Diederik A. Stapel

Seeing one thing and doing another : Contrast effects in automatic behavior

Research on automatic behavior demonstrates the ability of stereotypes to elicit stereotype-consistent behavior. Social judgment research proposes that whereas traits and stereotypes elicit assimilation, priming of exemplars can elicit judgmental contrast by evoking social comparisons. This research extends these findings by showing that priming exemplars can elicit behavioral contrast by evoking a social comparison. In Study 1, priming professor or supermodel stereotypes led, respectively, to more and fewer correct answers on a knowledge test (behavioral assimilation), but priming exemplars of these categories led to the reverse pattern (behavioral contrast). In Study 2, participants walked away faster after being primed with an elderly exemplar. In Study 3, the proposition that contrast effects reflect comparisons of the self with the exemplar was supported.

Assimilation and Contrast in Social Psychology

J. Suls, D.A. Stapel, Introduction Section I. Classic, Perceptual & Judgmental Perspectives. J. Suls & L. Wheeler, Psychological Magnetism: A Brief History of Assimilation and Contrast in Psychology. D.H. Wedell, S.M. Karpick, & L.O. Smarandescu, Contrasting Models of Assimilation and Contrast 3. M. Biernat & M. Manis, Stereotypes and Shifting Standards: Assimilation and Contrast in Social Judgment 4. F. Ric & P.M. Niedenthal, Assimilation and Contrast Effects of Affect on Judgment Section II. Social Cognitive Perspectives. 5. N. Schwarz & H. Bless, Mental Construal Processes: The Inclusion/Exclusion Model 6. D.A . Stapel, In the Mind of the Beholder: The Interpretation Comparison Model of Accessibility Effects 7. T.A. Mussweiler, Assimilation and Contrast as Comparison Effects: A Selective Accessibility Model 8. K.D. Markman, J.J. Ratcliff, N. Mizoguchi, M.N. McMullen, & R.A. Elizaga, Assimilation and Contrast in Counterfactual Thinking and Other Mental Simulation-Based Comparison Processes 9. L.L. Martin & S. Shirk, Set/Reset and Self-Regulation: Do Contrast Processes Play A Role in the Breakdown of Self-Control? Section III. Motivational Perspectives. 10. J. Glaser, Contrast Effects in Automatic Affect, Cognition, and Behavior 11. L.Z. Tiedens, R.M. Chow, & M.M. Unzueta, Complementary Contrast and Assimilation: Interpersonal Theory and the Social Functions of Contrast and Assimilation Effects 12. J. Foerster & N. Liberman,Contrast Effects in Knowledge Activation: The Case of Inhibition Effects Due to Competing Constructs or Goal Fulfillment 13. M.L.W. Vliek, C.W Leach, & R. Spears, Contrast and Assimilation in Upward Comparison: The Intra-group Dimension 14. D.A Stapel & J. Suls, Several Answers to Four Questions: Reflections and Conclusions

Distinctness of others, mutability of selves: Their impact on self-evaluations

The authors postulate that the outcome of social comparison processes is determined by the role social comparison information serves during the self-evaluation process. Assimilation is more likely in situations that instigate the inclusion of social comparison information in self-representations. Contrast is the more probable outcome when information about another person is used as a reference point for self-judgments. Whether comparison information instigates interpretation or comparison effects depends on the distinctness of this information as well as the perceived mutability of the self. The authors found support for their perspective using different types of manipulations of the distinctness construct, treating self-mutability as a contextual as well as an individual-difference variable, and measuring the effects of social comparisons on measures likely to reveal both assimilation and contrast effects (self-evaluative judgments and behavioral predictions), assimilation effects only (mood measures), and motivational self-repair effects (importance ratings of the focal comparison dimension).

Self-activation increases social comparison

In a series of studies it was demonstrated that activating the self is sufficient to increase social comparison tendencies. Treating the relevant constructs as individual differences that can be measured as well as contextual variables that can be manipulated, the authors show that individual differences in self-activation are correlated with interest in social comparison information and that manipulations of self-activation cause changes in interest in social comparison. Self-certainty often has been portrayed as the primary determinant of social comparison interest. The present results suggest that self-activation affects interest in social comparison even when self-certainty is controlled.

The Referents of Trait Inferences: The Impact of Trait Concepts Versus Actor-Trait Links on Subsequent Judgments

The authors investigated the hypothesis that when trait inferences refer to abstract behavior labels they act as a general interpretation frame and lead to assimilation in subsequent judgments of an ambiguous target, whereas when they refer to a specific actor-trait link they will be used as a scale anchor and lead to contrast. Similar to G.B. Moskowitz and R.J. Romans ( 1992 ) study, participants who were instructed to memorize trait-implying sentences showed assimilation, and participants who were instructed to form an impression of the actors in these sentences showed contrast. However, exposure to trait-implying sentences that described actors with real names and were accompanied with photos of the actors resulted in contrast under both memorization and impression instructions (Experiment 1 ). Furthermore, contrast ensued when trait-implying sentences were accompanied with information that suggested a person attribution, whereas assimilation ensued when that information suggested a situation attribution, independent of processing goals (Experiment 2). These findings are interpreted as support for referent-based explanations of the consequences of trait inferences.

Power Increases Infidelity Among Men and Women

Data from a large survey of 1,561 professionals were used to examine the relationship between power and infidelity and the process underlying this relationship. Results showed that elevated power is positively associated with infidelity because power increases confidence in the ability to attract partners. This association was found for both actual infidelity and intentions to engage in infidelity in the future. Gender did not moderate these results: The relationship between power and infidelity was the same for women as for men, and for the same reason. These findings suggest that the common assumption (and often-found effect) that women are less likely than men to engage in infidelity is, at least partially, a reflection of traditional gender-based differences in power that exist in society.

Power increases dehumanization

The current paper shows that the experience or possession of power increases dehumanization—the process of denying essential elements of “humanness” in other people and perceiving them as objects or animals. A position of power entails making difficult decisions for other people that may cause pain and suffering. Dehumanization helps to downplay this pain and suffering and thus to justify these decisions. Study 1 shows that powerful people dehumanize an outgroup more. Study 2 replicates that powerful people dehumanize an outgroup more and shows that this is especially likely after making a tough decision that is painful for that outgroup. Study 3 replicates this in a medical context. Together, these studies show that dehumanization—although by itself a very negative phenomenon—can also have functional elements: it helps powerful people to make tough decisions in a more distant, cold, and rational manner.

Emotion Elicitor or Emotion Messenger

The following articles have been retracted from publication in Psychological Science: Ruys, K. I., & Stapel, D. A. (2008). The secret life of emotions. Psychological Science, 19, 385–391. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02097.x Ruys, K. I., & Stapel, D. A. (2008). Emotion elicitor or emotion messenger? Subliminal priming reveals two faces of facial expressions. Psychological Science, 19, 593–603. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02128.x The editors and publishers of Psychological Science have made the retractions following the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel (https://www.commissielevelt.nl/). The Levelt Committee has determined that these articles contained data that were fabricated by author Stapel. His coauthor was unaware of his actions, was not in any way involved in the generation of the data, and agrees to the retraction of the articles. The following Psychological Science articles coauthored by Stapel have been cleared by the Levelt Committee, whose investigation into these articles found no evidence of fraudulent data or practices: Lammers, J., Stapel, D. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). Power increases hypocrisy: Moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 737–744. doi:10.1177/0956797610368810 Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., Jordan, J., Pollmann, M., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases infidelity among men and women. Psychological Science, 22, 1191–1197. doi:10.1177/0956797611416252 Lammers, J., Stoker, J. I., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). Differentiating social and personal power: Opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies. Psychological Science, 20, 1543–1549. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02479.x The five articles noted above are the only ones published in Psychological Science on which Stapel is listed as an author.

Short Note: Using primed exemplars during impression formation: interpretation or comparison?

Two studies demonstrate that when priming stimuli consist of (1) trait concepts and person exemplars, (2) trait concepts and non-person exemplars, (3) only non-person exemplars, assimilation in judgments of an ambiguous person follows. However, when priming stimuli consist of (4) only person exemplars, contrast in judgments of both ambiguous and well-known persons ensues.

Event Accessibility and Context Effects in Causal Inference: Judgment of a Different Order

Two studies examine how the influence of an accessible context event affects causal judgments of an ambiguous target as a function of the order in which the two events are explained. It is proposed that whether judgment of a target event is contrasted from or assimilated toward the implications of a context event depends on the distinctness of the context information at the time of judgment. Results supported the prediction that when participants were required to judge a context event before a target event, the context event would be perceived as more distinct, leading to comparison and contrast, whereas the reverse judgmental order would render the same context event relatively indistinct and lead to assimilation. Findings are discussed in the light of literature on causal judgments and recent models of assimilation and contrast effects.