|
Perspectives on Psychological Science is a publication of the Association for Psychological Science.
Editor
Barbara A. Spellman University of Virginia School of Law
Associate Editors David A. Sbarra University of Arizona Bethany A. Teachman University of Virginia Special Associate Editors Alex O. Holcombe University of Sydney Alison Ledgerwood University of California, Davis Kristina R. Olson University of Washington Daniel J. Simons University of Illinois Advisory Editors
John T. Cacioppo University of Chicago
Robert W. Levenson University of California, Berkeley
Elizabeth F. Loftus University of California, Irvine
Walter Mischel Columbia University |
|
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Volume 10, Number 4
|
The links below take you to the journal via the APS website. If not already logged in, you will be redirected to log-in using your last name (Garcia) and Member ID (81665).
|
|
|
Position Effects in Choice From Simultaneous Displays: A Conundrum Solved
Maya Bar-Hillel
Every day, people make choices, from which answer to choose on a multiple-choice test to which box of cereal to pick up in the grocery-store aisle. Research examining how the position of different objects influences choice has resulted in confusing and contradictory findings. For example, people are more likely to choose an answer placed in the middle of a list on a multiple-choice exam but are more likely to choose an item at the beginning or end of a food menu. A new framework explains these findings by categorizing choices according to whether they are interactive or individual in nature, whether item processing is required for the decision, and whether the nature of the interaction (if there is one) is competitive or cooperative. Using this framework, one can better understand -- and even predict -- the types of choices people will make in a variety of different situations.
|
|
Safety, Threat, and Stress in Intergroup Relations: A Coalitional Index Model
Pascal Boyer, Rengin Firat, and Florian van Leeuwen
Prejudice, racial bias, intergroup bias, xenophobia, and nationalism are related topics studied in different psychology and social science subfields. A new model based on coalitional psychology (i.e., evolved mechanisms for gaining support from conspecifics to increase a group's chances of success against rival coalitions) aims to cut across these disciplines to explain intergroup behavior. In this model, people form a coalitional safety index based on information in the environment, such as the size, cohesiveness, or aggressiveness of their own coalition or rival coalitions. Changes in this index (drops in response to threats or increases in response to coalitional support) alter people's motivations and behaviors. This model can be used to explain a wide variety of intergroup relations -- and their physiological, behavioral, and mental-health outcomes -- at both the group and individual levels.
|
|
Positive Stereotypes Are Pervasive and Powerful
Alexander M. Czopp, Aaron C. Kay, and Sapna Cheryan
People are actively encouraged to avoid forming negative stereotypes about groups, but this anti-stereotype stance is not always applied to positive group stereotypes -- for example, the view that all women love children or that all Asians are good at math. The influence of positive stereotypes is complicated in that research has shown they can convey both benefits and costs at the group and individual level. Positive stereotypes can help people compensate for the effects of negative stereotypes and encourage a boost in performance in stereotyped domains; however, they can also lead people to feel depersonalized and resentful and steer people away from nonstereotypical achievement-related opportunities. The mixed influence of positive stereotypes should serve as a call for increased awareness of and research into their influence and impact.
|
|
Humans as Superorganisms: How Microbes, Viruses, Imprinted Genes, and Other Selfish Entities Shape Our Behavior
Peter Kramer and Paola Bressan
People may think their behavior is completely their own; however, new research is suggesting that other organisms and entities play a role in shaping behavior. Brain parasites and brain and gut microbes have been shown to change the physiology of the brain and influence both behavior and emotions in human and rat studies, while viral DNA incorporated into the human genome has been linked to the development of psychopathology. Evidence has even suggested that the cells of another person, such as those exchanged between mother and infant during prenatal development, can have long-lasting influences on development, behavior, and psychopathology. Although more research is needed, this initial understanding of our superorganism status will help identify promising new treatments for a wide range of pathologies.
|
|
Arguments Against a Configural Processing Account of Familiar Face Recognition
Mike Burton, Stefan R. Schweinberger, Rob Jenkins, and Jürgen M. Kaufmann
One of the leading accounts of how we recognize people is the configural processing account -- which says that recognition occurs through sensitivity to the spatial arrangement of the face and the distance between facial features. Although popular, this approach comes with several problems. Studies have found that recognition is not harmed when configural changes are made to a person's face but that it is harmed when nonconfigural changes are made, such as when one tries to identify someone from a photographic negative. Features of faces, such as color, reflectance, and texture, have also been found in some studies to be more dominant in face recognition than face shape. The slow progress seen in face-perception research may be due to the desire of researchers to cling to this problematic theory - one that needs to be respecified or discarded.
|
|
Distinguishing Intrapsychic From Interpersonal Motives in Psychological Theory and Research
Mark R. Leary, Kaitlin Toner Raimi, Katrina P. Jongman-Sereno, and Kate J. Diebels
What motivates our behavior? Most psychological phenomena have been explained in terms of intrapsychic motives (i.e., motives that relate to maintaining specific cognitive or affective states), but behavior can also be driven by interpersonal motives (i.e., the desire to obtain specific reactions, resources, or outcomes from other people). Many researchers either confound these two motives or favor intrapsychic motives over interpersonal motive. For example, cognitive dissonance is often explained as a way of promoting consistency in thoughts (an intrapsychic motive); however, some research suggests that cognitive dissonance could also arise from the desire to avoid appearing inconsistent and hypocritical to others (an interpersonal motive). Understanding what motives drive behavior will require methodological changes that allow researchers to tease these two influences apart.
|
|
Does Incidental Disgust Amplify Moral Judgment? A Meta-Analytic Review of Experimental Evidence
Justin F. Landy and Geoffrey P. Goodwin
One key claim of neo-sentimentalist theories is that affect - such as disgust - influences moral judgments. The findings of studies examining the impact of disgust on moral judgments have been mixed. In a meta-analysis of published and unpublished research examining the impact of experimentally manipulated disgust on moral action and judgment, Landy and Goodwin found an overall small effect of disgust on judgment and potential evidence of publication bias. The sensory modality used to induce disgust was also found to moderate the effect, with gustatory and olfactory induction producing the strongest effects. These results seem to suggest that the strong claims of the influence of affect on moral judgment are unfounded and that future research needs to be more stringent in its examination of this phenomenon.
|
|
Landy and Goodwin (2015) Confirmed Most of Our Findings Then Drew the Wrong Conclusions
Simone Schnall, Jonathan Haidt, Gerald L. Clore, and Alexander H. Jordan
It was surprising to Schnall and colleagues that Landy and Goodwin interpreted their meta-analytic results as evidence against social intuitionism. Schnall and colleagues believe that this interpretation may have arisen in part because Landy and Goodwin did not include well-known moderators of the influence of disgust on moral decisions in their analysis. Schnall and colleagues also note that Landy and Goodwin minimized the importance of the robust effects found when disgust is induced through olfactory or gustatory sensory modalities and failed to check the included studies for methodological issues. Schnall and colleagues reject Landy and Goodwin's conclusion, instead suggesting that their findings provide support for the influence of olfactory-induced disgust on moral decision making and highlight the importance of moderating variables in this phenomenon.
|
|
Justin F. Landy and Geoffrey P. Goodwin
Landy and Goodwin respond to the criticisms of Schnall and colleagues. They note that because so few of the identified studies examined personality-based moderating variables, it would have been uninformative to meta-analyze them. They also argue that their minimization of the influence of olfactory- and gustatory-induced disgust on moral judgment was appropriate because these types of inducement are capable of provoking offense or anger in participants, potentially confounding findings. In response to Schnall and colleagues' concerns about methodological differences across studies, Landy and Goodwin reanalyzed their data, finding only small differences in effect size across different methodologies. Landy and Goodwin stand by their original conclusions, which they acknowledge are tentative and could change with the emergence of new evidence.
|
Forward Thinking
An occasion feature in PPS, Forward Thinking articles are short conceptual papers that focus on new generative ideas based on empirical work that is incomplete or still developing.
Is Utilitarianism Risky? How the Same Antecedents and Mechanism Produce Both Utilitarian and Risky Choices
Brian J. Lucas and Adam D. Galinsky
This Forward Thinking article presents research suggesting that the same factors that influence utilitarian decision making also influence risky behavior. People choose risky gambles or utilitarian choices when rewards are great enough to overcome the uncertainty involved in risk or when people are able to override or reason through affective reactions. A review of research from the moral and decision-making fields identifies six antecedents that decrease emotional reactivity -- thereby promoting risky and utilitarian choices -- and one antecedent that increases reactivity -- thereby reducing risky and utilitarian choices. Although more work is needed, the conceptualization of utilitarian choices as risky choices presents a new and exciting way to understand judgment and decision making.
|
|
Perspectives on Psychological Science is a publication of the Association for Psychological Science. Please contact APS by email or by telephone at +1 202.293.9300 with questions or comments. Visit APS on the Web
|
|
|
