journal article
LitStream Collection
Home
Kahan, James P.; Poitou, Jean‐Pierre
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420030202pmid: N/A
Previous studies have assumed that people have a predilection for single linear orderings, of which status congruence is a special case. Eighty‐two subjects were run in a two‐stage experiment to examine preference for linear orderings and whether single or multiple discrepant orderings are preferred when 1 instead of having to learn, subjects freely construct social structures, and 2 the material they are presented is more specified and less simplified than is usually the case in cognitive bias studies. In the first stage Ss were presented with sets of five individual characteristic dimensions, of which three were inherently orderable. Their task was to attribute one characteristic from each dimension to each of five fictitious persons. In the second stage, Ss were asked, for three types of influence (professional, political and cultural), to build an influence structure among the five persons constructed in the first stage. In Stage 1, linear ordering was used for three of the five dimensions. Two of these dimensions used a single ordering, while the third was only weakly related to the first two. In Stage 2, largely transitive but incomplete relations of influence were established, based on a salary‐occupational hierarchy. The completeness of the relation depended on the nature of the influence.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420030203pmid: N/A
In two experiments on choice the durations of attention to the alternatives were measured. In experiment 1 each subject chose one from two pictures; in experiment 2 the choice was one from three pictures. In both experiments the subjects understood that they would acquire the picture that they selected. In each experiment higher and lower conflict conditions were induced by offering subjects a choice between alternatives that had been evaluated either equally or disparately. In both experiments a significant relationship appeared between duration of attention and preference order with most subjects looking longest at the alternative that was preferred. In the comparison between conditions this effect was found to be stronger under lower conflict than under higher conflict; this difference reached a significant level in experiment 2. These results are contrary to findings by Gerard (1967), and this matter is discussed. The relevance of the results to other theories is examined. Inferences were drawn from dissonance theory about re‐evaluation effects after decision, and evaluation changes were measured in the experiments. After adjustment for measurement regression, the data failed to reveal a significant chronic re‐evaluation effect. Contrary to dissonance theory, the re‐evaluation effect was weaker in the three‐alternative choice experiment than in the two‐alternative choice experiment.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420030204pmid: N/A
In the first two parts of the paper a distinction is made between a ‚conflict or convergence of interests' approach (Sherif) and a ‚categorisation' approach (Tajfel) in the area of the experimental study of intergroup relations. Some recent experimental findings are mentioned, and a theoretical development of the categorisation approach is proposed. In the third part a new experiment illustrating the relevance of the categorisation approach is described.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420030205pmid: N/A
The influence of two different reinforcers of aggression was investigated: Frustration (intrinsic primary reinforcement) and instrumental value of aggression (extrinsic primary reinforcement). In the first part of the experiment frustration was manipulated on two levels by having the stooge interfere very often or seldom in the ‚building a village' task of the subject. In the second part of the study the stooge had to judge distances in traffic while the subject was allowed to give him electrical shocks in order to startle and hinder the stooge in his estimation task. The aggression score of the subject was formed by the number and the intensity of the shocks delivered. Instrumentality of aggression was manipulated on two levels by indicating or not that the subjects could earn more money the more and stronger they shocked their partner. Confirming the predictions, significantly more aggression was expressed when this could lead to earning more money than in those conditions where this was not the case. Also confirming predictions, the impact of instrumentality on aggression was stronger than the influence of frustration. Frustration did not lead to a significant increase in the level of aggression.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420030206pmid: N/A
The article is introduced by an analysis of how the effects of a negotiator's intragroup status (leader versus non‐leader) on his negotiation performance (in particular, toughness) may be modified by such factors as the source of the status assignment (e.g., election versus imposition) and the presence and timing of position formation in the group. The accountability experienced by a negotiator vis à‐vis his group is proposed as the central intervening variable mediating status effects on negotiation. In a series of (previously published) experiments, all using the same procedural paradigm — a prenegotiation, intragroup phase followed by intergroup negotiation among equal‐status group delegates, the issues requiring a choice between higher and lower risk levels — some of the above variables and additional ones, were investigated. Overall, there was evidence of greater toughness among group‐elected leaders (relative to non‐leaders) and among subordinates (relative to imposed, ‚dictatorial' leaders). The latter effect obtained only when the negotiators were being continuously monitored by, and had to consult, their respective group partners during the negotiations. Results concerning risky shift (enhancement of risk acceptance through the negotiation discussions) are considered in the light of relevant theory.
Wiesenthal, David L.; Endler, Norman S.; Geller, Sheldon H.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420030207pmid: N/A
Fifty‐six male and 61 female university students participated in a 2 × 2 × 2 design with task correctness‐incorrectness, group agreement‐disagreement and sex of subject constituting the classification factors. A modified Crutchfield apparatus served to manipulate a subject's prior experience of correctness and agreement, and to measure subsequent conformity. Correctness and group agreement were seen to interact to produce varying degrees of perceived competence relative to a simulated group. Relative competence mediated conformity such that (a) on the basis of both experimentally manipulated competence and perceived competence, subjects who were less competent than the group manifested more conformity than subjects who were more competent than the group. This finding replicates the Ettinger et al. (1971) study; (b) subjects who perceived themselves and the group as equally competent conformed more than subjects who perceived themselves as either more competent or less competent than the group. This result was explained in terms of reciprocity; (c) no sex differences were found and possible explanations for this result were discussed; (d) no conformity differences between suspicious and unsuspicious subjects suggested the possibility that suspicious subjects were role playing.
Showing 1 to 10 of 10 Articles