John J. Seta

Assimilation and contrast as a function of people's willingness and ability to expend effort in forming an impression

Set/reset (Martin, 1986) hypothesis that contrast demands more cognitive effort than does assimilation was examined. In Exp. 1, the impressions of distracted Ss showed assimilation toward blatantly primed concepts, whereas the impressions of nondistracted Ss showed contrast. In Exp. 2, Ss told that their ratings would be lumped into a group average showed assimilation, whereas Ss told that their ratings would be examined individually showed contrast. In Exp. 3, the impressions of Ss low in need for cognition showed assimilation, whereas the impressions of Ss high in need for cognition showed contrast. Exp. 1 also showed that the results were not due to differences in recall of the target information, and Exp. 3 showed that the results were not due to differences in recall of the priming stimuli. Together, the results suggest that the processes involved in contrast demand more cognitive effort than do the processes involved in assimilation.

Framing effects: An analytic–holistic perspective ☆

Under what conditions, why, and for whom are framing effects most likely? In this paper, we build on the existing literature (e.g., Chaiken, 1987; Epstein, Lipson, Holstein, & Huh, 1992; Evans & Over, 1996; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1988; Simon, 1956; Sloman, 1996; Stanovich & West, 2000), in providing answers to these questions. We hypothesized that individuals who engage a decision task with an analytic/systematic versus holistic/heuristic processing style are especially insensitive to the influence of framing effects. Therefore, we predicted that the way in which a decision is framed should have a relatively weak influence on those who were either induced (Experiment 1) or predisposed (Experiment 2) to adopt a predominantly analytic/systematic versus holistic/heuristic processing style. The results of both experiments supported this position.

The Impact of Comparison Processes on Coactors' Frustration and Willingness to Expend Effort

Subjects worked on an identical simple motor task that was described as being either rhigh or low in value. They worked alone or with a coactor whose performance rate was slightly superior or very superior to their own. When they performed with a very superior coactor on a high-value task, subjects were more frustrated and produced an inferior level of performance relative to those working with the same coactor on a low-value task. When subjects performed alone, however, they were not more frustrated while working on a high-than low-value task. Nevertheless, their performance scores reflected differences in motivation-subjects working on a high-value task tended to perform better than those working on a low-value task. These data are discussed within a social comparison framework and a resource investment analysis of goal value. The implications of this analysis for self-evaluation maintenance and modeling are discussed.

Effects of Group Size and Proximity Under Cooperative and Competitive Conditions

Research on coaction has concentrated on the arousal-inducing properties of others while practically ignoring the possibility that others may be a source of arousal reduction. The results of the present study support the notion that other coactors can be a source of arousal reduction as well as induction, as reflected in their performance on novel tasks. One experiment varied group size (two or four) and instructional set (competition or cooperation), while a second experiment varied proximity (close or far) and instructional set (competition or cooperation). In both experiments, a significant interaction was obtained. In the first experiment, subjects in the cooperative condition performed better in groups of four than in groups of two, while the reverse was obtained in the competitive condition. In the second experiment, subjects in the cooperative condition performed better when seated close as opposed to far apart, while opposite results were obtained in the competitive condition. Past research has demonstrated that an individuals task performance can be affected by the mere presence of others (see Cottrell, 1972, for a review). This research has involved the use of two paradigms, audience and coaction. In the audience paradigm, individuals perform a task in the presence of observers, while in the coaction paradigm a group of individuals concurrently and individually perform an identical task. Zajonc (1965) has argued that the mere presence of others increases an individuals general level of arousal which in turn increases the tendency to emit dominant responses. If the dominant responses are correct (as is presumably the case for well-learned tasks), heightened arousal results in improved performance by an individual, while if the dominant responses are incorrect (as is presumably the case for tasks that are not well-learned), arousal results in impaired performance.

On the Other Hand Am I Rational? Hemispheric Activation and the Framing Effect

In recent decades the investigation of framing effects has become the foremost studied phenomenon of rational/irrational decision making. Two experiments were conducted to determine whether the functional specializations of the left and the right hemispheres would produce different responses to a traditional framing task. In Experiment 1, a behavioral task of finger tapping was used to induce asymmetrical activation of the respective hemispheres. In Experiment 2, a monaural listening procedure was used. In both experiments, the predicted results were found. Framing effects were found when the right hemisphere was selectively activated whereas they were not observed when the left hemisphere was selectively activated. The results are interpreted in light of a dual-processing approach of decision-making.

Observers and participants in an intergroup setting.

High- and low-self-esteem participant and observer (control) Ss received evaluative feedback about the performance of in-groups and out-groups. Self-evaluations and evaluations of the groups were assessed. Results suggest that participant group members (vs. observers) enhance evaluations of both groups under conditions of failure feedback. Intergroup bias was obtained over and above these effects for participant high-self-esteem Ss. However, participant low-self-esteem Ss favored failing out-groups. Results suggest that individuals with different levels of self-esteem may differ in terms of their inferred status within groups

The Impact of Personal Equity Processes on Performance in a Group Setting

The aim of this chapter is to use the knowledge gained from research on value to further our understanding of performance in a group setting. In doing so, we hope to suggest processes that underlie both the assignment of value and performance in groups. Toward this goal, we will first describe a theory which was proposed to account for the assignment of value (i.e., personal equity theory, Seta & Seta, 1982), and then we will try to apply this knowledge to performance in a group situation. We will discuss how this process may affect individuals’ willingness to engage in performance and will highlight factors which may influence individuals’ inability to perform well even though they may be willing to do so.

Attributional Biases in the Service of Stereotype Maintenance: A Schema-Maintenance Through Compensation Analysis

Six experiments were conducted to test assumptions of a schema-maintenance through compensation analysis. The results of these experiments indicated that perceivers can compensate for the inconsistent action of one individual (the target) by altering their attribution concerning the action of a fellow group member. When the target performed an inconsistent behavior, perceivers compensated by making especially extreme stereotypically consistent attributions concerning a fellow group member’s subsequent action. In addition, in Experiment 5, perceivers compensated via a fellow group member for a target’s inconsistent action while maintaining their general view of group members. Experiments also provided tests of the capability and motivation assumptions of the schema-maintenance through compensation analyses.

The effects of group composition and evaluation on task performance

The effects of the presence of coactors working on the same and different tasks were examined. Subjects were run under either high- or low-evaluative conditions and in either a mixed group (half worked on a maze task while half worked on a multiplication task) or in a homogeneous group (all subjects worked on the maze task). A significant Evaluation by Group Composition interaction was obtained. Under high-evaluative conditions subjects in the mixed condition performed significantly better on the maze task than did subjects on the homogeneous condition, while under low-evaluative conditions, the mixed and homogeneous subjects did not differ in their maze performance. The results were discussed in terms of learned drive theory and incentive motivation.

Dysfunctional counterfactual thinking: When simulating alternatives to reality impedes experiential learning

Abstract Using a multiple-trial stock market decision paradigm, the possibility that counterfactual thinking can be dysfunctional for learning and performance by distorting the processing of outcome information was examined. Correlational (Study 1) and experimental (Study 2) evidence suggested that counterfactuals are associated with a decrease in experiential learning. When counterfactuals were made salient, participants displayed significantly poorer performance compared to their counterparts for whom counterfactuals were relatively less salient. A counterfactual salience × need for cognition (NFC) interaction qualified these findings. High NFC participants outperformed their counterparts when counterfactuals were not salient. Evidence for a memory-based mechanism was also supported.