Mariëtte Berndsen

Ambivalence towards meat.

The purpose of the present study was to examine whether differences in ambivalence between meat eaters affect their attitude towards eating meat, the belief structure underlying these attitudes, meat consumption, and intentions to reduce consumption in the future. Not surprisingly, more ambivalent meat eaters held a less positive attitude towards meat as compared to less ambivalent meat eaters. Moreover, the belief structure of the two groups also differed: More ambivalent persons associated the consumption of meat with slightly negative feelings, morally unacceptable issues, and risks for both their health and the environment. In contrast, less ambivalent meat eaters reported positive affective beliefs, did not emphasize moral issues, and perceived less risk. Results highlight the role of affective beliefs as a predictor of both attitude and ambivalence. Ambivalence, in turn, was a predictor of actual meat consumption; i.e. increased ambivalence was related to reduced meat consumption. Moreover, more ambivalent meat eaters intended to further reduce their meat consumption in the future. Practical and theoretical implications of these results are discussed.

Guilt and regret: The determining role of interpersonal and intrapersonal harm

The purpose of the present research was to examine which types of harm play a determining role in experiences of guilt and regret. In two studies it is shown that guilt results from interpersonal harm and regret from harm to oneself. Moreover, the second study showed that guilt generally increases as a function of the level of negative interpersonal consequences of ones behaviour. It was also demonstrated that regret increased as a function of the level of negative intrapersonal consequences but not as a function of the level of negative interpersonal consequences. Results are discussed in terms of theoretical dimensions underlying experiences of guilt and regret.

Risks of meat: the relative impact of cognitive, affective and moral concerns.

The purpose of the present research was, first, to examine the impact of particular perspectives (Study 1: cognitive and affective; Study 2: moral) on the perception and acceptance of risks associated with meat consumption, and intention to reduce meat consumption in the future. The first study showed that an affective focus generally had a stronger impact on risk perception and acceptance, and intention to reduce meat consumption, than a more cognitive focus. Moreover, moral considerations had a clear impact in all conditions. Results of a second study confirmed that a moral focus has powerful effects on all the dependent variables. The second purpose of the research was to examine the perseverance of the impact of cognitive, affective and moral perspectives. In both studies, a follow-up after three weeks showed increased perception of moral risks and a strong intention to reduce future meat consumption. Moreover, attitude towards meat consumption became less positive in the conditions with an affective and moral focus. There were also significant relations between intention to reduce meat consumption, actual reduction, and intention to adhere to this level in the future. Overall, risk acceptance was mediated by perceived health and moral risks, whereas intention about meat consumption was mediated by risk acceptance.

Time is on my side: Optimism in intertemporal choice

The present research examines the role of optimism on time preferences for both losses and gains. It is argued that optimism has asymmetric effects on time preferences for gains versus losses: one reason why decision makers prefer immediate gains is because they are optimistic that these gains will be followed by additional gains in future. In contrast, decision makers prefer to delay losses because they are optimistic that losses are avoidable in the future. Optimism about outcomes affects time preferences for both gains and losses, such that low optimism reduces the discount rates while increased optimism is associated with higher discount rates. This prediction was supported in two different domains: monetary outcomes (Study 1), and health (Study 2). Implications of these results for both research practice and time preferences in the real world are discussed.

Perspective Taking and Opinions About Forms of Reparation for Victims of Historical Harm

The authors investigated the effects of perspective taking on opinions about reparations for victims of historical harm. In two studies, they showed that when non-Indigenous Australians took an Indigenous Australian perspective, this increased perceived entitlement to, and decreased anger toward, monetary compensation. Moreover, perceived entitlement mediated the relationship between anger about monetary compensation and perspective taking. Study 2 demonstrated the mutual influence of emotions and perceived entitlement. In particular, self-image shame rather than group-based guilt or anger predicted support for reparation when an Indigenous Australian perspective was adopted. The results suggest that taking the perspective of people who have experienced harm from one’s own group can bolster a commitment to positive social change in relation to a pressing social issue.

Hypothesis testing as risk behaviour with regard to beliefs

In this paper hypothesis-testing behaviour is compared to risk-taking behaviour. It is proposed that choosing a suitable test for a given hypothesis requires making a preposterior analysis of two aspects of such a test: the probability of obtaining supporting evidence and the evidential value of this evidence. This consideration resembles the one a gambler makes when choosing among bets, each having a probability of winning and an amount to be won. A confirmatory testing strategy can be defined within this framework as a strategy directed at maximizing either the probability or the value of a confirming outcome. Previous theories on testing behaviour have focused on the human tendency to maximize the probability of a confirming outcome. In this paper, two experiments are presented in which participants tend to maximize the confirming value of the test outcome. Motivational factors enhance this tendency dependent on the context of the testing situation. Both this result and the framework are discussed in relation to other studies in the field of testing behaviour. Copyright

Dynamics of differentiation: similarity as the precursor and product of stereotype formation

The degree of data-based and expected coherence within groups was predicted to enhance intergroup differentiation in the illusory correlation paradigm. Results of Study 1 indicated that data-based coherence was a prerequisite for illusory correlation, and this effect was further enhanced by expected coherence. Reinterpretations of the behaviors also augmented illusory correlation, especially when instructions provided greater scope for this, but only under conditions of data-based coherence. The finding that group coherence enhances illusory correlation contradicts recent findings of A. R. McConnell, S. J. Sherman, and D. L. Hamilton (1997). This anomaly was resolved by showing that the relation between group coherence and illusory correlation is curvilinear (Study 2). Illusory correlation increased with coherence but diminished when group coherence was sufficiently high to undermine meaningful evaluative differentiation between groups. Results showed that intragroup similarity is both a precursor and a product of differentiation and illusory correlation.

Where There Is a (Collective) Will, There Are (Effective) Ways Integrating Individual- and Group-Level Factors in Explaining Humanitarian Collective Action

The 21st century has borne witness to catastrophic natural and human-induced tragedies. These disasters necessitate humanitarian responses; however, the individual and collective bases of support are not well understood. Drawing on Duncan’s motivational model of collective action, we focus on how individual differences position a person to adopt group memberships and develop a “group consciousness” that provides the basis for humanitarian action. Longitudinal mediation analyses involving supporters of international humanitarian action (N = 384) sampled annually for 3 years provided support for the hypothesized model, with some twists. The results revealed that within time point, a set of individual differences (together, the “pro-social orientation”) promoted a humanitarian group consciousness that, in turn, facilitated collective action. However, longitudinally, there was evidence that a more general pro-social orientation undermined subsequent identification with, and engagement in, the humanitarian cause. Results are discussed in terms of understanding the interplay between individual and group in collective actions.

The impact of a victim-focused apology on forgiveness in an intergroup context

Although it is well-established that interpersonal apologies promote forgiveness, the apology–forgiveness link at the intergroup level is more tenuous. A possible reason for this tenuous relationship is that many intergroup apologies focus on the offender group’s feelings about the transgression as opposed to the victimized group’s suffering. In this spirit, we manipulated focus of a collective apology in two experiments. Consistent with predictions, a victim-focused apology (relative to offender-focused apology) heightened perceptions of offender group remorse, perceived empathy of the offender group, and trust in the offender. In turn, perceptions of remorse, empathy, and trust uniquely increased intergroup forgiveness. Results have implications for facilitating restorative effects between groups in situations of social injustice.

Expectation-based and data-based illusory correlation: The effects of confirming versus disconfirming evidence

The present study (n = 154) examines the effects of expectations and stimulus information on the perception of illusory correlation. There have been few studies attempting to integrate expectation-based and data- (dixtinctiveness-) based processes. These studies suggest that data-based illusory correlation can be overruled by prior expectations, but it is not clear whether this is a consequence of a confirmation bias. In the present study, where participants were not exposed to the specific stimulus information, expectation was manipulated by stating that group B behaved more negatively than group A. Moreover, participants were provided with information contained in a statement-rating task that allowed for the confirmation and disconfirmation of the prior expectations. Participants rated the desirability of these behaviours and also performed the standard illusory correlation tasks. Based on self-categorization theory and Alloy and Tabachnik (1984), we predicted that in the absence of prior expectations, completing the rating task before the illusory correlation tasks would produce stronger illusory correlation than the reverse order. However, in the presence of prior expectations we expected the rating task to undermine illusory correlation, because the information obtained in this task tends to disconfirm prior expectations. Results support the predicted interaction between task order and expectation. We discuss some implications for research on confirmation bias.