Maferima Touré-Tillery

The End Justifies the Means, but Only in the Middle.

Achieving goals often requires the completion of sequential actions, such as finishing a series of assignments to pass a class. In the course of pursuing such goals, people can decide how closely to follow their personal standards for each action. We propose that actions at the beginning and end of a sequence appear more diagnostic of the pursuers personal standards than do actions in the middle. Therefore, people are more likely to adhere to their standards at the beginning and end of goal pursuit-and slack in the middle. We demonstrate this pattern of judgment and behavior in adherence to ethical standards (e.g., cheating), religious traditions (e.g., skipping religious rituals), and performance standards (e.g., cutting corners on a task). We also show that the motivation to adhere to standards by using proper means is independent and follows a different pattern from the motivation to reach the end state of goal pursuit.

Who or What to Believe: Trust and the Differential Persuasiveness of Human and Anthropomorphized Messengers

Participants in three studies read advertisements in which messages were delivered either by people or by anthropomorphized agents—specifically, “talking” products. The results indicate that people low in interpersonal trust are more persuaded by anthropomorphized messengers than by human spokespeople because low trusters are more attentive to the nature of the messenger and believe that humans, more than partial humans (i.e., anthropomorphized agents), lack goodwill. People high in interpersonal trust are less attentive about who is trying to persuade them and so respond similarly to human and anthropomorphized messengers. However, when prompted to be attentive, they are more persuaded by human spokespeople than by anthropomorphized messengers due to their belief that humans, more than partial humans, act with goodwill. Under conditions in which attentiveness is low for all consumers, high and low trusters alike are unaffected by the nature of persuasion agents. The authors discuss the implications of the findings for advertisers considering the use of anthropomorphized “spokespeople.”

It was(n't) me: Exercising restraint when choices appear self-diagnostic

This research tests the hypothesis that individuals exercise restraint for actions that reflect on their self-concept (i.e., self-diagnostic actions). Experiments 1 and 2 show an action framed as occurring at the beginning or end (vs. middle) of a constructed sequence is seen as more self-diagnostic. Accordingly, Experiment 3 finds more restraint in snack choices at the framed beginning or end (vs. middle). Furthermore, the degree of importance of a goal-which reflects its centrality to the self-concept-determines responses to self-diagnosticity cues such as framed positions. Specifically, participants committed to financial goals (Experiment 4) and health goals (Experiment 5) were more likely to make decisions consistent with these goals at the beginning or end, but indulged and splurged in the middle. Experiment 6 shows similar patterns for judgments of magazine subscriptions, but only when individuals are faced with a decision that poses a self-control conflict for them. These results highlight the role of the self in self-control by demonstrating that people exercise restraint when decision contexts seem more telling of the self.

Too far to help: The effect of perceived distance on the expected impact and likelihood of charitable action.

Fact: Holding force constant, a snowball thrown from 10 feet away will hurt more than one thrown from 50 feet away; it will have more impact. We show that people expect charitable donations—much like snowballs—to have more impact on nearby (vs. faraway) targets. Therefore, because making an impact is a powerful motivator of prosocial behavior, people are more willing to take action to help nearby (vs. faraway) causes—independent of social distance. Six studies, including lab and field experiments, and secondary data from fundraising campaigns support this prediction. Specifically, Study 1 shows that people expect charitable donations to have a greater impact on nearby (vs. faraway) recipients, and that these judgments stem from metaphorical thinking. In the context of alumni giving to their alma mater, the next two studies show that donations increase as real (Study 2) or perceived (Study 3) distances decrease. Study 4 extends these findings using a more conservative manipulation of distance perception (Study 4). Finally, Study 5 demonstrates the mediating role of expected impact on the effect of perceived distance on charitable action, whereas Study 6 shows that a motivational focus on making an impact moderates this effect.