Search

Presents an obituary of Leon J. Kamin (1927-2017), former chair of the Psychology Department at Northeastern University. Over the course of his career, Kamin demonstrated a rare combination of skills as a researcher, scholar, and administrator. Early in his career, Kamin developed an influential line of research on conditioning. In fact, a conditioning effect, the Kamin (blocking) effect, is named after him. Later in his career, he became interested in the heritability of intelligence, leading to his debunking of Cyril Burt's famous twin studies and the publication of his extremely influential book The Science and Politics of IQ (1974). Kamin also enjoyed great success as an administrator, serving as chair in each of the departments in which he worked. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Many studies using cognitive tasks have found that stereotype threat, or concern about confirming a negative stereotype about one's group, debilitates performance. The few studies that documented similar effects on sensorimotor performance have used only relatively coarse measures to quantify performance. This study tested the effect of stereotype threat on a rhythmic ball bouncing task, where previous analyses of the task dynamics afforded more detailed quantification of the effect of threat on motor control. In this task, novices hit the ball with positive racket acceleration, indicative of unstable performance. With practice, they learn to stabilize error by changing their ball-racket impact from positive to negative acceleration. Results showed that for novices, stereotype threat potentiated hitting the ball with positive racket acceleration, leading to poorer performance of stigmatized females. However, when the threat manipulation was delivered after having acquired some skill, reflected by negative racket acceleration, the stigmatized females performed better. These findings are consistent with the mere effort account that argues that stereotype threat potentiates the most likely response on the given task. The study also demonstrates the value of identifying the control mechanisms through which stereotype threat has its effects on outcome measures., ((c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved.)

To study mediation, investigators sometimes examine the effect of an independent variable on an unrelated filler task that precedes the focal task. This approach assumes that the same psychological process drives performance on both tasks. The authors tested this assumption in a stereotype threat paradigm by manipulating whether or not the intervening task was described as relevant to the gender-math stereotype. When performance was relevant to the stereotype, females outperformed controls on an intervening Stroop task, but not when it was irrelevant (Experiment 1). In fact, females anticipating taking a math test under threat withdrew effort and performed more poorly on the intervening task when performance was irrelevant (Experiment 2). These findings suggest that different processes may drive performance on irrelevant and relevant intervening tasks. As a result, performance on irrelevant filler tasks may actually tell scholars little about mediating mechanisms.

Ostracism threatens fundamental needs of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence, which should motivate participants to respond to this threat. However, research has yet to examine the role of need threat in producing motivation after ostracism. In the current work, participants completed a "cognitive ability" (antisaccade) task following Cyberball-induced ostracism or inclusion. In two experiments, it was found that when ostracized, participants do not see antisaccade performance as a means of responding to the concerns produced by need threat; they respond only to the social threat, leading to worse performance than included participants (Experiments 1 and 2). However, when participants see an avenue of response (the Cyberball players can compare antisaccade performances), ostracized participants outperform included participants (Experiment 2). Moreover, this effect was mediated by the need for belonging, suggesting that ostracized participants were motivated to elevate their inclusionary status by demonstrating their worth on the cognitive ability task.

The mere effort account argues that stereotype threat motivates participants to want to perform well, which potentiates prepotent responses. If the prepotent response is correct, performance is facilitated. If incorrect and participants do not know, or lack the knowledge or time required for correction, performance is debilitated. The Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) quantitative test is made up of two problem types: (a) solve problems, which require the solution of an equation, and (b) comparison problems, which require the use of logic and estimation. Previous research shows that the prepotent tendency is to attempt to solve the equations. Consistent with mere effort predictions, Experiment 1 demonstrates that threatened participants perform better than controls on solve problems (prepotent response correct) but worse than controls on comparison problems (prepotent response incorrect). Experiment 2 shows that a simple instruction as to the correct solution approach eliminates the performance deficit on comparison problems.

Research traditions in psychology in which the evaluation-performance relationship was examined do not show agreement on the mediating process, nor is there any compelling evidence that favors one account over the others. On the basis of a molecular analysis of performance on the Remote Associates Test (RAT), Harkins (2006) argued that the potential for evaluation motivates participants to perform well, which potentiates prepotent responses. If the prepotent response is correct, performance is facilitated. If the prepotent response is incorrect, and participants do not know, or if they lack the knowledge or time required for correction, performance is debilitated. The present research pits this mere effort account against 4 other potential explanations (withdrawal of effort, processing interference, focus of attention, and drive) on 3 tasks that were specifically selected for this purpose (anagram solution, the Stroop Color-Word task, and the antisaccade task). In each case, the results are consistent with the mere effort account.

Although the fact that stereotype threat impacts performance is well established, the underlying process(es) is(are) not clear. Recently, T. Schmader and M. Johns (2003) argued for a working memory interference account, which proposes that performance suffers because cognitive resources are expended on processing information associated with negative stereotypes. The antisaccade task provides a vehicle to test this account because optimal performance requires working memory resources to inhibit the tendency to look at an irrelevant, peripheral cue (the prepotent response) and to generate volitional saccades to the target. If stereotype threat occupies working memory resources, then the ability to inhibit the prepotent response and to launch volitional saccades will be impaired, and performance will suffer. In contrast, S. Harkins's (2006) mere effort account argues that stereotype threat participants are motivated to perform well, which potentiates the prepotent response, but also leads to efforts to counter this tendency if participants recognize that the response is incorrect, know the correct response, and have the opportunity to make it. Results from 4 experiments support the mere effort but not the working memory interference account., ((PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved).)

The research traditions that have examined the evaluation-performance relationship do not agree on the mediating process(es), nor is there any compelling evidence that favors one account over the others. In the current research, a molecular analysis of performance on the Remote Associates Test was undertaken in an effort to identify the mediating process(es). This analysis suggests that the potential for evaluation leads participants to put greater effort into the prepotent response and that this mere effort alone can account for the typical finding that evaluation improves performance on simple items and debilitates performance on complex ones. Subsequent research will be aimed at testing the generalizability of this account., (((c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).)

In a series of experiments, we investigated the effect of race of source on persuasive communications in the Elaboration Likelihood Model (R.E. Petty & J.T. Cacioppo, 1981, 1986). In Experiment 1, we found no evidence that White participants responded to a Black source as a simple negative cue. Experiment 2 suggested the possibility that exposure to a Black source led to low-involvement message processing. In Experiments 3 and 4, a distraction paradigm was used to test this possibility, and it was found that participants under low involvement were highly motivated to process a message presented by a Black source. In Experiment 5, we found that attitudes toward the source's ethnic group, rather than violations of expectancies, accounted for this processing effect. Taken together, the results of these experiments are consistent with S.L. Gaertner and J.F. Dovidio's (1986) theory of aversive racism, which suggests that Whites, because of a combination of egalitarian values and underlying negative racial attitudes, are very concerned about not appearing unfavorable toward Blacks, leading them to be highly motivated to process messages presented by a source from this group.

Social loafing research has shown that participants working together put out less effort than participants working individually (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979), apparently a result of the fact that evaluation is not possible when outputs are pooled (Harkins & Jackson, 1985). On the other hand, research on creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1979), suggests that minimizing the expectation of evaluation facilitates performance. In the present study, treatment conditions typically used in social loafing and creativity research were incorporated in a single design. Participants were asked either to generate as many uses as possible for a common object or to generate uses that were as creative as possible. Participants were also led to believe either that their outputs could be evaluated or that their outputs would be pooled with those of others. The performance of participants given number instructions was facilitated by the prospect of evaluation. However, when asked to be creative, participants whose outputs were pooled performed better than participants whose outputs could be evaluated. These data suggest that on tasks that require creativity, conditions that are thought to lead to "loafing" can have the opposite effect.