Search

Cooley et al. (2017) found that subtle shifts in linguistic framing can enhance the amount of "mind" perceived in a target, and in turn increase feelings of sympathy toward that target. The four studies reported here evaluated whether these findings generalize to different populations and contexts. The first two studies served as conceptual replications in a different participant population (university students, instead of mTurk workers), and found results largely consistent with Cooley et al.'s (2017): the group composition frame ("15 individuals who work for a small accounting company") evoked greater perceptions of experience and agency, and more sympathy for the target, than the group frame ("a small accounting company comprising 15 people"). Studies 3 and 4 tested whether the group composition technique would lead to similar persuasive outcomes (increased mind perception, helping, and donations) in a refugee aid context and found only limited evidence that it might. These inconclusive findings were likely complicated by both the liberal skew of the sample and the strong impact of political identity on responses to the politically charged topic of refugees. For the purposes of practical application, an expanded understanding of boundary effects can help provide a better sense of when, why, and on whom the use of adjusted linguistic frames is most likely to be effective. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Studies of victim number effects in charitable giving consistently find that people care more and help more when presented with an appeal to help an individual compared with an appeal to help multiple people in need. Across three online experiments ( N = 1,348), Bayesian estimation revealed the opposite pattern when people responded to multiple appeals to help targets of different sizes (1, 2, 5, 7, and 12). In this joint evaluation context, participants donated more to larger groups, when appeals were presented in both ascending order (Study 1) and random order (Study 2). The pattern held whether or not participants saw an overview of all appeals at the start of the study and when a single individual was added to the array (Study 3). These results clarify how compassion fade findings typical of separate evaluations may not generalize to contexts in which people encounter multiple appeals within a short temporal window.

In Experiment 5 of Albarracín et al. (2008), participants primed with words associated with action performed better on a subsequent cognitive task than did participants primed with words associated with inaction. A direct replication attempt by Frank, Kim, and Lee (2016) as part of the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P) failed to find evidence for this effect. In this article, we discuss several potential explanations for these discrepant findings: the source of participants (Amazon’s Mechanical Turk vs. traditional undergraduate-student pool), the setting of participation (online vs. in lab), and the possible moderating role of affect. We tested Albarracín et al.’s original hypothesis in two new samples: For the first sample, we followed the protocol developed by Frank et al. and recruited participants via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk ( n = 580). For the second sample, we used a revised protocol incorporating feedback from the original authors and recruited participants from eight universities ( n = 884). We did not detect moderation by protocol; patterns in the revised protocol resembled those in our implementation of the RP:P protocol, but the estimate of the focal effect size was smaller than that found originally by Albarracín et al. and larger than that found in Frank et al.’s replication attempt. We discuss these findings and possible explanations.

This article identifies a set of behavioral indicators associated with the carrying of concealed and unholstered handguns. Using qualitative data collected from interviews and focus groups with veteran law enforcement, we outline a variety of cues that, when used appropriately, can help authorities identify people who may be concealing handguns. This work provides a systematic means of assisting the police in identifying and safely interdicting persons who might pose a threat to police or the public. The cues described here contribute to a lexicon that may also serve law enforcement communication, training, and research.

Additional co-authors: Ivan Ropovik, Balazs Aczel, Lena F. Aeschbach, Luca Andrighetto, Jack D. Arnal, Holly Arrow, Peter Babincak, Bence E. Bakos, Gabriel Banik, Ernest Baskin, Radomir Belopavlovic, Michael H. Bernstein, Michal Bialek, Nicholas G. Bloxsom, Bojana Bodroža, Diane B. V. Bonfiglio, Leanne Boucher, Florian Bruhlmann, Claudia C. Brumbaugh, Erica Casini, Yiling Chen, Carlo Chiorri, William J. Chopik, Oliver Christ, Antonia M. Ciunci, Heather M. Claypool, Sean Coary, Marija V. Cˇolic, W. Matthew Collins, Paul G. Curran, Chris R. Day, Anna Dreber, John E. Edlund, Filipe Falcao, Anna Fedor, Lily Feinberg, Ian R. Ferguson, Maire Ford, Michael C. Frank, Emily Fryberger, Alexander Garinther, Katarzyna Gawryluk, Kayla Ashbaugh, Mauro Giacomantonio, Steffen R. Giessner, Jon E. Grahe, Rosanna E. Guadagno, Ewa Halasa, Rias A. Hilliard, Joachim Huffmeier, Sean Hughes, Katarzyna Idzikowska, Michael Inzlicht, Alan Jern, William Jimenez-Leal, Magnus Johannesson, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, Mathias Kauff, Danielle J. Kellier, Grecia Kessinger, Mallory C. Kidwell, Amanda M. Kimbrough, Josiah P. J. King, Vanessa S. Kolb, Sabina Kolodziej, Marton Kovacs, Karolina Krasuska, Sue Kraus, Lacy E. Krueger, Katarzyna Kuchno, Caio Ambrosio Lage, Eleanor V. Langford, Carmel A. Levitan, Tiago Jesse Souza de Lima, Hause Lin, Samuel Lins, Jia E. Loy, Dylan Manfredi, Łukasz Markiewicz, Madhavi Menon, Brett Mercier, Mitchell Metzger, Venus Meyet, Jeremy K. Miller, Andres Montealegre, Don A. Moore, Rafal Muda, Gideon Nave, Austin Lee Nichols, Sarah A. Novak, Christian Nunnally, Ana Orlic, Anna Palinkas, Angelo Panno, Kimberly P. Parks, Ivana Pedovic, Emilian Pekala, Matthew R. Penner, Sebastiaan Pessers, Boban Petrovic, Thomas Pfeiffer, Damian Pienkosz, Emanuele Preti, Danka Puric, Tiago Ramos, Jonathan Ravid, Timothy S. Razza, Katrin Rentzsch, Juliette Richetin, Sean C. Rife, Anna Dalla Rosa, Kaylis Hase Rudy, Janos Salamon, Blair Saunders, Przemyslaw Sawicki, Kathleen Schmidt, Kurt Schuepfer, Thomas Schultze, Stefan Schulz-Hardt, Astrid Schutz, Ani N. Shabazian, Rachel L. Shubella, Adam Siegel, Ruben Silva, Barbara Sioma, Lauren Skorb, Luana Elayne Cunha de Souza, Sara Steegen, L. A. R. Stein, R. Weylin Sternglanz, Darko Stojilovic, Daniel Storage, Gavin Brent Sullivan, Barnabas Szaszi, Peter Szecsi, Orsolya Szoke, Attila Szuts, Manuela Thomae, Natasha D. Tidwell, Carly Tocco, Ann-Kathrin Torka, Francis Tuerlinckx, Wolf Vanpaemel, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Michelangelo Vianello, Domenico Viganola, Maria Vlachou, Ryan J. Walker, Sophia C. Weissgerber, Aaron L. Wichman, Bradford J. Wiggins, Daniel Wolf, Michael J. Wood, David Zealley, Iris Žeželj, Mark Zrubka, and Brian A. Nosek

Violent conflict in the Middle East has forced millions to flee their homes and seek refuge in host nations around the globe. Across three studies, we asked American participants (N ∼ 1,500) to consider a refugee-resettlement policy that would bring displaced families from the Middle East into their communities, and tracked the items of information these Americans were interested in seeing during the consideration of their decision. Results suggest that participants who rejected the resettlement policy were especially concerned with security-related information and uninterested in humanitarian-related information, while participants who supported the policy expressed interest in a more balanced ratio of security and humanitarian-related information. We situate these findings within the broader literature on attitude-confirming behaviour (e.g. conformation bias, selective exposure) and discuss how information spotlighting might exacerbate polarization on politically charged issues like refugee policy.

This article identifies and describes a set of behavioral indicators associated with illegal drug carrying in public spaces. Through the use of focus group data, our research documents and translates the visual search techniques that veteran law enforcement and drugs experts report using in their work. Here, we catalogue these findings into 10 overarching categories, and discuss how each indicator may be incorporated into an officer’s visual search. Knowledge of these indicators, when combined with proper training and an understanding of a public space, can help law enforcement identify persons who may be carrying drugs. The ability to identify drug-carrying individuals facilitates the interdiction and apprehension of offenders, and also protects the civil rights and liberties of the law-abiding public.

Replications in psychological science sometimes fail to reproduce prior findings. If replications use methods that are unfaithful to the original study or ineffective in eliciting the phenomenon of interest, then a failure to replicate may be a failure of the protocol rather than a challenge to the original finding. Formal pre-data collection peer review by experts may address shortcomings and increase replicability rates. We selected 10 replications from the Reproducibility Project: Psychology (RP:P; Open Science Collaboration, 2015) in which the original authors had expressed concerns about the replication designs before data collection and only one of which was “statistically significant” (p < .05). Commenters suggested that lack of adherence to expert review and low-powered tests were the reasons that most of these RP:P studies failed to replicate (Gilbert et al., 2016). We revised the replication protocols and received formal peer review prior to conducting new replications. We administered the RP:P and Revised protocols in multiple laboratories (Median number of laboratories per original study = 6.5; Range 3 to 9; Median total sample = 1279.5; Range 276 to 3512) for high-powered tests of each original finding with both protocols. Overall, Revised protocols produced similar effect sizes as RP:P protocols following the preregistered analysis plan (Δr = .002 or .014, depending on analytic approach). The median effect size for Revised protocols (r = .05) was similar to RP:P protocols (r = .04) and the original RP:P replications (r = .11), and smaller than the original studies (r = .37). The cumulative evidence of original study and three replication attempts suggests that effect sizes for all 10 (median r = .07; range .00 to .15) are 78% smaller on average than original findings (median r = .37; range .19 to .50), with very precisely estimated effects.

This chapter explores how people “think together” in dyads, small groups, and larger collectives via mutual influence that organizes shared attention and intention, collectively constructs and validates meaning, and collaboratively develops and adjusts distributed networks of learning, memory, and forgetting. It weaves together a selective review of psychological literature on socially shared and situated cognition with applications to the shared and unshared memories of survivors and killers in post-genocide Rwanda. The process and content of convergent and divergent memories about a devastating collective experience helps illuminate the practical psychological functions served by socially shared cognition.