Suchergebnisse

Reeder (Reeder, 1985; Reeder & Brewer, 1979) posited a schematic model of dispositional attributions to explain negativity effects in social cognition. However, in Reeder's schematic model of dispositional attributions, it is assumed that social perceivers' processing objective is to form an impression of a social actor. Based on Reeder and Brewer's hierarchical schema, it was predicted that mock jurors processing testimony under impression-set conditions would rate a witness to be more deceptive if the witness testified truthfully before lying than when the witness was caught lying first before telling the truth. Under memory-set conditions, based on the availability heuristic, mock jurors were predicted to rate the witness to be more deceptive when the witness lied first before telling the truth compared to when the witness told the truth first before lying. To test the hypothesis, subjects played the roles of mock jurors and watched a videotape of a witness presenting testimony during a trial. The witness was caught perjuring him- or herself by the attorney either on the first response to the attorney's queries or on the fourth response. Results confirmed the hypothesis. When subjects processed the attorney-witness interaction under impression-set objectives, subjects formed stronger judgments of the witness's deceptiveness when he or she lied on the first answer; the pattern was reversed under memory-set conditions.

Three studies were conducted to determine the effect of a role model's safety behavior on observers' safety behavior. In Studies 1 and 2, role models (confederates) used a cleaning product requiring them to wear safety gloves. Study 1 examined observers' safety behavior after they witnessed a friendly (unfriendly) role model's safety behavior in one of four conditions: 1) wearing rubber gloves, 2) not wearing rubber gloves and experiencing no chemical burn, 3) not wearing rubber gloves and experiencing a mild chemical burn, and 4) not wearing rubber gloves and experiencing a severe chemical burn. In Study 2, participants tested a cleaning product with a warning message (low hazard vs. high hazard) after observing a role model first test the cleaning product in one of the four conditions specified above. As predicted, in Studies 1 and 2, observers were influenced by the role model's safety behavior. However, the friendliness of the role model (Study 1) and level of hazard (Study 2) communicated in the warning message did not influence participants' safety behavior. Using an over-thecounter pain reliever, Study 3 tested the joint effects of: 1) the level of hazard communicated in the warning, 2) observers' outcome-relevant involvement, and 3) role model's compliance. Although the level of hazard communicated in the warning exerted no impact on observers' safety compliance, the role model's safety behavior and level of involvement jointly influenced observers' safety behavior. The implications of the findings and future research directions are discussed. Actual or potential applications of the research include, but are not limited to, using role models in warning messages and safety training programs to demonstrate the proper use of safety gear so as to enhance product users' compliance with safety recommendations.