Kristin L. Sommer

What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: comment on Cross and Madson (1997)

In response to S. E. Cross and L. Madsons (1997) suggestion that mens behaviors reflect a desire for independence and separateness, the authors propose that those same behaviors are designed to form connections with other people but in a broader social sphere. Womens sociality is oriented toward dyadic close relationships, whereas mens sociality is oriented toward a larger group. Gender differences in aggression, helping behavior, desire for power, uniqueness, self-representations, interpersonal behavior, and intimacy fit this view.

Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology: Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial

Recent studies in social psychology are reviewed for evidence relevant to seven Freudian defense mechanisms. This work emphasizes normal populations, moderate rather than extreme forms of defense, and protection of self-esteem against threat. Reaction formation, isolation, and denial have been amply shown in studies, and they do seem to serve defensive functions. Undoing, in the sense of counterfactual thinking, is also well documented but does not serve to defend against the threat. Projection is evident, but the projection itself may be a by-product of defense rather than part of the defensive response itself. Displacement is not well supported in any meaningful sense, although emotions and physical arousal states do carry over from one situation to the next. No evidence of sublimation was found.

Self-Evaluation, Persistence, and Performance Following Implicit Rejection: The Role of Trait Self-Esteem

In three studies, participants were primed with words connoting interpersonal acceptance, interpersonal rejection, or other aversive outcomes. Study 1 revealed that participants low in self-esteem responded to rejection (compared to other) primes by appraising themselves less positively and more negatively, whereas those high in self-esteem showed the opposite tendency. Study 2 showed that implicit rejection caused participants low in self-esteem to give up sooner on a difficult (unsolvable) anagram task but led those high in self-esteem to persist longer. Study 3 revealed that primed rejection hampered performance among low-self-esteem participants but somewhat improved performance among high-self-esteem participants. Taken together, the findings indicated that people with low self-esteem automatically respond to interpersonal rejection with self-deprecation and withdrawal, whereas those with high self-esteem tend to react with affirmation and perseverance. People with low self-esteem appear to possess few resources for defending against rejection threat.

Ostracism and Ego Depletion: The Strains of Silence

Two studies examined whether ostracizing someone depletes psychological resources in the ostracizer. In Study 1, people who followed instructions to avoid conversation with a confederate for 3 minutes later showed decrements in persistence on unsolvable problems. In Study 2, ostracizers showed subsequent impairments in physical stamina on a handgrip task. Although ostracism affected mood too, mood did not appear to mediate the main findings. Past work has shown that ostracism has negative consequences for the victim, but the present results indicate that ostracism has a harmful impact on the ostracizer too.

When Juries Fail to Comply with the Law: Biased Evidence Processing in Individual and Group Decision Making

Two experiments examined individual and group decision making when decision criteria led to outcomes that violated distributive justice. In Experiment 1, noncompliant individual jurors in a civil trial biased their determinations of negligence to award damages when the decision criteria prohibited an award. Experiment 2 replicated this effect at the group level and revealed that juries also biased their attributions of negligence to justify reducing damages when the decision criteria required an excessive award. In both cases of noncompliance, juries recruited a biased subset of information during deliberations that sustained their decisions. Finally, noncompliant juries were marked by the advent of a “trigger” person who raised justice concerns. Implications for other decision-making groups and for the courts are discussed.

Making Someone Feel Guilty

Guilt is an aversive emotion. It involves a sense of remorse, regret, tension, and arousal (Baumeister, Reis, & Delespaul, 1995; Tangney, 1995) and often co-occurs with shame (Ferguson & Stegge, 1995; Tangney, 1995). Because guilt is experientially bad, the act of making another person feel guilty clearly qualifies as an aversive interpersonal behavior. To make someone feel guilty is to inflict a negative, undesired emotional state that most people normally try to avoid.