Tracey J. Elder

Justice for Whom, Exactly? Beliefs in Justice for the Self and Various Others

The present studies examine why people think the world is more just to themselves than to others generally. Beliefs in justice for the self were uniquely associated with psychological adjustment, consistent with the theoretical motive to believe in justice for the self (Studies 1 and 2). However, this “justice motive” did not appear to affect the relative strength of justice beliefs. Instead, self–other differences in justice beliefs appeared to reflect objective assessments of the justice received by various demographics. Undergraduates believed the world to be more just to themselves than to others but not their undergraduate peers specifically (Study 1). Participants of both genders believed the world to be more just to men, and to themselves, than to women (Study 2). Women did not exempt themselves individually from injustice but believed, similar to men, that undergraduate women receive as much justice as men (Study 3).

Reactions to Internal and External Criticism of Outgroups: Social Convention in the Intergroup Sensitivity Effect

Recent research has documented the intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE) whereby people respond more favorably to internal versus external criticism of their group. The present studies examine the reactions of bystanders who do not belong to the criticized group and whose reactions are therefore more likely to be informed by social conventions than by defensiveness. Studies 1 and 2 presented British participants with criticisms of Australians, manipulating their ostensible source. These British bystanders exhibited the ISE, responding more favorably to the speaker and comments when the critic was Australian rather than non-Australian. These responses were driven by the perceived motives of speakers rather than their level of experience with the group (Study 2). Study 3 provides direct evidence that internal criticism is more conventionally acceptable than is external criticism.

Keeping it to Ourselves: Effects of Audience Size and Composition on Reactions to Criticisms of the Ingroup

Criticism is an important aspect of communication within and between groups, but reactions to criticism of groups have been little studied. Past research has shown that criticism elicits greater sensitivity when made by an outgroup member, compared to an ingroup member. Two experiments were conducted to examine how this intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE) is affected by the context of the criticism. Experiment 1 showed that the ISE occurs in a private context, but disappears when it is clear that the criticism is made to a large public audience. Experiment 2 investigated intragroup criticism and manipulated both audience size and audience composition. Results showed that ingroup criticism elicited greater sensitivity and less favorable evaluations of the speaker when made to an outgroup rather than an ingroup audience. The results highlight strategic considerations and tacit protocols governing the criticism of groups.

Does correction for guessing reduce students’ performance on multiple‐choice examinations? Yes? No? Sometimes?

Multiple‐choice (MC) examinations are becoming increasingly popular in higher education because they can be used effectively to assess breadth of knowledge in large cohorts of students. This present research investigated psychology students’ performance on, and experiences of, MC examinations with and without correction for guessing. In Study 1, data were collected from two cohorts of students across three psychology MC examinations. The results revealed that students scored higher, and left fewer questions unanswered, when there was no correction for guessing. Furthermore, when the correction for guessing was removed from the theory MC examination, students who were told there was no correction for guessing did better than those told there was a correction. In addition, there was limited evidence of gender differences, with female students performing significantly better on one MC examination than males. In Study 2, a further set of first‐year psychology students reported their experiences of correction for guessing on open‐book and closed‐book MC examinations. Students reported feeling less anxious and more confident on the open‐book MC examination. The findings of both of these studies have implications for instructors deciding whether or not correction for guessing is appropriate, and for the advice to be given to students preparing for MC examinations.