Search

WHILE the number of sexual harassment lawsuits is increasing, a consensus regarding what behavior constitutes that harassment is yet to be achieved. Inasmuch as perception plays a pivotal role in [...]

In documenting cognitive processes underlying persons' reactions to negative events, counterfactual thinking, hindsight bias, and attribution theory focus on distinct, although not unrelated, aspects of human information processing. Counterfactual thinking highlights the cognitive processing undertaken when persons imagine different courses of action that lead to alternative outcomes. Hindsight bias describes the inflated retrospective estimates individuals make regarding event probabilities that come with the advantage of knowledge about outcomes. And attribution theory concerns the affective and behavioral consequences that result from the perceived causes of events. This essay argues that a more comprehensive understanding of the processes underlying human response to traumatic events results from the integration of counterfactual thinking, hindsight bias, and attribution theory into a single model.

Response bias refers to systematic error in the data produced by patients or research subjects, e.g., due to erroneous recall or reporting. In forensic settings, response bias appears to be associated with the nature of the proceedings. The present study tested whether patients in litigation exhibit different response patterns than nonlitigating patients when asked about their preinjury problems. 34 litigants and 80 nonlitigants rated various areas of cognitive and emotional functioning as problematic in the past and currently. The primary finding was that plaintiffs reported preinjury functioning superior to that of controls. These findings suggest the need for caution in inferences that litigants are either reliable or deceitful because response biases may affect self-reports in a misleading fashion.

During an apparent sentence memorization experiment, subjects in Experiments 1 and 2 were unobtrusively exposed to either controllable, uncontrollable, or no causal information. In an ostensibly unrelated second task, subjects read a paragraph about a stimulus person who needed to borrow class notes for reasons ambiguous with respect to causal controllability. Subjects then rated the stimulus person along a number of attributionally-relevant dependent measures. The primary findings were that causal judgments of the target person were consistent with the activated pole of the controllability dimension, with subjects exposed to controllable as opposed to uncontrollable causal information ascribing greater responsibility to the stimulus person, reporting more anger and less sympathy, and being less inclined to offer assistance. In Experiment 3, subjects were primed with either stable, unstable, or no causal information prior to reading an ambiguously presented description of a stimulus person who was experiencing academic difficulties. Subjects exposed to stable rather than unstable causal information perceived the target person's academic difficulties as due to unchanging factors, as likely to be repeated, and to result in academic withdrawal. The implications of these findings for impression formation and attributional processes are discussed.

The effect of information about detection of an odor on causal ascriptions for illness was investigated. In four different scenarios perceptions regarding the cause of a hypothetical symptomatic experience were compared for events described with and without an odor. Participants (N=106) were asked to imagine themselves becoming ill after engaging in several common experiences, including pumping gasoline at a service station. In two scenarios participants read that they smelled an offensive odor while pumping the gasoline whereas in two other scenarios no information about an odor was provided. Further, information about gasoline described with or without odor was presented either early or late in the stimulus paragraphs. All participants then responded to questions including an open-ended question asking them to make causal attributions for their illness. Participants in the odor-suggested group ascribed the cause of illness more frequently to gasoline and perceived the probability of other potential causes as lower than did participants in the nonodor suggested group. Findings suggest that peoples' implicit theories about toxicity contain causal connections between malodorous stimuli and illness. The implications of implicit theories for perception of illness are discussed.

As neuropsychologists are involved increasingly in the neuropsychological assessment of individuals reporting both acute and long-term exposure to hydrocarbons, the value of research for providing guidance also increases. Research findings inform neuropsychologists about likely neuropsychological deficits given certain intensity and duration of exposure and about neuropsychological tests most appropriate for detecting hydrocarbon-induced deficits. Although high-dose events are associated with neuropsychological deficits, methodological weaknesses in the existing research impede a consensus on the implications of low-dose exposures in humans. Three flaws inherent in research on low-dose hydrocarbon exposures and their implications for neuropsychological assessment of individuals are discussed: Selection bias in recruitment of research participants, biased recall of research participants, and between-study variation in neuropsychological tests and results. Because they undermine the reliability and validity of existing research, lack of awareness of these weaknesses may interfere with unbiased assessment of individual patients suspected of hydrocarbon-induced neuropsychological deficits. Examples from the social-cognitive psychological literature contribute to understanding how misleading research findings can lead experts to form expectancies that bias assessment of individuals.

The frequency with which various psychological tests are administered in forensic evaluations was assessed. Data was gathered from reports of adult personal injury evaluations by 100 examiners identified as experts in neuropsychology. A rank ordering of tests from most to least used by examiners was created. For example, the most frequently used tests were the WAIS-R, MMPI, WMS-R, Trails A & B, Finger Oscillation Test, Bender-Gestalt, Category Test, and Wisconsin Card-Sorting Test. Selected comparisons were made of test ranking from earlier surveys. Implications of findings for examiners and expert witnesses are considered.