Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jan 30;
Authors: Good C, Rattan A, Dweck CS
Abstract
Sense of belonging to math-one’s feelings of membership and acceptance in the math domain-was established as a new and an important factor in the representation gap between males and females in math. First, a new scale of sense of belonging to math was created and validated, and was found to predict unique variance in college students’ intent to pursue math in the future (Studies 1-2). Second, in a longitudinal study of calculus students (Study 3), students’ perceptions of 2 factors in their math environment-the message that math ability is a fixed trait and the stereotype that women have less of this ability than men-worked together to erode women’s, but not men’s, sense of belonging in math. Their lowered sense of belonging, in turn, mediated women’s desire to pursue math in the future and their math grades. Interestingly, the message that math ability could be acquired protected women from negative stereotypes, allowing them to maintain a high sense of belonging in math and the intention to pursue math in the future. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
PMID: 22288527 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Social appraisal influences recognition of emotions.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jan 30;
Authors: Mumenthaler C, Sander D
Abstract
The notion of social appraisal emphasizes the importance of a social dimension in appraisal theories of emotion by proposing that the way an individual appraises an event is influenced by the way other individuals appraise and feel about the same event. This study directly tested this proposal by asking participants to recognize dynamic facial expressions of emotion (fear, happiness, or anger in Experiment 1; fear, happiness, anger, or neutral in Experiment 2) in a target face presented at the center of a screen while a contextual face, which appeared simultaneously in the periphery of the screen, expressed an emotion (fear, happiness, anger) or not (neutral) and either looked at the target face or not. We manipulated gaze direction to be able to distinguish between a mere contextual effect (gaze away from both the target face and the participant) and a specific social appraisal effect (gaze toward the target face). Results of both experiments provided evidence for a social appraisal effect in emotion recognition, which differed from the mere effect of contextual information: Whereas facial expressions were identical in both conditions, the direction of the gaze of the contextual face influenced emotion recognition. Social appraisal facilitated the recognition of anger, happiness, and fear when the contextual face expressed the same emotion. This facilitation was stronger than the mere contextual effect. Social appraisal also allowed better recognition of fear when the contextual face expressed anger and better recognition of anger when the contextual face expressed fear. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
PMID: 22288528 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jan 30;
Authors: Weinstein N, Ryan WS, Dehaan CR, Przybylski AK, Legate N, Ryan RM
Abstract
When individuals grow up with autonomy-thwarting parents, they may be prevented from exploring internally endorsed values and identities and as a result shut out aspects of the self perceived to be unacceptable. Given the stigmatization of homosexuality, individuals perceiving low autonomy support from parents may be especially motivated to conceal same-sex sexual attraction, leading to defensive processes such as reaction formation. Four studies tested a model wherein perceived parental autonomy support is associated with lower discrepancies between self-reported sexual orientation and implicit sexual orientation (assessed with a reaction time task). These indices interacted to predict anti-gay responding indicative of reaction formation. Studies 2-4 showed that an implicit/explicit discrepancy was particularly pronounced in participants who experienced their fathers as both low in autonomy support and homophobic, though results were inconsistent for mothers. Findings of Study 3 suggested contingent self-esteem as a link between parenting styles and discrepancies in sexual orientation measures. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
PMID: 22288529 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Culture and the distinctiveness motive: Constructing identity in individualistic and collectivistic contexts.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jan 30;
Authors: Becker M, Vignoles VL, Owe E, Brown R, Smith PB, Easterbrook M, Herman G, de Sauvage I, Bourguignon D, Torres A, Camino L, Lemos FC, Ferreira MC, Koller SH, González R, Carrasco D, Cadena MP, Lay S, Wang Q, Bond MH, Trujillo EV, Balanta P, Valk A, Mekonnen KH, Nizharadze G, Fülöp M, Regalia C, Manzi C, Brambilla M, Harb C, Aldhafri S, Martin M, Macapagal ME, Chybicka A, Gavreliuc A, Buitendach J, Gallo IS, Ozgen E, Güner UE, Yamakoğlu N
Abstract
The motive to attain a distinctive identity is sometimes thought to be stronger in, or even specific to, those socialized into individualistic cultures. Using data from 4,751 participants in 21 cultural groups (18 nations and 3 regions), we tested this prediction against our alternative view that culture would moderate the ways in which people achieve feelings of distinctiveness, rather than influence the strength of their motivation to do so. We measured the distinctiveness motive using an indirect technique to avoid cultural response biases. Analyses showed that the distinctiveness motive was not weaker-and, if anything, was stronger-in more collectivistic nations. However, individualism-collectivism was found to moderate the ways in which feelings of distinctiveness were constructed: Distinctiveness was associated more closely with difference and separateness in more individualistic cultures and was associated more closely with social position in more collectivistic cultures. Multilevel analysis confirmed that it is the prevailing beliefs and values in an individual’s context, rather than the individual’s own beliefs and values, that account for these differences. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
PMID: 22288530 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Cultural differences in self- and other-evaluations and well-being: A study of European and Asian Canadians.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jan 30;
Authors: Kim H, Schimmack U, Oishi S
Abstract
Anusic, Schimmack, Pinkus, and Lockwood (2009) developed the halo-alpha-beta (HAB) model to separate halo variance from variance due to valid personality traits and other sources of measurement error in self-ratings of personality. The authors used a twin-HAB model of self-ratings and ratings of a partner (friend or dating partner) to test several hypotheses about culture, evaluative biases in self- and other-perceptions, and well-being. Participants were friends or dating partners who reported on their own and their partner’s personality and well-being (N = 906 students). European Canadians had higher general evaluative biases (GEB) than Asian Canadians. There were no cultural differences in self-enhancement or other-enhancement. GEB significantly predicted self-ratings of life satisfaction, but not informant ratings of well-being. GEB fully mediated the effect of culture on self-ratings of life satisfaction. The results suggest that North American culture encourages positive biases in self- and other-perceptions. These biases also influence self-ratings of life satisfaction but have a much weaker effect on informant ratings of life satisfaction. The implications of these findings for cultural differences in well-being are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
PMID: 22288531 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
For collective action to evolve and be maintained by selection, the mind must be equipped with mechanisms designed to identify free riders-individuals who do not contribute to a collective project but still benefit from it. Once identified, free riders must be either punished or excluded from future collective actions. But what criteria does the mind use to categorize someone as a free rider? An evolutionary analysis suggests that failure to contribute is not sufficient. Failure to contribute can occur by intention or accident, but the adaptive threat is posed by those who are motivated to benefit themselves at the expense of cooperators. In 6 experiments, we show that only individuals with exploitive intentions were categorized as free riders, even when holding their actual level of contribution constant (Studies 1 and 2). In contrast to an evolutionary model, rational choice and reinforcement theory suggest that different contribution levels (leading to different payoffs for their cooperative partners) should be key. When intentions were held constant, however, differences in contribution level were not used to categorize individuals as free riders, although some categorization occurred along a competence dimension (Study 3). Free rider categorization was not due to general tendencies to categorize (Study 4) or to mechanisms that track a broader class of intentional moral violations (Studies 5A and 5B). The results reveal the operation of an evolved concept with features tailored for solving the collective action problems faced by ancestral hunter-gatherers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
PMID: 22268815 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Idealistic advice and pragmatic choice: A psychological distance account.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jan 23;
Authors: Danziger S, Montal R, Barkan R
Abstract
In 6 studies, we found that advice is more idealistic than choice in decisions that trade off idealistic and pragmatic considerations. We propose that because advisers are more psychologically distant from the choosers’ decision problem, they construe the dilemma at a higher construal level than do choosers (Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010). Consequently, advisers are more influenced by idealistic considerations that are salient at a high-level construal, whereas choosers are more influenced by pragmatic considerations that are salient at a low-level construal. Consistent with this view, Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that compared with choosers, advisers weigh idealistic considerations more heavily and pragmatic considerations less heavily, place greater emphasis on ends (why) than on means to achieve the end (how), and generate more reasons (pros) in favor of acting idealistically. Studies 3 and 4 provide converging support for our account by demonstrating that making advisers focus on a lower construal level results in more pragmatic recommendations. In Study 3, we manufactured more pragmatic recommendations by priming a low-level implementation mind-set in a purportedly unrelated task, whereas in Study 4 we did so by reducing advisers’ psychological distance from the dilemma by asking them to consider what they would choose in the situation. The results of Study 4 suggest advisers do not spontaneously consider self-choice. Finally, in Studies 5 and 6, we demonstrate the choice-advice difference in consequential real-life decisions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
PMID: 22268816 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Trust and responsiveness in strain-test situations: A dyadic perspective.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jan 16;
Authors: Shallcross SL, Simpson JA
Abstract
In this behavioral observation study, the authors tested predictions derived from various trust models concerning how individuals who are high vs. low in chronic trust perceive and behave during strain-test discussions with their romantic partners. Partners in 92 married/cohabitating couples identified and discussed 2 major strain-test issues in their relationship. Each partner (when in the role of asker) identified something she or he really wanted to do or accomplish that required the greatest sacrifice by his or her partner (in the responding role). Each videotaped discussion was then rated by trained coders. The results revealed that (a) high trust responders were more accommodating during the strain-test discussions than low trust responders; (b) high trust askers were more open/collaborative with the accommodation they received during the discussions than low trust askers; (c) high trust askers overestimated the amount of accommodation they received from their responding partners (relative to coder’s ratings); (d) when in discussions that were more threatening, high trust askers showed a correction effect by reporting larger pre- to postdiscussion increases in state trust; and (e) when asked to make larger sacrifices, high trust responders showed a similar correction effect by displaying greater accommodation. These findings are discussed in terms of mutual responsiveness processes in relationships. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
PMID: 22250662 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Reports an error in “Separating method factors and higher order traits of the big five: A meta-analytic multitrait-multimethod approach” by Luye Chang, Brian S. Connelly and Alexis A. Geeza (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Advanced Online Publication, Oct 3, 2011, np). In the articles Discussion section, the authors state “So far, only two studies have directly examined the predictive validity of Stability and Plasticity, finding that Stability and Plasticity predicted externalizing behavior (DeYoung, Peterson, Se´guin, & Tremblay, 2008) and the constraint and engagement of behaviors (Hirsh et al., 2009). However, these models did not test whether Stability and Plasticity predict above and beyond the Big Five traits (and beyond Emotional Stability and Extraversion especially).” However, in listing behaviors significantly predicted by Stability and Plasticity, Hirsh, DeYoung and Peterson (2009) omitted any behaviors from this list for which the path from Stability/Plasticity became insignificant after individually controlling for each Big Five trait. Thus, analyses by Hirsh et al. effectively examine prediction stemming uniquely from the meta-trait level rather than the Big Five level. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2011-22374-001.) Though most personality researchers now recognize that ratings of the Big Five are not orthogonal, the field has been divided about whether these trait intercorrelations are substantive (i.e., driven by higher order factors) or artifactual (i.e., driven by correlated measurement error). We used a meta-analytic multitrait-multirater study to estimate trait correlations after common method variance was controlled. Our results indicated that common method variance substantially inflates trait correlations, and, once controlled, correlations among the Big Five became relatively modest. We then evaluated whether two different theories of higher order factors could account for the pattern of Big Five trait correlations. Our results did not support Rushton and colleagues’ (Rushton & Irwing, 2008; Rushton et al., 2009) proposed general factor of personality, but Digman’s (1997) α and β metatraits (relabeled by DeYoung, Peterson, and Higgins (2002) as Stability and Plasticity, respectively) produced viable fit. However, our models showed considerable overlap between Stability and Emotional Stability and between Plasticity and Extraversion, raising the question of whether these metatraits are redundant with their dominant Big Five traits. This pattern of findings was robust when we included only studies whose observers were intimately acquainted with targets. Our results underscore the importance of using a multirater approach to studying personality and the need to separate the causes and outcomes of higher order metatraits from those of the Big Five. We discussed the implications of these findings for the array of research fields in which personality is studied. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
Differentiating the effects of status and power: A justice perspective.
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jan 9;
Authors: Blader SL, Chen YR
Abstract
Few empirical efforts have been devoted to differentiating status and power, and thus significant questions remain about differences in how status and power impact social encounters. We conducted 5 studies to address this gap. In particular, these studies tested the prediction that status and power would have opposing effects on justice enacted toward others. In the first 3 studies, we directly compared the effects of status and power on people’s enactment of distributive (Study 1) and procedural (Studies 2 and 3) justice. In the last 2 studies, we orthogonally manipulated status and power and examined their main and interactive effects on people’s enactment of distributive (Study 4) and procedural (Study 5) justice. As predicted, all 5 studies showed consistent evidence that status is positively associated with justice toward others, while power is negatively associated with justice toward others. The effects of power are moderated, however, by an individual’s other orientation (Studies 2, 3, 4, and 5), and the effects of status are moderated by an individual’s dispositional concern about status (Study 5). Furthermore, Studies 4 and 5 also demonstrated that status and power interact, such that the positive effect of status on justice emerges when power is low and not when power is high, providing further evidence for differential effects between power and status. Theoretical implications for the literatures on status, power, and distributive/procedural justice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
PMID: 22229456 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
PubMed requires this notice of disclaimer is present.
