Monique A. Fleming

The A2SC2 Model: The Influence of Attitudes and Attitude Strength on Consideration and Choice

This research investigates the influence of attitudes and attitude strength on consideration and choice. Three experiments provide support for the Attitude and Attitude Strength, Consideration and Choice (A2SC2) Model, which hypothesizes that (a) attitude strength moderates the influence of attitudes on consideration, such that attitudes guide consideration more for strongly held attitudes than for weakly held attitudes and (b) consideration of a brand mediates the influence of attitudes and attitude strength on choice. Copyright 2004 by the University of Chicago.

The Effects of Multiple Identities on Psychological Well-Being

The authors propose that the effects of multiple identities on psychological well-being depend on the number of identities, importance of those identities, and relationship between them. Specifically, this model predicts that when identities are highly important, having many versus few identities leads to greater psychological well-being if the identities are in harmony with each other—providing resources and expecting similar behaviors—but leads to lower psychological well-being if the identities conflict with each other—depleting resources and expecting incompatible behaviors. However, when identities are less important, neither the number of identities nor identity harmony should affect well-being. The authors further propose that emotions corresponding to self-perceptions of actual/ought self-discrepancies mediate these effects. Results supported this model. The authors discuss implications of this model for well-being in the context of the increasing social complexity of modern life.

Stigmatized sources and persuasion : Prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny

Two experiments examined the viability of several explanations for why majority group individuals process persuasive messages from stigmatized sources more than those from nonstigmatized sources. In each study, majority group participants who either were high or low in prejudice or were high or low in ambivalence toward a stigmatized sources group were exposed to a persuasive communication attributed to a stigmatized (Black, Experiment 1; homosexual, Experiment 2) or nonstigmatized (White, Experiment 1; heterosexual, Experiment 2) source. In both studies, source stigmatization increased message scrutiny only among those who were low in prejudice toward the stigmatized group. This finding is most consistent with the view that people scrutinize messages from stigmatized sources in order to guard against possibly unfair reactions by themselves or others.

The Review Process at PSPB: Correlates of Interreviewer Agreement and Manuscript Acceptance

Reviewer agreement and the predictors of publication judgments were investigated for first-submission manuscripts to the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin during a 3 1/2—year period (i.e., one editor’s tenure). Among the findings were the following: Reviewers’ judgments of manuscripts were multirather than unidimensional; reviewer agreement about methodology and overall recommendation was greater among high-prestige than mixed-prestige reviewers; authors with high prestige and authors with low professional experience submitted longer manuscripts than their counterparts; author prestige and text length were positively related to publication judgments of reviewers and editors; and author gender was related to editor’s decisions with female authors receiving less favorable decisions than males. The possible mediation of these findings and their implications for understanding the peer-review process in personality and social psychology are discussed.

When and Why the Background Contrast Effect Emerges: Thought Engenders Meaning by Influencing the Perception of Applicability

The Background Contrast Effect occurs when the trade-off value between attributes in a first choice influences subsequent choice. We explore the role of decision-making thoughtfulness in seeking to understand when and why this effect occurs. Experiments 1 and 2 provide evidence that the Background Contrast Effect emerges more under thoughtful than under nonthoughtful conditions. Experiment 3 reveals that thought influences perceptions of applicability of the trade-off values in the first choice to the second. Experiment 4 demonstrates that when the information from the first choice is manipulated to appear inapplicable, the Background Contrast Effect is reversed under thoughtful conditions. This research highlights the role of thought on perception of applicability as a process underlying when and why context is used to generate meaning in choice situations.

Stigmatized Targets and Evaluation: Prejudice as a Determinant of Attribute Scrutiny and Polarization

The authors provide evidence for a new mechanism for the more polarized evaluations of stigmatized than nonstigmatized target individuals that often follow positive versus negative target descriptions. The current research suggests that polarization can occur because low-prejudiced perceivers think more about information describing stigmatized than nonstigmatized targets (i.e., have polarized thoughts). Mediational path analyses revealed that polarized thoughts fully accounted for the impact of prejudice on evaluative polarization. These findings are most consistent with the watchdog hypothesis that people scrutinize information describing stigmatized targets in order to guard against possibly unfair reactions by themselves or others.