George I. Whitehead

The Positivity Bias in Attributions Two Cross-Cultural Investigations

Two experiments examined whether the attributions people made about others from their own or another culture were subject to a positivity bias, and whether these attributions were affected by a positive in-group bias. In Experiment 1, a Japanese sample made attributions to a person from Japan, the United States, or the Third World who was either promoted or demoted. In Experiment 2, a sample from the United States and the Third World made attributions to a person from the United States or the Third World who was either promoted or demoted. The attributions were not subject to a positive in-group bias. However, the attributions made by the Japanese, Americans, and people from the Third World evidenced a positivity bias, although with cultural variation on the measures on which it was obtained.

Attributions for Promotion and Demotion in the United States and India

Abstract Weiner et al. have proposed a model of attributions for task performance that categorizes achievement attributions in terms of an internal/external dimension and a stable/unstable dimension. The present study proposes a modification of the model to include external power factors relevant to an individual or an environment. It was hypothesized that promotions would elicit attributions of external power relevant to an individual (e.g., social class) and demotions would elicit attributions of external power relevant to the environment (e.g., corruption). It was also hypothesized that Americans would make attributions to internal factors (ability and effort) more than would Indians and that Indians would make attributions to external power factors more than would Americans. To this end, 87 American and 131 Indian college students read about a worker who was promoted or demoted in a job and attributed the promotion or demotion to internal, external, and external power factors. The results supported th...

Coverage of recent criticisms of Milgram’s obedience experiments in introductory social psychology textbooks:

This article has two purposes: (a) to broaden awareness of recent criticisms of Milgram’s obedience experiments by providing a relatively inclusive review of them interlaced within a discussion of Gina Perry’s main substantive criticisms and (b) to report the findings of our coverage analysis for recent criticisms in current introductory social psychology textbooks. Past coverage analyses have found a “Milgram-friendly” trend (little or no discussion or even acknowledgment of the large body of criticism published from 1964 onward) that evolved in textbooks from the 1960s to the 1990s and has become more pronounced since that time period. Our findings on coverage of recent criticisms were consistent with those of past text analyses. None of the recent criticisms were covered, even in the social psychology textbooks dated 2015. We discuss a possible explanation for these findings that involves a proposed knowledge-conserving function of social psychology textbooks.

Coverage of Milgram’s Obedience Experiments in Social Psychology Textbooks Where Have All the Criticisms Gone?

Past studies of the treatment of Milgram’s obedience experiments in social psychology textbooks from the 1960s to the 1990s discovered an evolving “Milgram-friendly” coverage style (dealing with criticisms of his experiments either summarily, in a pro-Milgram manner, or not at all). We examined 10 current social textbooks to determine the present state of this Milgram-friendly coverage. Our findings indicate that such coverage has become the norm. Methodological and ethical criticisms of the obedience experiments and challenges to their external validity are seldom cited, and if they are, they are only briefly described and usually dealt with in a Milgram-friendly manner. We discuss two factors likely responsible for this insufficient treatment of these criticisms in social psychology textbooks and urge remediation.

INTERPERSONAL CONSEQUENCES OF NARCISSISM

This study explored the interpersonal consequences of different levels of narcissism in male and female targets. The Narcissistic Personality Inventory and its four subscales were given to compare interpersonal responses of persons exhibiting extreme, moderate, and low scores on narcissism. Participants read one of four versions of the inventory completed by a fictitious student named “Tom” or “Ann.” Analyses indicated that, while gender of participant or target had no effect, participants expressed significantly less interest in further interaction and greater rejection of a person exhibiting extreme scores on narcissism than one with moderate scores, extreme scores on self-absorption and entitlement, and low narcissism scores.

The Relationship Between Codependency and Borderline and Dependent Personality Traits

Abstract This study explored the relationship between the concept of codependency, a term originating in the field of addictions, and DSM-IV (APA, 1994) descriptions of dependent and borderline personality disorders. Seventy-five undergraduates (16 men and 59 women) were administered the Potter-Efron Codependency Scale (Potter-Efron & Potter-Efron, 1989), the borderline and the dependent scales of the MCMI-II (Millon, 1987), and the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale (DAS, Weissman, 1979). Pearson Product Moment correlations were computed and revealed a significant positive correlation between codependent and borderline traits and a significant but weaker correlation between codependent and dependent traits. Codependent and borderline personality traits were also similarly correlated on specific cognitive schema assessed by the DAS. These findings are one of only a few first empirical tests of the relationship between borderline personality disorder, dependent personality disorder and codependency, possibly indicating that codependency may be a combination of disorders already extant in the DSM-IV.

When Illnesses or Accidents Befall Others: The Role of Gender in Defensive Distancing

Two experiments were designed to investigate the proposition that men engage in greater defensive distancing than do women. In Experiment 1, we tested this hypothesis by having male and female participants (predominantly White, from working class backgrounds) distance themselves from a person with an illness or medical condition. In Experiment 2, we tested this hypothesis by having male and female participants distance themselves from a person involved in a mild or severe accident. We also attempted to replicate the finding that people distance themselves more over time from a person with a serious illness. As predicted, men engaged in greater defensive distancing than did women. We did not find that participants distanced themselves more over time from a person with a serious illness. Implications of these findings are discussed.

The Use of Hand Gestures and Smiles in the Inaugural Addresses of Presidents of the United States

HALL (1966) delineated four distance zones that people keep between themselves and others: intimate, personal, social, and public. Hall suggested that, as the distance changes, there are corresponding changes in verbal and nonverbal communication. The adjustments in interpersonal communication in public distance include loss of details of facial expression and an increase in hand gestures. On the basis of that analysis, we proposed that, in public distance, speakers use hand gestures more than smiles as the primary form of nonverbal communication. To test that proposition, we analyzed the televised inaugural addresses of several presidents of the United States. Researchers have observed that nonverbal behavior (a) served a number of functions in social interactions (Ekman & Friesan, 1969) and (b) was affected by self-presentational motivation (Riess & Rosenfeld, 1980). Therefore, we expected some smiling behavior from the presidents because presidents engage in ingratiation in their inaugural addresses (Whitehead & Smith, 1999). People smile more when they are ingratiating (e.g., Godfrey, Jones, & Lord, 1986; Lefebvre, 1975) and seeking approval (e.g., Rosenfeld, 1966a, 1966b). However, we predicted that the presidents would use more hand gestures than

Competence and Excuse-Making as Self-Presentational Strategies

Self-presentation is a communicative act in which people convey a particular image of themselves to others, verbally or nonverbally. Research on self-presentation generally manipulates the public or private nature of responses such that a public response is one that people anticipate presenting to others, and a private response is one that people do not anticipate presenting to anyone connected with the experiment. If the responses differ, it is presumed that public responses are affected by self-presentational concerns (Baumeister, 1982). Although there are other methodologies employed in research on self-presentation (see Tetlock & Manstead, 1985), this is the methodology employed in the research presented here.

The Use of Consensus-Raising Excuses as a Function of the Manipulation of Publicness The Role of Expectations of Future Interaction

The present investigation tested the proposition that people use consensus-raising excuses less when they expect to discuss their responses with an informed audience than when they expect to reveal their responses to such an audience without discussion or keep their responses private. Subjects received favorable or unfavorable feedback on an ego-involving social perceptiveness test and made attributions to ability, effort, luck, and task difficulty while expecting to keep their responses private or expecting to reveal them publicly either with or without interaction with an informed audience. Attributions to task difficulty are considered consensus-raising excuses. The results supported the hypothesis.