook?

The take home message for individuals with low self-esteem is that Facebook can be a wonderful place to disclose and share information, but you’ll receive more support from your friends if your posts are positive.

Reference

• Forest, A. L., & Wood, J. V. (2012). [DOI: 10.1177/0956797611429709]. When social networking is not working: Individuals with low self-esteem recognize but do not reap the benefits of self-disclosure on Facebook. Psychological Science, 23, 295–302.

Case Study

The inability to shake regrets

It is an unfortunate, but natural part of life to have regrets. But what happens if you want to right a past wrong but you can’t because it’s too late? Researchers Bauer and Wrosch (2011) [DOI: 10.1177/0146167210393256] from Canada, suggest engaging in downward self-comparisons. In other words, compare yourself to someone whose regrets are even worse than yours.

Participants in this study completed a survey at two points in time. At the first point in time (the baseline), the participants were asked to write down their biggest life regret and then rate the extent to which there was a way for them to make amends and undo that regret. Next, participants were asked to indicate how their regret compared to the regrets felt by others of their own age. This indication provided a measure of upward and downward social comparisons. Those who engaged in upward social comparisons would see others as not having regrets that were as large as their own, whereas those who engaged in downward social comparisons would see others as have even bigger regrets than their own. Finally, the participants rated the extent to which they had experienced a variety of positive and negative emotions in the past couple of months and in the past year. The participants rated their emotions at the two points in time which allowed the researchers to determine a change of emotion score. The researchers then determined if there was any relationship between the use of upward/downward social comparisons, ability to undo a regret, and the participants’ emotional state.

The results showed that participants who engaged in downward social comparisons actually experienced a greater change in positive emotion from baseline to Time 2, but only if they felt that it was very unlikely that they could undo past wrongs. In contrast, the lowest amount of positive affect was felt by people who made upward comparisons and who felt that it was unlikely that they could undo past wrongs.

So, if you’re experiencing regret and it seems like it’s too late to right your wrong, consider comparing yourself to those who have worse regrets and hopefully you will feel a little better.

Reference

• Bauer, I & Wrosch, C. (2011) [DOI: 10.1177/0146167210393256]. Making up for lost opportunities: The protective role of downward social comparisons for coping with regrets across adulthood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 215–228.

Case Study

Isn’t it ironic? Anti-prejudice messages might make you more prejudiced

In the more tolerant world in which we live today, there is a huge push to increase acceptance and decrease discrimination in our communities, our schools, and our workplaces. But are people sending the right messages and are the interventions currently in use actually leading to the desired effects? Canadian researchers Legault, Gutsell and Inzlicht (2011) [DOI: 10.1177/0956797611427918] set out to determine the effect that anti-prejudice messages actually have in decreasing prejudice in their recipients.

As described in the text, people are motivated to control prejudice for internal reasons (e.g., because being non-prejudiced is personally important) and for external reasons (e.g., because it’s important to not look prejudiced in front of others). Other research shows that people who have an internal motivation to control prejudice actually do exhibit less racial bias than those with an external motivation (Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones & Vance, 2002). Along those same lines, Legault et al. (2011) predicted that phrasing anti-prejudice messages in such a way that emphasizes internal reasons for being non-prejudiced would lead to lower prejudice scores than messages that emphasize more external reasons for being non-prejudiced.

In their study, non-Black, Canadian college students read either an autonomy-support brochure (that emphasized an internal motivation and highlighted that it was the individual’s choice to be nonprejudiced) or a brochure with greater controlling themes (that emphasized external motivation by highlighting that prejudice must be decreased and individuals must be less prejudiced). Participants in the control condition did not read a brochure. Afterwards, each participant completed a survey to measure their level of prejudice.

The results showed that participants who read the autonomy-support anti-prejudice message actually displayed less prejudice than the participants in the control condition, who showed less prejudice in turn than the participants who read the controlling message. These results show that the motivation to control prejudice can be a reflection of people’s personal goals, but it can also come from the anti-prejudice messages. Ironically, if they are not carefully worded, the very messages that are designed to combat prejudice might actually lead to an increase in prejudice. Don’t you think it’s time for us all to decide to be less prejudiced?

References

• Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 835–848.
• Legault, L., Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2011). [DOI: 10.1177/0956797611427918]. Ironic effects of anti-prejudice messages: How motivational intervention reduces (but also increases) prejudice. Psychological Science, 22, 1472–1477.

Case Study

Prejudice toward migrants is difficult to think about

As mentioned in the text, stereotypes and prejudice form for a variety of reasons. One of the less obvious causes of stereotypes and prejudice occurs when people are asked to think about complex information. Researchers in Australia were interested in determining whether bias toward migrants may stem partially from the fact that migrants are more difficult to think about. Unlike more “typical” members of one’s country––who were born there, who speak the same language, who look like everyone else––immigrants to a country often stand out from the rest. When individuals appear to be out of place in a particular environment it becomes a little more challenging to process information about them. Could that processing difficulty lead to prejudice?

The answer, according to Rubin, Paolini, and Crisp (2010) [DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.006] is yes. Participants in their study were asked to imagine that they were part of either Group A or Group B. There were 20 people in both groups and everyone had been randomly assigned to their group. Next, they were asked to imagine that some of the individuals from both groups had been randomly selected to switch and go to the other group (so some members who started out in Group A migrated to Group B and vice versa). After this task, the participants were asked to allocate points to individuals who were original members of their groups and individuals who had migrated into their group. The participants then rated the different group members on various traits and finally rated how easy or difficult it was to think about the members who stayed in the same group versus the members who had switched groups.

The results showed that participants tended to allocate fewer points to the migrant group members, they rated these individuals less positively and they found these individuals to be more difficult to think about. Intriguingly, these difficulty ratings helped to explain the bias these participants had against the group members who had migrated into their groups. So, over and above the traditional bias we feel against people who are not part of our groups and against those in the minority, these results show an increase in negative feelings toward individuals who are out of place and therefore difficult to think about.

Reference

• Rubin, M., Paolini, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). [DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.006]. A processing fluency explanation of bias against migrants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 21–28.

Case Study

Trying to overcome stereotype effects

SP Chapter 5 describes stereotyping as largely automatic. This has been demonstrated for categories such as race, sex, and age (Kawakami et al., 2000) [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.871]. It is important to distinguish between stereotype activation and stereotype application. As described in SP Chapter 5, activation is influenced by salient cues, use of group labels, and the presence of a group member. Application refers to using these stereotypes to make judgments or guide actions towards a group. Research demonstrated that it may be possible to avoid using these stereotypes, for instance when people are motivated to be nonprejudiced (Kawakami et al., 2000). Thus the activated stereotypes are not applied.

Kawakami et al. argued that it is possible that low-prejudiced people have learned through practice to control stereotyping. Therefore they investigated whether training in negating stereotypic associations reduces the likelihood of automatic stereotype activation.

Specifically, participants were presented with two types of tasks, a training task, and an assessment of stereotypic activation task. In the training task, participants practiced responding “NO” to stereotypic traits and “YES” to nonstereotypic traits after the presentation of a category. After this intense training, participants showed a reduction in stereotype activation.

Other studies by Kawakami et al. (2000) replicated those effects, showing that participants who received cursory training or no prior training in negating stereotypic associations automatically activated stereotypes, while participants who received extensive training showed a reduction in stereotype activation.

Reference

• Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., Moll, J., Hermsen, S., & Russin, A. (2000). [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.871]. Just say no (to stereotyping): Effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 871–888.

Case Study

The power of contact: Seeing is believing

The latter part of Chapter 5 talks a lot about the conditions under which contact with members of other groups will lead to a decrease in stereotyping and prejudice. Some research shows that contact is helpful in changing stereotypes for the better and some research shows that contact does not influence one’s stereotypes. So, which is it?

In a recent set of studies on this topic, researchers from across, England, Europe, South Africa, Canada, and the United States analysed survey data and found that across these diverse countries, individuals who live in social contexts in which there is more positive intergroup contact and where this type of contact is the norm are less prejudiced (Christ, et al., 2014) [DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320901111]. One of the more striking findings was that individuals didn’t need to engage in the intergroup contact themselves––simply seeing others engaging in positive intergroup contact was related to less prejudice toward other groups. In addition, the researchers found that individuals who lived in more diverse environments became less prejudiced over time (which goes against one explanation for the contact hypothesis, which is that the results are entirely explained by people who are less prejudiced choosing to live in more diverse environments).

Overall, these exciting results show that, in environments that support diversity and positive intergroup contact, prejudice is reduced because seeing is believing!

Reference

• Christ, O., Schmid, K., Lolliot, S., Swart, H., Stolle, D., Tausch, N., Al Ramiah, A., Wagner, U., Vertovec, S., & Hewstone, M. (2014). [DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320901111]. Contextual effect of positive intergroup contact on outgroup prejudice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 3996–4000.

Case Study

The lasting impact of stigma

Believe it or not, stereotypes influence us all. In any given situation, a woman might feel nervous to take a math test, a Black applicant may feel stress when applying for a job, and even a White male may feel that his ability to empathize with others may come into question. In each of these situations, the nerves and stress may come from people’s fear of confirming a negative stereotype about their group. Women aren’t as good at math. Blacks are lazy. White men aren’t in touch with their feelings. This fear is known as stereotype threat and, depending on the situation, it can affect us all (Steele, 1997).

Stereotype threat is an uncomfortable experience, but given its situational nature, could there be any lasting effects of this threat? It turns out that the answer to this question is yes. Inzlicht and Kang (2010) [DOI: 10.1037/a0018951] had female college students from a Canadian university take part in their research. In each study, half of the female participants experienced stereotype threat (e.g., they believed that they would be taking a math test that would be diagnostic of their abilities) whereas the other half of the participants did not experience threat. The participants then took part in an ostensibly unrelated second experiment that they believed was unrelated to the first task.

Across four separate studies, the researchers showed that female participants who had experienced stereotype threat: (1) were more aggressive to a partner that they believed gave them negative feedback; (2) ate more ice cream as part of a supposed taste test; (3) made more risky decisions; and (4) demonstrated less self-control. The authors explain that the experience of stereotype threat exhausts people’s ability to self-regulate and that lack of “willpower” results in behavior that may be unhealthy for the individual in the long run.

Reference

• Inzlicht, M. & Kang, S. K. (2010). [DOI: 10.1037/a0018951]. Stereotype threat spillover: How coping with threats to social identity affects aggression, eating, decision making, and attention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 467–481.
• Steele, C.M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629.

Case Study

#

See me as female, not as Asian

Imagine that you’re trying to get in to a popular course on your campus, only to be told that the course is closed and the instructor will not let you in. How would you try to make sense of this refusal? Might it be due to your race or to your gender? We all have a number of in-groups that we can identify with at a moment’s notice. As described in the text, one way that stigmatized individuals can protect their sense of self is to re-direct their attention from a societally devalued identity to an identity that is valued more highly in a particular situation. But what if two of your most salient identities have the potential to be negatively valued? Do prejudice and discrimination against both identities hurt equally as bad?

Remedios, Chasteen, and Paek (2011) [DOI: 10.1177/1368430211411594] from the University of Toronto set out to determine whether sexism or racism against members of a minority group would be equally deleterious. In Study 1, Asian female college students were asked to imagine that a professor would not let them in to a course. Each of the participants were then given a different explanation for why the professor wouldn’t let them in. Participants in the racism condition were told that the professor didn’t let any Koreans in (i.e., if the participant was Korean) but he had let 10 White students in. Participants in the sexism condition learned that the professor didn’t let any female students in but he had let 10 male participants in. Finally, participants in the individual rejection condition were told that the professor didn’t let them in because he thought they were unintelligent. After imagining such a rejection, the participants then rated the extent to which they blamed the rejection on discrimination, on something internal about themselves, or something external (e.g. about the professor). The results showed that the participants were more likely to make internal attributions for racism (“It was something about me”) than for sexism. Despite this internal attribution, the participants did realize that they had been discriminated against, therefore they didn’t blame themselves more for the race-based discrimination.

In the second study, Asian female participants were asked to recall a rejection experience from their own lives. Again, 1/3 of the participants recalled a past experience with racism, 1/3 recalled a past experience with sexism, and 1/3 recalled a personal rejection experience. The results of this study showed that the participants again were more likely to internalize racism as opposed to sexism and that they also feel greater levels of depression after remembering a past experience with racism. In Study 3, Asian females rated the extent to which they experienced racism and sexism. The results of this study showed that racism was more salient to the participants than sexism.

The authors suggest that perhaps the reason why the experience of racism takes more of a toll on these participants than does sexism, is because it is a more salient part of their identity. Based on the attributions that were made in the first two studies, it appears that Asian Canadian women attribute racism to something internal about themselves, making these experiences seem like more of a personal affront. In contrast, experiences of sexism may be attributed to failings of the other person, not the self. Regardless, the results of this study suggest that all prejudice is not experienced the same and, in certain situations, one’s more salient identities may not offer protection from rejection by others.

Reference

• Remedios, J.D., Chasteen, A. L., & Paek, J. D. (2011). [DOI: 10.1177/1368430211411594]. Not all prejudices are experienced equally: Comparing experiences of racism and sexism in female minorities. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 273–287.

Case Study

You don’t know me: Hiding your true self at work

Is it better to have a concealable stigma or a visible stigma? That is the question. On the surface, it seems obvious that a concealable stigma, such as homosexuality or having a stutter, would be “better” to have because people could hide their status and be in control of when, or if, to tell people. Then again, how hard would it be to keep such a secret and always live in fear that others will find out and discriminate against you? Recent research by Madera, King, and Hebl (2012) [DOI: 10.1037/a0027724] shows that trying to keep one’s stigmatized status a secret at work can have detrimental effects on one’s health.

In their study, Madera et al. (2012) surveyed a number of employees and asked them to rate which of any social groups they identified with (e.g., race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.), which identities they displayed/acknowledged at work, whether any identities were suppressed/concealed at work, whether they had noticed discrimination against someone from their identity group at work, their job satisfaction and any intentions they had to quit their job.

The results showed that individuals who manifested concealable identities at work (e.g., told coworkers they were gay) experienced less discrimination and were happier at work. In contrast, employees who suppressed an identity (e.g., hid the fact that they were gay) noticed more discrimination against others with whom they shared a group identity, were less satisfied with their jobs, and were more inclined to quit their job.

These results suggest that managing one’s concealed identity takes work (no pun intended) and can lead to negative outcomes for employees. This strain may come from not feeling comfortable to disclose an important part of yourself or even hearing the negative comments your coworkers make about others because they are unaware of your concealed identity. Regardless, these findings provide an important message for employers, which is the importance of creating open and accepting workplaces. Until the work environment is a place of acceptance for all, employees will still feel compelled to keep part of their identity secret, thereby creating a less satisfied and productive workforce.

Reference

• Madera, J. M., King, E. B., & Hebl, M. R. (2012). [DOI: 10.1037/a0027724]. Bringing social identity to work: The influence of manifestation and suppression on perceived discrimination, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 165–170.

Case Study

It gets better: Providing support to targets of prejudice

A good deal of research has focused on perceptions of stigmatized individuals from the perspective of those who are in the non-stigmatized majority. Stigma is anything that sets someone apart from the norm. Anyone who has ever stood out before knows that feeling different from everyone else can be a very isolating and uncomfortable experience. In situations such as those, what could a person who is not in your situation do to make you feel better?

Recent research by Rattan and Ambady (2014) [DOI: 10.1177/0146167213519480] explored the virtual messages that are sent via social media and how those messages affect their recipients. Specifically, they analysed different types of messages posted on the It Gets Better website and examined whether or not lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and questioning (LGBTQ) youth were comforted by the messages. This website was developed in 2010 after a series of youths took their lives after being bullied because of their presumed or actual sexual orientation. The videos posted on this site are overwhelmingly messages of support for this population.

In the first study, 50 of the most commonly viewed videos from the It Gets Better website were coded for social connection versus social change messages. Social connection messages are those in which the person in the video expresses liking, caring, and support for the viewer. In contrast, social change messages were those in which the viewer predicted that prejudiced views would change and that family members and friends would become more accepting. The results of this first study showed that, while all of the videos delivered a message of comfort, about half of the videos conveyed a social connection message and about a quarter conveyed a social change message.

But how do LGBTQ viewers respond to such messages? The goal of the next study was to determine whether the different messages were more or less comforting to LGBTQ viewers. In this study, participants who self-identified as lesbian or gay rated messages that had social connection themes and those that had social change themes in terms of how comforting they were. The results showed that the participants perceived both types of messages as being comforting, but they were slightly more comforted by the social change messages.

These results are related to the findings discussed in your text by Bergsieker, Shelton and Richeson (2010) [DOI: 10.1037/a0018474]. In the slightly different context of an interracial interaction, the goal of Whites is to be liked and seen as unbiased, whereas the goal of Blacks is to be respected and seen as competent. If it is a common wish to be respected, rather than liked in interactions like these, then perhaps it makes sense that LGBTQ individuals are slightly more comforted by social change messages. These messages promise a future where prejudice will decrease and people will be treated fairly, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Visit the It Gets Better website for more information… www.itgetsbetter.org/

References

• Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N. & Richeson, J. A. (2010). [DOI: 10.1037/a0018474]. To be liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248–264.
• Rattan, A. & Ambady, N. (2014). [DOI: 10.1177/0146167213519480]. How “It Gets Better”: Effectively communicating support to targets of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 555–566.

Case Study

Changing the definition of in-group

The definition of in-group can be changed by recategorizing individuals. This can be done in a various different ways. One way is to recategorize individuals into one superordinate group; “they” and “us” become “we.” The former intergroup boundaries are replaced with a single, inclusive boundary. Another way to recategorize individuals is to see them as separate individuals instead of belonging to a group. This separate-individuals representation is another strategy next to one-group representation to reduce intergroup bias, and it transforms one’s salient personal identity from “we” to “me.”

Gaertner et al. (1989) [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239] demonstrated that both strategies reduced intergroup bias. However, they reduced this bias in different ways. One-group representation reduced intergroup bias by evaluating the former out-group members more positively; while separate-individuals representation reduced intergroup bias by evaluating former in-group members less positively. In addition, in one-group representation, interactions with former out-group members were regarded as more friendly, cooperative, and trusting than in the separate-individuals representation. So reducing intergroup bias by recategorizing individuals into one superordinate group is preferred to the separate-individuals representation.

Reference

• Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239]. Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239–249.

Case Study

Heuristics: When it feels good, I must like it. Positive affect in advertisements

The use of humor in advertisements

Advertisements are everywhere around us; on TV and the radio, in newspapers and magazines, on billboards, and so on. As we have seen, generating positive affect in a persuasive message can be helpful. In a lot of advertisements, humor is used. The idea is that when we can laugh about an advertisement, we generate positive affect and consequently like the product more. However, the effect of humor in advertisements has never actually been studied.

Strick, Van Baaren, Holland, and Van Knippenberg (2006) were the first to investigate the effect of humor in advertisements. In two studies they found that the use of humor had two different effects.

The researchers found that subjects recognized the name of the product less well, and also more slowly, when it was accompanied by humor. This is explained by the fact that people use cognitive space to process the humorous content, which distracts from the product.

However, subjects evaluated the product in the humorous advertisement more positively, and showed congruent behavior: they more often chose the product that was accompanied by humor.

This research shows that the use of humor in advertisements helps to create a positive attitude towards the product, but does not help to make the product name more well known.

Reference

• Strick, M., Van Baaren, R., Holland, R. W., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2006). Humor in reclame: De onbewuste invloed van humor op herkenning, attitudes en gedrag. In R. Holland, J. Ouwerkerk, C. van Laar, R. Ruiter, & J. Ham (Eds.), Jaarboek sociale psychologie 2005. Groningen, The Netherlands: ASPO Pers.

Case Study

Are angry sources with threatening messages more persuasive?

We’ve all seen public service announcements telling us to stop smoking, stop texting while driving, etc. As you can imagine, there are a huge number of factors that can influence whether or not we are persuaded by such advertisements. In a study by Kim and Niederdeppe (2009) [DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2013.837550], participants watched anti-smoking ads in which the speaker conveyed the same message, but he used either a sad or an angry tone. Which do you think would be more persuasive? A sad speaker or an angry speaker? What about a speaker who was likeable or a speaker who was dominant?

To put this question to the test, the researchers had college students from the U.S. watch one of three anti-smoking advertisements: one with a sadness frame (in which the speaker conveyed sadness while delivering the message), one with an anger frame (in which the speaker conveyed anger while delivering the message), and one in which no emotion was portrayed. In all cases, the speaker delivered a message about how smoking killed his sister and how the tobacco industry was to blame.

After watching the advertisement, the participants made ratings of the speaker (how likeable he was, how dominant, how competent, etc.), of their own emotions, and of their intentions to stop smoking (assuming they were a smoker). The results showed that the sadness-framed message did not influence perceptions of the speaker nor did it influence intentions to smoke. On the contrary, when the speaker delivered an anger-framed message, he was perceived as more dominant and strong (but less likeable) and the participants indicated lowered intentions to smoke.

So, the next time you’re watching television and a commercial like this comes on, see if you can guess whether it will be effective. If the speaker delivering the message is angry, then chances are it will.

Reference

• Kim, S.J. & Niederdeppe, J. (2014). [DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2013.837550]. Emotional expressions in antismoking television advertisements: Consequences of anger and sadness framing on pathways to persuasion. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 692–709.

Case Study

Are people as naïve as persuaders think?

In this chapter, you are learning about the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) which makes predictions about when people will be persuaded by superficial cues vs. the strength and quality of the arguments. Does this model just seem to make sense? It turns out that, if you think really hard, you may have known about this theory all along. Not persuaded? Well, read on …

Researchers from the University of Kent at Canterbury wanted to measure people’s intuitive beliefs about persuasion, including people’s thoughts about whether they are more or less easily persuaded than others. As you may recall from Chapter 4, people tend to have a pretty positive view of the self and that view extends to people’s perceptions of how easily persuaded they are. It turns out, people believe that they are less persuadable than others. After all, being gullible is perceived to be a negative characteristic, and no one likes to associate negative traits with the self. What else do people think?

In this study, Douglas, Sutton, and Stathi (2010) [DOI: 10.1080/15534511003597423] asked separate groups of participants to make ratings of either the self or others in terms of how weak-minded they are, how strong-minded they are, and how much they enjoy thinking about things (this item may look familiar because it is tapping need for cognition). Because they wanted to tap the beliefs of completely naïve individuals, the researchers selected only non-psychology majors as participants. After making these ratings, all of the participants then viewed a number of advertisements and rated how likely they (or other people) were to be persuaded by the ads. The advertisements were specifically selected because they made use of a number of peripheral cues, rather than central cues.

The results showed that the participants believed that weak-minded people would find the advertisements more persuasive than strong-minded people. In addition they also believed that those who liked to think more (i.e., those who were higher in need for cognition) would be less persuaded by the advertisements. Last but not least, people rated themselves as being more strong-minded, and higher in need for cognition than other people and therefore predicted that they would be less persuaded by the advertisements.

So, naïve individuals, who knew little about psychology, still understood that people who enjoy thinking and people who are of strong mind will be less persuaded. Does that sound like something you’ve heard about before? Could it be the Elaboration Likelihood Model? It could! It seems that even naïve perceivers have an intuitive understanding of that factors that will lead people to be persuaded by superficial cues. But are people really as resistant to persuasion as they think? Here’s a guess: if everyone believes that they are not as easily persuaded as others, then who is buying all of those items from the infomercials?

Reference

• Douglas, K., Sutton, R., & Stathi, S. (2010). [DOI: 10.1080/15534511003597423]. Why I am less persuaded than you: People's intuitive understanding of the psychology of persuasion. Social Influence, 5, 133–148.

Case Study

How to resist persuasion? Look me in the eye

In certain cultures, looking someone in the eye is a sign of respect and shows the other person that you are listening to them. It follows that, when you look another person directly in the eye, you should be more focused on the content of their message and therefore more persuaded by whatever they are saying. But is good eye contact really that persuasive?

In research conducted in Germany, Chen, Minson, Schone and Heinrichs (2013) [DOI: 10.1177/0956797613491968] explored whether people who looked others in the eye were more easily persuaded. In Study 1, participants were asked to watch videos on topics such as assisted suicide, nuclear energy, gender quotas in German businesses, etc. While watching each video, participants’ eye gazes were recorded with eye-tracking software. The results of this first study showed that participants who spent more time looking at the speaker’s eyes indicated greater agreement with the message. But, for those participants who initially disagreed with the speaker’s message, increased eye gaze led to less agreement with the message and less attitude change.

In Study 2, participants watched a video in which the speaker was arguing against the participants’ own personal beliefs. Half of the participants in this condition were told to watch the speaker’s eyes throughout the duration of the video, whereas the other half of the participants were told to watch the speaker’s mouth. The findings from this study again showed that focusing on the speaker’s eyes led to less agreement with the message in contrast to those who watched the speaker’s mouth.

Why does increased eye contact lead to less persuasion on topics that people already disagree with? The authors reviewed research showing that making direct eye contact also sends the signal that the speaker is dominant and potentially trying to influence you. If you go into a setting in which someone is making direct eye contact, you may already have your guard up because you think that they are trying to persuade you. So, the participants who were asked, in Study 2, to make direct eye contact were more than likely generating counterarguments as they watched the video because they used the direct eye contact by the speaker as a signal that a persuasion attempt was at hand.

So, the next time you want to persuade someone who is against your views, consider using direct eye contact more sparingly, and perhaps you will win them over to your side.

Reference

• Chen, F. S., Minson, J. A., Schone, M., & Heinrichs, M. (2013). [DOI: 10.1177/0956797613491968]. In the eye of the beholder: Eye contact increases resistance to persuasion. Psychological Science, 24, 2254–2261.

Case Study

From actions to attitudes superficially: Self-perception and attitude strength

Do our likes and dislikes guide our behavior, or do they follow on from our behavior? Do we first evaluate an object and behave consistently (e.g., David Lynch is a great film-director! Let’s watch his new movie), or do we first behave in a positive or a negative manner towards an object, and infer our attitudes from that behavior (e.g., I have seen nearly all his movies, so I guess I like David Lynch)? The question concerning the direction of the attitude–behavior relationship has intrigued social psychologists for a long time. Without any doubt, there is ample evidence for both causal directions of attitude–behavior relations. So in which circumstances do attitudes influence our behavior, and in which circumstances are attitudes inferred from behavior?

In a study by Holland, Verplanken, and van Knippenberg (2002) [DOI:10.1002/ejsp.135], the strength of an attitude was studied as the pivotal factor. In their study, attitude strength (certainty of an attitude, how personally important the attitude is) and attitudes towards Greenpeace were measured during a preliminary session. Two weeks later, participants returned to the laboratory and were given the opportunity to donate money to Greenpeace. Interestingly, after their behavior attitudes were measured once more, results showed that strong attitudes were predictive of the amount of money that was donated to Greenpeace, whereas weak attitudes were not. However, with regard to the self-perception effect, the reverse was found. Behavior had an impact on weak attitudes, but not on strong attitudes. The results are depicted in Figure 1.

This study shows that two basic causal relations between attitudes and behavior depend on the strength of attitudes. When attitudes are strong, they are more easily retrieved from memory, and guide behavior. Also, contextual influences like our own recent behavior have less influence on such strong attitudes. On the other hand, when attitudes are weak, contextual influences are more likely to have an impact. As a consequence, self-perception effects are more likely to occur. In other words, the strong guide, and the weak follow.

Reference

• Holland, R. W., Verplanken, B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2002). [DOI:10.1002/ejsp.135]. On the nature of attitude–behavior relations: The strong guide, the weak follow. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 869–876.

Case Study

I feel the need for speed: Risky attitudes predict driving violations

Throughout the US and the UK it is well known that new drivers pose a risk on the road because of their inexperience. In theory, then, greater experience behind the wheel should lead to less risky behavior behind the wheel. But is that really the case, and do the attitudes that new drivers have about risky driving at all predict their later driving behavior?

Researchers from the UK conducted a longitudinal study in which they assessed the attitudes of non-drivers, pre-qualified drivers (i.e., those with their learner’s permits), and qualified drivers (i.e., those with their licenses) and followed them over the course of four years (Rowe, Maughan, Gregory & Eley, 2013) [DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040551]. Their results showed that greater experience behind the wheel led to greater confidence driving, but that greater experience also led to the endorsement of more risky attitudes. When all of the drivers and non-drivers were tested at baseline, there was no difference among their attitudes toward driving. But the more experience that the drivers had behind the wheel, the more risky their attitudes became. In addition, for both the pre-qualified drivers and the qualified drivers, their attitudes at baseline significantly predicted the number of driving violations they would incur.

Why does experience correlate with more risky driving? The authors suggested that as people become more confident drivers, they feel more in control and able to speed and engage in other risky behaviors. One important lesson from this research is that, if the attitudes of pre-qualified drivers predict their later attitudes and driving behavior, then driver’s education classes would be an excellent place to change attitudes before driving behaviors become habit. As we learned in the previous chapter, driver’s ed would be the perfect place to include some fear-based persuasive appeals about safe driving; because the way to change the negative behavior is simple––just take your foot off the gas and slow down.

Reference

• Rowe, R., Maughan, B., Gregory, A. M., & Eley T. C. (2013). [DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040551]. The development of risky attitudes from pre-driving to fully-qualified driving. Injury Prevention, 19, 244–249.

Case Study

He loves me, he loves me not …

A lot of research has been conducted to understand the relevance of one’s implicit attitudes and whether those attitudes actually predict people’s overt behavior in meaningful ways. Do implicit attitudes have anything to do with gut feelings? If so, when should we actually follow our gut? Recent research by McNulty, Olson, Meltzer and Shaffer (2013) [DOI: 10.1126/science.1243140] suggests that sometimes it pays to trust your gut, especially on big decisions such as whether or not to get married. Feeling skeptical? Then read on …

Some 135 newlywed couples from the US were part of a four-year longitudinal study. At the beginning of the study, both partners completed implicit and explicit measures that assessed their attitudes toward their partner. Every 6 months thereafter, the couples completed surveys of their marital satisfaction, the number and severity of their relationship problems, etc. At the conclusion of the study, the results showed that spouses’ conscious, explicit attitudes did not predict their later martial satisfaction, but their implicit thoughts did. At baseline, those spouses who had a more positive implicit attitude about their partner felt more marital satisfaction over time, compared to those who had more negative implicit attitudes. These results are partly explained by the spouses who initially had positive attitudes perceiving fewer problems with their partners over time. Intriguingly, the authors found no correlation between the individual’s implicit and explicit attitudes, suggesting that they were not consciously aware of their implicit attitudes.

There could be any number of reasons why people’s conscious attitudes about marriage didn’t predict their later marital satisfaction. Perhaps some spouses were putting on a brave face, or hoping things would all work out in the end. What this research does show, though, is that implicit measures can predict future behavior that is quite meaningful. More importantly, this research suggests that if your gut is telling you that you have found the love of your life, then your future should look pretty bright. On the other hand, if your gut is telling you that this is not the one, then consider listening to that little voice. It might prevent you from experiencing unhappiness down the road.

Reference

• McNulty, J. K., Olson, M. A., Meltzer, A. L., & Shaffer, M. J. (2013). [DOI: 10.1126/science.1243140]. Though they may be unaware, newlyweds implicitly know whether their marriage will be satisfying. Science, 342, 1119–1120.

Case Study

Your brain on conformity

Do the brains of people who conform more often look different than the brains of those who conform less? In a recent study conducted in England, Campbell-Meiklejohn and colleagues (2012) [DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.012] used MRI technology to study people’s brains in potential conformity situations.

In this study, participants were asked to rate their preference for songs that they wanted but did not own and songs they had never heard before. After making their choices, they then learned which songs were preferred by two respected music-experts. After making a series of such ratings, the participants then rated the songs again and the extent to which their ratings changed to match the preferences of the music critics was used as a measure of conformity. While making each of these ratings, the activity in different areas of the participants’ brains was being recorded.

The results showed that individuals who had more grey matter in the lateral orbitofrontal cortex of the brain conformed more often. These results have interesting implications for conformity among those with brain damage. The findings also beg the question of where these brain differences came from. Do people conform more because they have a greater volume of grey matter in this particular area of the brain, or do people who are born with more grey matter in this area of the brain end up conforming more throughout their lives? Only time (and more research) will tell.

Reference

• Campbell-Meiklejohn, D.K., Kanai, R., Bahrami, B., Bach, D.R., Dolan, R.J., Roepstorff, A., & Frith, C.D. (2012). [DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.012]. Structure of orbitofrontal cortex predicts social influence. Current Biology, 22, R123–R124.

Case Study

Conformity and culture

When cultures are more collectivistic, conformity is higher. Identification with the group also influences the amount of conformity; when people identify highly with their group, they show more conformity than low-identifiers. This is even true when the social norm of the group is “not to conform”!

Jetten, Postmes, and McAuliffe (2002) [DOI:10.1002/ejsp.65] conducted three studies on the power of group norms of individualism and collectivism to guide self-definition and group behavior for people with low and high levels of group identification.

In their first study, they showed that North Americans who identify highly with their national identity, which includes their individualistic culture, are more individualistic than North Americans who are low-identifiers. In contrast, they showed that people from a collectivistic culture who identified highly with their group were less individualistic than low-identifiers.

In a second study, they manipulated the group norms of individualism and collectivism, and showed that high-identifiers incorporate the group norms that are salient at that moment more strongly than low-identifiers.

Finally, in their third study, they replicated this, showing that conformity to group norms is stronger when highly identifying with the group. In addition, high-identifiers stereotype themselves more in line with the salient norm than low-identifiers. So even when the group norm is individualism, high-identifiers show more conformity towards the group’s norms.

Reference

• Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). [DOI:10.1002/ejsp.65]. “We're all individuals”: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification, and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32,189–207.

Case Study

You are what others eat

As the old saying goes: “You are what you eat,” but did you know that you are also influenced by what others eat? If you’ve ever followed the advice of a friend regarding how to eat better, or used the behavior of others as a cue of how much (or how little) to eat at a party, then you too have experienced the power of social norms on food intake. Researchers from the UK conducted a meta-analysis in which they compiled the results from a number of studies on the food norms of others and how those norms influence individual food consumption. Specifically, the authors focused their attention on whether learning information about what others eat can impact our own eating behavior, even when we are alone.

The results of their analyses showed that, when participants learned that other individuals had consumed a lot of a particular food, they too ate more of the food than those in a control group. In contrast, when the norm was reversed and participants learned that others had not eaten much of a particular food, their own food intake decreased as well. Next, as referenced in the text, learning of the food decisions of in-group and out-group members has an impact on our own food choices. When participants learned that members of a socially undesirable group consumed a lot of junk food, they consumed less junk food themselves. Intriguingly, the results also showed that participants were more influenced by what others actually eat (i.e., descriptive norms) than by what others say they approve of eating (i.e., injunctive norms).

Taken together, this research provides evidence that the information we learn about what others eat teaches us something about what we should be eating ourselves. This information may contribute to healthier eating behaviors, or not, depending on the norm. At an applied level, these results have important implications for public health campaigns. If we are (influenced by) what others eat, then messages that portray valued others engaging in healthy eating will be more influential than messages telling people how they should eat.

Reference

• Robinson, E., Thomas, J., Aveyard, P., & Higgs, S. (2014). What everyone else is eating: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of informational eating norms on eating behavior. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 114, 414–429.

Case Study

Groupthink

Janis (1982) determined eight symptoms indicative of groupthink:

• Illusion of invulnerability;
• Unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group;
• Collective rationalization of group’s decisions;
• Shared stereotypes of out-group;
• Self-censorship;
• Illusion of unanimity;
• Direct pressure on dissenters to conform;
• Self-appointed “mindguards” protect the group from negative information.

His seven symptoms of a decision affected by groupthink are:

• Incomplete survey of alternatives;
• Incomplete survey of objectives;
• Failure to examine risks of preferred choice;
• Failure to re-appraise initially rejected alternatives;
• Poor information search;
• Selective bias in processing information at hand;
• Failure to work out contingency plans.

Studies on groupthink fall into two broad research areas; in one area historical cases of poor decision-making are analyzed, whereas in the other area studies of groupthink are conducted in the laboratory.

Historical cases that were analyzed include, for instance, the decision to focus on training instead of on the defense of Pearl Harbor, despite attack warnings; a series of decisions on the escalation of the Vietnam War; the development of the Marshall Plan; the decision to cover up the involvement of the Nixon White House in the burglary of the Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate building; and NASA’s decision to launch the Challenger space shuttle. Analyzing these cases led to more insights into the theory of groupthink. New symptoms are suggested, and other ones are called into question.

Laboratory studies on groupthink tested the links between symptoms and groupthink. Because groupthink represents privately held feelings and thoughts of individual group members, symptoms of groupthink are measured by “simply” asking group members questions.

Comparing case and laboratory analyses is difficult, but according to Esser (1998) [DOI:10.1006/obhd.1998.2758], both areas of research suggest that group cohesiveness is not strongly related to groupthink, while structural and procedural faults are strong predictors.

References

• Esser, J. K. (1998). [DOI:10.1006/obhd.1998.2758]. Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73,116–141.
• Janis, I. (1982). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Case Study

Deindividuation and cheating in online games

Have you ever read the comments section under a news article and been amazed at how brazen and rude some people can be? Under the cloak of anonymity afforded by the internet it seems that anything goes. Recently, Chen and Wu (2013) [DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2013.843721] explored whether playing online games anonymously led people to cheat more. They also wondered whether, as suggested in the text, this state of deindividuation highlighted people’s social identity as gamers and led players to conform more to group norms.

Everyone knows that it’s not fair to cheat (an injunctive norm), but in the online gaming environment, what do people really do (i.e., what is the descriptive norm regarding cheating)? Previous research on online gaming has shown that many people will cheat online and that it seems to be a fairly normative behavior in this domain. In this study, Chen and Wu (2013) surveyed individuals from Singapore who played online games. These players were, on average, 18 years of age, and they were asked to indicate how often they played online games with strangers (i.e., anonymously), how often they posted on gaming websites (and other indications that playing online games was part of their social identity), and how often they cheated.

The results showed that, as predicted, anonymity/deindividuation led to greater rates of cheating. Specifically, those individuals who were more highly socially identified as game players were more likely to cheat under conditions of anonymity. Both males and females were surveyed in this study. Who do you think cheated more? It turns out that males, on average, were more likely to cheat than their female counterparts, although females who were more socially identified were also more likely to cheat than were less identified female gamers.

These results provide support for the idea that deindividuation, even in virtual environments, leads people to perpetuate the norms of valued social identities.

Reference

• Chen, V. H. H., & Wu, Y. (2013). Group identification as a mediator of the effect of players’ anonymity on cheating in online games. Behaviour & Information Technology, [DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2013.843721]

Case Study

The low-ball technique

In a series of studies by Cialdini, Cacioppo, Basset, and Miller (1978) [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.463], it was demonstrated that greater compliance was obtained when participants who made an initial decision to perform a behavior were asked to perform a more costly behavior than when participants were informed about the full costs from the beginning. This demonstrates the low-ball technique. Additionally, it was shown that the technique was only effective when the preliminary decision was made with a high degree of choice. Cialdini et al. argued that the concept of commitment could best account for these results.

However, Burger and Petty (1981) [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.492] came to a different conclusion on the mediating process involved in the low-ball technique. In their first experiment, they demonstrated that the low-ball technique only resulted in greater compliance when the second request came from the same person as the first, but not when the second request came from a different person. In their second study, the low-ball technique was effective whether the second request was related or unrelated to the first request. These results suggest that an unfulfilled obligation to the requester, rather than commitment to the target behavior, is responsible for the effectiveness of the low-ball technique.

References

• Burger, J. M., & Petty, R. E. (1981). [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.492]. The low-ball compliance technique: Task or person commitment? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,492–500.
• Cialdini, R. B., Cacioppo, J. T., Basset, R., & Miller, J. A. (1978). [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.463]. Low-ball procedure for producing compliance: Commitment then cost. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36,463–476.

Case Study

Abu Ghraib

The Abu Ghraib prison is a notorious prison in Iraq, located in Abu Ghraib, near Baghdad. It was the place where Saddam Hussein’s government tortured and executed dissidents. In April 2004, the prison became notorious when the Coalition Provisional Authority took over control and a report came out on the United States military’s torture of Iraqi dissidents.

According to Fiske, Harris, and Cuddy (2004) [DOI:10.1126/science.1103788], the situation of the military guarding Abu Ghraib prisoners fits all the conditions that are known to cause aggression:

Their morale suffered, they were untrained for the job, their command climate was lax, their return home was a year overdue, their identity as disciplined soldiers was gone, and their own amenities were scant. Heat and discomfort also doubtless contributed.

(Fiske et al., 2004, p. 1482)

Additionally, the prisoners were seen as out-group members who are part of the enemy, so prejudice and discrimination are easily present (see Chapter 6).

Next to these conditions that elicit discrimination and aggression, norms of conformity and obedience to authority play an important role in the abuse. As Fiske et al. put it: “in combat, conformity to one’s unit means survival, and ostracism is death.” A guard may start with a small action, other guards may follow in conformity to the first, and to fulfill their role. And those actions become worse. As can be learned from the Milgram studies, ordinary people can do horrible things under the influence of complex social forces and authority.

Reference

• Fiske, S. T., Harris, L. T., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2004). [DOI:10.1126/science.1103788]. Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science, 26, 1482–1483.

Case Study

Tortured victims appear more guilty

Torture is a method used to forcibly “encourage” someone to tell the truth. As noted in the text, those who inflict pain on others often experience dissonance, and one way to resolve that dissonance is to blame the victim and see them as somehow deserving of negative treatment.

In a study by Gray and Wegner (2010) [DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.003], participants were asked to listen as a confederate underwent a painful experience (that was likened to “torture”) to elicit a confession. Specifically, the participants were told that the confederate may have lied and acted in a self-serving way. In addition, one way to determine whether the confederate just engaged in a dishonest act would be to have her endure a cold pressor task, in which she places her hand in ice-cold water for 80 seconds. The proximity of the participants was manipulated such that half of the participants either listened from the next room, whereas the other half listened to a previously recorded tape of the confederate enduring the cold pressor task. In addition, the amount of pain experienced by the confederate was manipulated such that half of the participants heard her whimper throughout the experiment whereas the others heard no reaction by the participant during the 80-second task. After the task was completed, the participants rated how guilty the confederate seemed. They were also debriefed before leaving the experiment.

The results of this study showed that the participants who were close by and heard the confederate whimper in pain, later perceived her to be more guilty than the participants who heard a recording of the confederate in the same condition. These results support what Milgram (1974) noticed in his obedience research––that participants who went all the way to the end of the shock generator were more likely to derogate and blame the learners for their predicament.

These findings suggest that being close to victims of torture (even if we are not the direct cause of their suffering) still creates an uncomfortable feeling inside of us that we are motivated to dampen, and one way to do this is to blame the victim.

ReferenceS

• Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). [DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.003]. Torture and judgments of guilt. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 233–235.
  Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.

Case Study

The Köhler effect: When the weakest link isn’t so weak anymore

Research on social loafing has shown that people tend to slack off and do less work in groups than when they perform the same task alone. So does every group member decrease effort, or do large groups in fact give some group members a reason to shine? The text describes how, in certain group contexts, the weakest group members actually rise to the occasion and work harder in groups than they do alone. This is called the Köhler effect (named after Otto Köhler who discovered the effect in the 1920s).

In two studies, Osborn, Irwin, Skogsbert, and Feltz (2012) [DOI: 10.1037/a0026887] examined the performance of collegiate swimmers who competed in a four-person relay event (Study 1) and track athletes competing in three-person discus and shot-put events (Study 2). For each sporting event, they compared the performances of each individual when they competed alone vs. when they competed in a team. The authors hypothesized that the weakest member individually would rise to the challenge and show greater motivational games (i.e. a better performance as a teammate than as an individual) than the strongest team member (who would show signs of social loafing).

The results of Study 1 showed that the athletes swam faster during their relay races than during their individual swims. Do you want to know which team member was the most responsible for the faster team time? The weakest link! Those swimmers who were the slowest during their individual races actually swam much faster when they were swimming the relay race with their teammates. These results were then conceptually replicated at track and field meets among the shot put and discus teams. The weakest athlete again showed better performance in the team setting, as opposed to in the individual competition. In contrast, the authors found a slight trend for the strongest athletes not to perform as well in team relays, although those findings were not significant.

How can these findings be explained? The authors suggest that, in team relays, each athlete perceives him- or herself as an indispensable member of the team. If each athlete does not perform their best, then they will let the team down and the team will fail. In addition, via social comparison processes, weaker athletes might use the performance of stronger athletes as a motivation to up their game.

These findings suggest that people don’t always loaf while in groups. In fact, the group or team setting might provide the perfect opportunity for the much-aligned weakest links to break free and shine.

Reference

• Osborn, K. A., Irwin, B. C., Skogsberg, N. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). [DOI: 10.1037/a0026887]. The Köhler effect: Motivation gains and losses in real sports groups. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, 1, 242–253.

Case Study

Cures for group performance losses

Ellemers, de Gilder, and Haslam (2004) state that there is no best way to solve problems of motivation. However, they argue that understanding of self-categorization and social identity processes is important in understanding work motivation. More specifically, understanding of motivation may be enhanced when considering that the self can be defined in different ways (see chapter 4).

People may be motivated to behave in ways that support the role they play, or the social identity that is shared with others in that current situation. When, for instance, a situation activates the “individual” self, one should look at instrumental considerations of individuals, because workers will be motivated to attain individual goals. When the situation activates the “collective” self, however, workers will be motivated to enhance this collective self by pursuing shared goals, or by behaving according to this identity.

Regarding group performance, these authors have argued that collective identity should be enhanced to avoid social loafing and, as a result, improve collective performance.

Reference

• Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & Haslam, S. A. (2004). Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Academy of Management Review, 29, 459–478.

Case Study

The glass cliff: Why are women chosen to lead during times of crisis?

According to the text, women are preferred as leaders during times of threat or crisis. This preference is known as the glass cliff effect and it is endorsed by both men and women regardless of their level of sexism. As you were reading this section of the text, you may have wondered why people prefer female leaders at times such as these. Research on the glass cliff effect has shown that people do not prefer female leaders during times of crisis because they want to set them up to fail, or because those are perceived to be the only positions open to them (Ryan, Haslam, & Postmes, 2007).

Instead, Bruckmüller and Branscombe (2010) [DOI: 10.1348/014466609X466594] proposed that the previous leadership history of a company as well as people’s gender stereotypes may both influence people’s preference for females as opposed to males during times of crisis. Specifically, if a company has a long history of male leadership, then when times are good there is no reason to change the type of leadership. In contrast, during times of threat, the company may be motivated to make a change at the leadership level and hire a female instead. In addition, stereotypes of males as competitive and assertive may be perceived as less desirable during times of threat, whereas the stereotype that females are supportive and aware of others’ feelings may be considered more appropriate and valuable characteristics during such times. These propositions led Bruckmüller and Branscombe to predict that the glass cliff effect will be more likely to occur in companies with a history of male leadership.

In their first study Bruckmüller and Branscombe (2010) asked participants to read about a company whose president was about to step down. They also learned that the company was either successful or was going through a time of crisis, and had a history of male leaders or a history of female leaders. The participants then read about a male and a female candidate and were asked which one they would select as the next president. The results showed that, when the company was experiencing a crisis, the female candidate was selected more often than the male candidate, but only when the company had a history of male leadership. In addition, during times of success in the historically male-led company, the male candidate was more likely to be selected as the next leader. In contrast, when the company had a history of female leadership, the male and female candidates were equally likely to be selected during a time of crisis and during a period of relative success. These results argue against the idea that, during times of crisis, people prefer to select leaders of different genders. If that were the case, then the male candidate should be preferred in the historically female-led company. Instead, these results suggest that, for companies with a history of male leadership, a female leader is being selected for some other reason, perhaps because of the stereotypes people hold about females. Study 2 was designed to dig deeper into this issue.

In this study, participants again read about a company that was successful or that was in a period of crisis and whose president was about to step down. The participants then read about a male and a female candidate and rated each candidate on the extent to which they possessed a number of stereotypically female and stereotypically male traits. Finally, the participants rated how suitable each candidate would be for the position and then selected which candidate they felt would make the best president.

The results showed that, during times of crisis, the female candidate was more often selected to be leader than the male candidate. Intriguingly though, the participants did not select the female candidate for this position because she was perceived as better suited for the job. Instead analyses revealed that participants perceived males to be less suited for the leadership position when the company was in a time of crisis because they were believed to possess fewer stereotypically female characteristics (e.g., compared to women, men are perceived to have less skill in communicating and less ability to encourage others). So, because males don’t measure up in this domain, the participants selected the female candidate during the time of crisis. In contrast, during times of success, the male candidate is perceived to possess a number of stereotypically male characteristics (e.g., competitive, striving for power) that are perceived to be beneficial, therefore he is perceived as more suited for the job and more likely to be selected as president.

What are the implications of these findings? The authors sum it up best by saying:

Our findings indicate that women find themselves in precarious leadership positions not because they are singled out for them, but because men no longer seem to fit. There is, of course, a double irony here. When women get to enjoy the spoils of leadership (a) it is not because they are seen to deserve them, but because men no longer do, and (b) this only occurs when, and because, there are fewer spoils to enjoy.
(Bruckmüller and Branscombe, 2010, p. 449)

References

• Bruckmüller, S., & Branscombe, N. (2010). [DOI: 10.1348/014466609X466594]. The glass cliff: When and why women are selected as leaders in crisis contexts. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 433–451.
• Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Postmes, T. (2007). Reactions to the glass cliff: Gender differences in the explanations for the precariousness of women’s leadership positions. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 182–197.

Case Study

Who says “I love you” first?

Think about your own romantic relationships. Who has said “I love you first”? How did that confession of love make you feel? Were your feelings at all influenced by the level of intimacy of your relationship?

Conventional wisdom would predict that women fall in love first and are more likely to confess their love to their partner first. But is this prediction supported by empirical research? Ackerman, Griskevicius, and Li (2011) [DOI: 10.1037/a0022412] set out to study gender differences in who confesses their love first, and how those confessions make their partners feel. The authors predicted that men and women would feel differently about love confessions that occurred before and after a couple’s first sexual encounter. Specifically, they hypothesized that men would feel happier if their partner said “I love you” before they had sex for the first time, whereas females would feel happier with love confessions that occurred after a couple had sex for the first time. Can you think of why Ackerman, Griskevicius, and Li made these predictions? Read on to see if you are correct!

In a set of six studies, Ackerman et al. (2011) asked participants in romantic relationships about who confessed their love first, and how those confessions made them feel. In the first three studies, the authors found that people believed that women tended to feel love first in relationships and to confess this love earlier than men. When participants were later asked about their previous and current relationships, the results actually showed that men tended to be the first to confess their love. In studies 4 through 6, participants were asked to either imagine a hypothetical relationship or to think of a current relationship and rate how happy they felt after love confessions that occurred either before the couple’s first sexual encounter or after their first sexual encounter. Gender differences were compared, as were differences between people who were seeking short-term vs. long-term relationships. The results showed that men tended to be happier with confessions of love that occurred before the first sexual encounter, especially men who were interested in short-term relationships. In contrast, women were happier when their partners said “I love you” after sex. If their partner said “I love you” before sex, women tended to perceive that declaration as less honest, and more of a ploy by their partner to have sex with them.

And that is the crux of the issue. As mentioned in the text, men may engage in greater self-disclosure earlier in a relationship in an effort to make the relationship more intimate. If women say “I love you” early in a relationship, this may be a signal to the man that she is ready to have sex with him. Results from the current study show that ratings of happiness are tied up with sexual excitement for men, especially those who are seeking a short-term relationship. In contrast, woman experience greater happiness when a man confesses his love after a couple has sex. This happiness is related to feelings of romantic love, especially for women who are seeking a long-term relationship. In other words, if a man waits to say “I love you” after having sex, then he is not just using it as a way to have sex with a woman and, in fact, this declaration may be an indication that he is committed to the relationship.

This research shows that, unlike conventional wisdom, men are more likely to say “I love you” first and, in order for their partner to actually believe them, the timing of this confession must be just right.

Reference

• Ackerman, J., Griskevicius, V., & Li, N. (2011). [DOI: 10.1037/a0022412]. Let’s get serious: Communicating commitment in romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1079–1094.

Case Study

Reduced cognitive control in passionate lovers

The text describes passionate love as a “stormy, roller coaster, head-over-heels”, obsessive type of love. Have you ever felt this type of love? If so, when you were in the throes of this type of passion, were you able to think clearly and make rational decisions? Probably not.

Researchers from the Netherlands and the United States had Dutch individuals who had been in relationships for 6 months or less rate their level of passionate love for their partner. The participants then thought about a relevant romantic encounter before they performed two tasks designed to measure their level of cognitive control (Steenbergen, Langeslag, Band, & Hommel, 2014) [DOI: 10.1007/s11031-013-9380-3]. These two tasks have been designed to assess participants’ ability to focus on one aspect of the task while filtering out distracting stimuli. The results showed that, the more passionate love the participants felt for their partner, the greater interference (and the less cognitive control) they experienced on the two tasks.

This study provides some of the first empirical evidence that people who are in the throes of passionate love have less self-control. In the long run, is this lowered self-control and head-in-the-clouds feeling a good thing? Research cited in this article has found that self-control is actually an important ingredient in promoting a lasting relationship. Those high in cognitive self-control are more forgiving, and less interested in the flirtations of people who are not their partners. Perhaps it is a good thing that passionate love tends to decrease in relationships over time, as that decrease also signals the return of self-control.

Reference

• Steenbergen, H., Langeslag, S.J.E., Band, G.P.H., & Hommel, B. (2014) [DOI: 10.1007/s11031-013-9380-3]. Reduced cognitive control in passionate lovers. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 444–450.

Case Study

The triangular theory of love

When Fehr and Russell (1991) [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.425] asked students to list all kinds of love that came to mind, they arrived at 216 different answers. Different types of love can be classified in various ways.

Robert Sternberg (1986) [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119] proposed one of the most popular classifications: the triangular theory of love. According to Sternberg,there are eight different subtypes of love, which can be derived from three components. The first is intimacy; which involves liking, feelings of closeness, connectedness, and bondedness. Passion is the second component, which encompasses the drives that lead to romance, physical attraction, and sexual consummation. Finally commitment reflects the decision, in the short term, that one loves another, and, in the long term, the decision to maintain that love.

The amount of love that is experienced depends on the strength of the components that are involved, while the kind of love that is experienced depends on what components are involved. When none of these components is involved, there is no love. Kinds of love that are experienced when only one component is involved are liking, infatuation, and empty love. When intimacy is involved without feelings of passion and commitment, liking is experienced. Infatuation is the love that is experienced when only passion is felt. Empty love is felt when commitment is the only component that is present.

Interactions between components also produce different kinds of love. The love that one experiences when intimacy and passion are the components that are present in a relationship, is romantic love. Companionate love is felt when couples are intimate and have commitment to the relationship. When there is no intimacy, but passion and commitment are felt, the type of love that is experienced is called fatuous love. Finally when all components, intimacy, passion, and commitment, are present, the kind of love that is felt is consummate love.

Wojciszke (2002) proposed that these components are dynamic in the development of a relationship. He proposed that the cycle of love consists of six stages, which are based on the components of Sternberg’s triangular model.

According to Wojciszke, we first fall in love. The only component involved here is passion. Then there is the romantic beginning of a relationship, in which passion and intimacy are felt. These romantic feelings turn into complete love when couples commit (so passion, intimacy, and commitment are involved). After being together for a while, the passion disappears and the love experienced then is companionate love. When a relationship goes wrong and levels of intimacy drop, empty love is felt (the only component left is commitment). The final stage is dissolution; the relationship ends; there is no commitment any more.

References

• Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1991). [DOI:10.1037/0022-3514.60.3.425]. The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 425–438.
• Sternberg, R. J. (1986). [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119]. A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135.
• Wojciszke, B. (2002). From the first sight to the last breath: A six-stage model of love. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 33, 15–25.

Case Study

Ideal partner preferences predict divorce

According to the text, individuals who idealize their partners tend to have more positive relationships. But what about the ideals that people have about their partners at the start of a committed, marital relationship? If one’s partner does not match up to one’s ideals, is the relationship doomed?

Consider two women from two different relationships. Marta’s ideal relationship partner is someone who is highly extroverted and sociable. Her husband is fairly extroverted but he can also be introverted in certain situations. Greta’s ideal relationship partner is someone who is very kind, who is about average in terms of attractiveness, and who is low in disagreeableness. Greta’s husband is very attractive, he is often unkind, and he tends to be disagreeable. Whose marriage is in the most jeopardy ––Marta’s whose husband’s personality does not match her preferred level of extroversion, or Greta’s, whose husband’s personality does not match the pattern of attributes she desires in an ideal partner?

Eastwick and Neff (2012) [DOI: 10.1177/1948550611435941] recruited newlywed couples to take part in their study of ideal partner preferences and risk of divorce. These researchers had couples indicate the extent to which 21 different characteristics were important in a marriage partner, and then they rated their partners on the same characteristics. Next, the researchers kept in touch with these couples for the next 3.5 years to determine who remained married and who divorced. The researchers found that the factor that put the couples at the greatest risk of divorce was if the characteristics of one’s partner did not match the pattern of characteristics desired in an ideal partner. It didn’t matter as much if one’s partner, like Marta’s, fell short on a particular desired characteristic (i.e., did not demonstrate the desired level of extroversion). Instead, if the characteristics of one’s partner did not fit the pattern one desired in an ideal partner, like Greta’s, then that couple was 2.7 times more likely to divorce in the next 3.5 years. Intriguingly, this pattern mismatch was a stronger predictor of divorce than other well-established risk factors such as stress level, income, employment status, age at marriage, etc.

Exactly why a pattern mismatch between an ideal partner’s characteristics and one’s actual partner’s characteristics is so detrimental to marital relationships is not yet clear, but these results do provide an important warning to couples considering marriage. If your partner seems to possess the pattern of characteristics you desire in an ideal mate, then the odds are good that your relationship will last. In contrast, if your partner does not seem to match up to this ideal pattern, it may be helpful to either reexamine your values, or reexamine your relationship.

Reference

• Eastwick, P. W., & Neff, L. A. (2012). [DOI: 10.1177/1948550611435941]. Do ideal partner preferences predict divorce? A tale of two metrics. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 667–674.

Case Study

This just in – Playing violent video games really does make you more aggressive, really

Imagine the following conversation…

Joe: So, does playing violent video games really make people more aggressive?

Pete: Yes.

Joe: But all of the research is correlational and you know that correlation does not equal causation.

Pete: Actually, a number of empirical, longitudinal and correlational studies have all shown that playing violent video games makes people more aggressive.

Joe: But surely not all of the studies show the same effect?

Pete: Joe, if you don’t believe me, please read below about researchers who conducted a meta-analysis in which they combined the results of over 130 articles published on this topic. These articles describe both non-experimental and experimental studies conducted on over 130,000 participants of all ages, all over the world. Once you’ve read over this summary, let me know what you think.

Here’s the summary…

In 2010, Anderson and his colleagues ([DOI: 10.1037/a0018251]) in the United States and Japan, scoured databases from the East and from the West for research on the topic of video game-playing and aggression. They analyzed the results of studies reported in over 130 articles and found that across all study types, across all ages and sexes, and across both Eastern and Western cultures, playing violent video games makes people behave more aggressively. They also found that playing violent video games led to less empathy toward others, greater desensitization to violent material, and a decreased likelihood of engaging in prosocial behavior.

Do these results mean that anyone who plays violent video games will immediately behave in an aggressive manner? No, it does not. But, the size of the effect of playing violent video games on aggressive behavior is similar to the influence of poverty, substance use, and parental abuse on an individual’s aggressive behavior. So, playing violent video games doesn’t automatically make every person more aggressive, but it certainly increases the likelihood of such behavior.

• Pete: So, Joe, what do you think?
• Joe: I guess I’m convinced. I think I’ll tone down the violent video game-playing, and I’m definitely going to tell my sister not to let my young nephews play such games.
• Pete: Good for you Joe. My mission here is complete.

Reference

• Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Saleem, M. (2010). [DOI: 10.1037/a0018251]. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173.

Case Study

Alcohol-related priming makes people more aggressive

There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that alcohol consumption increases people’s aggressive behavior, but did you know that even being exposed to alcohol-related material can also make people more aggressive?

Pedersen and colleagues (2014) [DOI: 10.1177/0146167214534993] conducted a study in which participants were first asked to write an essay that they were told would be reviewed by another participant (actually a confederate). After writing the essay, the participants took part in a task on the computer in which they simply indicated whether strings of letters were real words or not (e.g., “purple” is a real word and “kopaj” is not). Unbeknownst to the participants, before each of these letter strings appeared on the screen, other words were also being presented but they were being presented so quickly that they could not consciously be seen. Half of the participants in this study were subliminally primed with non-alcoholic beverage words (e.g., milk, juice) and the other half of the participants were subliminally primed with alcoholic beverage words (e.g., beer, wine).

After completing this task, the students received the ostensible feedback from the other participant. Half of the participants received hostile feedback, indicating that their essay was the worst essay the other participant had ever read. The other half of the participants received more ambiguous feedback indicating that the other participant didn’t even know where to start, in reading their essay.

As the final task in this experiment (and there was a cover story that made each of these different tasks seem to make sense as part of the same study), participants were asked to determine for how much time the other participant would have to spend with their hand placed in a bucket of ice water. This is called a cold pressor task and it was used as the dependent measure of aggression in this study.

The results showed that, regardless of prime, those participants who received the unambiguously hostile feedback (Really, it’s the worst essay you’ve ever read?) recommended that the other participant spend more time completing the cold pressor task. In contrast, when the feedback was more ambiguous (I’ll tell you where to begin, start at the beginning!), it was the participants who had previously been exposed to the alcohol-related primes that recommended that the other participant spend longer with their hand in the ice bucket. In contrast, those who were exposed to the non-alcoholic beverage primes recommended less time spent on the cold pressor task.

In a second, similar study, the researchers found that these priming effects tend to not last very long (they decline steadily over a 15-minute period), and that the relation between the alcohol prime and aggressive behavior could be explained by participants perceiving ambiguous feedback to be more hostile after having been primed with alcohol-related words. So, with alcohol-related concepts activated in one’s mind even the smallest slight is perceived to be hostile, leading to the potential for aggressive retaliatory behavior.

Reference

• Pedersen, W. C., Vasquez, E. A., Bartholow, B. D., Grosvenor, M., & Truong, A. (2014). [DOI: 10.1177/0146167214534993]. Are you insulting me? Exposure to alcohol primes increases aggression following ambiguous provocation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1037–1049.

Case Study

“We are the world”: Exposure to prosocial music decreases aggression

A large section of this chapter focused on how exposure to violent, antisocial media, weapons, etc. leads people to behave in more aggressive ways. Perhaps you were curious about whether the opposite effect could be found. Specifically, does exposure to prosocial media decrease people’s likelihood of behaving aggressively? A study by Greitemeyer (2011) [DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.005] set out to test that very question.

Across five studies, participants from Germany and the UK listened either to music with prosocial lyrics (e.g., Michael Jackson’s “Heal the World” or LiveAid’s “We are the World”) or to music with neutral lyrics (e.g., Michael Jackson’s “On the Line” or “Octopus’s Garden” by the Beatles) and then their cognitions, affect and behavior were assessed. The results showed that participants who listened to prosocial music were thinking less aggressive thoughts, they indicated more negative attitudes toward war and other acts of violence, they were lower in state hostility, and they made more favorable judgments of a fictitious job candidate.

In the final study, participants again listened to either prosocial or neutral music after which they wrote an essay that was then evaluated by another (fictitious) participant. Each participant received negative feedback about their essay from the other participant and then they were asked (as part of an ostensibly separate market research study) to allocate a certain amount of hot sauce to the participant. They were told that the other participant had agreed to sample the sauce, although they didn’t know how much they would have to consume. In addition, the participant was told that the other participant would not be told who had determined how much hot sauce they had to taste. (As mentioned in the text, this hot sauce allocation is a common measure of aggression.)

The results showed that, compared to the participants who had listened to neutral music, participants who listened to the prosocial music gave less hot sauce to the other participant. Additional analyses revealed that participants in the prosocial music condition allocated less hot sauce because they felt less hostility toward the other participant.

Overall, this study showed that listening to prosocial music decreases our aggressive thoughts, our aggressive feelings, and even our aggressive behavior toward someone who gives us negative feedback. So, can listening to music really heal the world and make it a better place? It’s certainly a step in the right direction!

Reference

• Greitemeyer, T. (2011). [DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.005]. Exposure to music with prosocial lyrics reduces aggression: First evidence and test of the underlying mechanism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 28–36.

Case Study

The negotiation process

De Dreu (2005) [DOI:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00349.x] discusses four key variables that affect negotiation: (1) power balance; (2) accountability to the process; (3) cooperative motivation; and (4) time, grouped under the acronym PACT:

1. When one side of the involved parties has more power than the other, the power holders’ behavior, cognitions, and motivation have a bigger impact on negotiations than those of their powerless counterparts.
2. Accountability to process refers to situations in which parties have to account to their constituents for what they did during negotiations, making people self-critical, and motivated to analyze a situation from multiple perspectives.
3. People who have pro-social motivation desire a good outcome for their counterparts as well as for themselves, and see negotiations as collaborative games in which harmony, fairness, and joint success are key. People with pro-self motivation see negotiations as competitive games in which power and personal success are key.
4. Time pressures undermine the motivation to engage in thorough information processing; they increase tendencies toward naïve realism, and may offset the advantages of power balance and process accountability.

Reference

• De Dreu, C. K. W. (2005). [DOI:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00349.x]. A PACT against conflict escalation in negotiation and dispute resolution.Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14 (3), 149–152.

Case Study

Do you know the way to Valentine Street? Priming chivalrous behavior in men

People’s gender stereotypes can influence whether or not they engage in prosocial behavior. For example, men are stereotyped as being heroic, chivalrous and strong, whereas women are more often perceived to be helpless and in need of saving. Based on these stereotypes, men (as opposed to women) should be expected to help others in emergency situations. In a clever study by Lamy, Fischer-Lokou, and Guéguen (2010) [DOI: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000019], the extent to which a love prime induces men to engage in more chivalrous behavior was examined.

In this study, a female confederate approached men who were walking alone on the street and asked them for directions to either Valentine Street or Martin Street (both streets were fictitious). After explaining that he didn’t know where the street was located, each man walked on and was approached by a second female confederate. This confederate asked the men if they would help her get her phone back from a group of disreputable young men who had taken it from her. The dependent variable was the number of men in each condition who approached the group of young men and asked for the woman’s phone back. The results showed that men in the Valentine Street condition were significantly more likely to engage in chivalrous behavior on behalf of the female confederate. These results suggest that priming gender stereotypes can lead men to engage in prosocial behavior designed to help a “damsel in distress.” Do women always need saving? Certainly not. But the knowledge that people’s prosocial behavior is influenced by the stereotypical expectation that men should help in emergency situations and women should help in relational situations might just come in handy someday.

Reference

• Lamy, L., Fischer-Lokou, J., & Guéguen, N. (2010) [DOI: 10.1024/1421-0185/a000019]. Valentine Street promotes chivalrous helping. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 69, 169–172.

Case Study

Tainted altruism

Have you ever felt happiness or pride after being praised for helping someone in need? If your helping behavior was motivated to obtain positive feelings from helping another person, then this is an example of egoism. What do you think would happen if other people learned that your prosocial behavior was guided by self-interested, egoistic motives? Newman and Cain (2014) [DOI: 10.1177/0956797613504785] conducted a study to determine just how such behavior is perceived.

In a set of four studies, Newman and Cain (2014) asked participants to make judgments of people who were described as receiving a personal benefit from a charitable act, or as engaging in a similar behavior that was not charitable. In Study 1, participants read about a man who was described as volunteering at a particular location because a woman that he liked worked there and he wanted to impress her. Participants rated the man as being less moral when he was described as volunteering at a homeless shelter, than when he was described as volunteering at a coffee-shop. So, despite the fact that the man was engaging in charitable behavior by volunteering at a homeless shelter, he was still perceived to be less moral than the man who worked at a coffee shop and did not engage in any charitable behavior at all.

In Study 2, participants read about one of two for-profit organizations. Some of the participants learned that the organization was being hired to raise money for charity, whereas other participants learned that the organization was being hired to raise money for a corporation. The results of this study showed that the organization that raised money for charity, but also took a cut of the proceeds, was perceived to be less moral than the organization that did no charitable work, but raised money for a corporation. In addition, in the charity condition, participants were less willing to hypothetically hire the for-profit company even if doing so would have allowed them to raise more money for charity.

Studies 1 and 2 both provide evidence of what the authors call tainted altruism in which “actions that produce both charitable and personal benefits will be evaluated as worse than equivalent self-interested behaviors that produce no charitable benefit” (p. 649).

The results of Study 3 showed that this tainted altruism effect is mitigated when you remind people that, even though businesses may donate money because it helps their bottom line, they don’t have to engage in this type of behavior. In fact, some charity is better than no charity at all. When framed in this way, participants perceive the companies as more moral than when this information is not included.

Finally, in Study 4, participants read about GAP’s (RED) campaign to raise money to stop the spread of infectious disease. As part of this campaign, GAP stores agree to donate 50% of the proceeds they make on certain products to charity. Some of the participants learned about this charitable giving by GAP, whereas other participants read this information as well as the fact that GAP has increased its profits substantially since starting this campaign. Participants in a different condition read all of this information and then were reminded that GAP doesn’t need to donate any money to charity. The results again showed that GAP as a company was looked down upon when the profits they made from the RED campaign were highlighted. In addition, participants indicated less willingness to buy such products from the GAP. In contrast, when the fact that the GAP did not have to engage in charitable behavior was mentioned, the participants perceived the company to be more moral and more likeable.

The results of this research demonstrate that people (and even organizations) that engage in prosocial behavior for egoistic motives are perceived as less moral. So, the next time you expect praise for helping someone in need, you should be sure that the individual you are helping is unaware of your primary motivation.

Reference

• Newman, G. E., & Cain. D. M. (2014). [DOI: 10.1177/0956797613504785]. Tainted altruism: When doing some good is evaluated as worse than doing no good at all. Psychological Science, 25, 648–655.

Case Study

Mimicry promotes helping

Mimicry promotes helping. In a series of three studies Van Baaren et al. (2004) showed that when you are being mimicked, helping behavior is increased. First, they showed that participants whose gestures were copied by an interaction partner, helped their interaction partner to a greater extent when the partner accidentally dropped some pens on the floor. In the following studies they showed that this helping behavior is not restricted to the person who mimics. In their second study participants who were being mimicked also helped another person to a greater extent. Finally, they demonstrated that more money was donated to the “clinic clowns” (clowns who entertain children in a children’s hospital) when participants were being mimicked.

These studies showed that people who are being mimicked show an increase in helping behavior. In addition, mimicking (as well as being mimicked) also promotes prosocial behavior. Stel, Van Baaren, and Vonk (2005) showed that participants engaging in mimicry themselves also donated more money.

This can be explained by mimicry causing an empathic mode in people who mimic and are being mimicked. Stel and Vonk (2004) showed that participants become more empathic due to mimicking other people’s facial expressions. Compared to participants who did not mimic, mimickers became more emotionally attuned to the person who was being mimicked. In addition, mimickers could more easily take the perspective of other people.

In another study Stel, Vonk, and Smeets (2005) demonstrated that mimicry also communicated empathy and understanding towards the person who is being mimicked. So while the mimicker experiences more empathy and understanding for the mimickee, the mimickee feels empathized with and understood. This empathic mode created by mimicry causes mimickers and mimickees to be more helpful towards others (Stel, Van Baaren, & Vonk, 2005).

References

• Stel, M., & Vonk, R. (2004). The social consequences of facial mimicry: Effects on empathy, understanding, feelings of similarity, and liking. Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Stel, M., Van Baaren, R., & Vonk, R. (2005). Facial mimicry fosters charity. Manuscript in preparation.
• Stel, M., Vonk, R. & Smeets, R. C. (2005). The experience and communication of prosocial feelings due to mimicry in social interactions: Effects for perceivers and targets. Manuscript submitted for publication.
• Van Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & Van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15, 71–74.

Case Study

Testosterone and prosocial behavior

There are a number of individual differences that influence whether any given person will decide to engage in prosocial behavior. Researchers from the Netherlands set out to determine the influence of testosterone on perceptions of trust and the likelihood of helping in a social interaction. You may be surprised that these researchers were exploring a connection between testosterone and prosocial behavior. After all, testosterone is usually associated with aggressive, dominance-seeking behavior by males. If a situation is not competitive, and there is no need to exert dominance over another, what role does testosterone play?

In their study, Boksem and his colleagues (2013) [DOI: 10.1177/0956797613495063] had half of their female participants administer a liquid solution containing testosterone or a placebo liquid under their tongues. After waiting for a few hours for the testosterone to take effect (assuming the hormone was present in the liquid) the participants were then asked to play a game in which they had €20 and they could decide to invest some portion of that money in another participant (who was called the trustee). The participant/investors were told that whatever money they decided to invest in the trustee would then be tripled, and the trustee could then decide whether or not to give them any money back in return. Once the participant decided how much money (if any) they wanted to invest in the trustee, they then changed roles and played the role of trustee themselves. At this point, all participants were told that a previous participant had decided to invest the full €20 in the trustee, thereby leaving the participant with €60 (which is the original €20 tripled). The participants were then asked how much money (if any) they would like to give back to the investor.

The results showed that the women who had previously ingested the testosterone solution were less generous in the first stage when deciding how much money to invest in a future trustee. In contrast, women who had received the testosterone were significantly more generous when they subsequently played the role of trustee. In the face of trust and generosity from an investor (who entrusted them with the full €20), the participants gave back generously themselves.

So why does testosterone facilitate stinginess when investing funds in a trustee, but generosity when repaying the trust and kindness of an investor? The authors suggest that, in the initial phase of this study it is not clear to the participant whether any act of kindness by them will be repaid. In such a threatening situation, testosterone leads people to be more competitive, less trusting and more vigilant for betrayals by others. Therefore, in this situation participants invest less money. In contrast, in a situation in which there is no challenge (in fact when there is instead a show of trust and faith), testosterone actually motivates people to more generously reciprocate kindness by the investor. In such situations in the ‘real world’, status and dominance might be more easily achieved if individuals engage in prosocial, rather than antisocial behavior. For example, people tend to like those who are seen as kind and generous to others and that liking may later translate into higher status for the kind and generous person.

This research suggest that, in certain non-competitive circumstances, we might be able to get ahead by showing that we put the needs of others ahead of our own.

Reference

• Boksem, M. A. S., Mehta, P. H., Van den Bergh, B., van Son, V., Trautmann, S. T., Roelofs, K., Smidts, A., & Sanfey A. G. (2013). [DOI: 10.1177/0956797613495063]. Testosterone inhibits trust but promotes reciprocity. Psychological Science, 24, 2306–2314.