Search

Recent research on exercise with virtually present partners found that encouragement attenuated the Köhler effect, which boosts task motivation for weaker group members in conjunctive tasks. The current study replicated and extended previous research, comparing exclusive (e.g. “you can do it”) and inclusive encouragement (e.g. “we can do it”) as potential moderators of the Köhler effect. Female and male college students (n = 280) were randomly assigned to one of five conditions (individual-control, individual-with-encouragement from trainer, partner-no-encouragement, partner-inclusive-encouragement, partner-exclusive-encouragement) and performed two blocks of isometric abdominal exercises while playing an active video game. A significant motivation gain was observed in all partnered conditions compared to the control, and exclusive encouragement from a virtually present partner attenuated motivation gains. However, inclusive encouragement did not, and encouragement from an audible trainer boosted exercise motivation over the control group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Differences in earnings between male and female physicians," by L. C. Baker in the April 11, 1996 issue.

Background Obstetrical hemorrhage continues to be the leading cause of maternal death; additional means of treatment are needed to reach women who are currently not being saved. We developed the "Ball and Binder", an inexpensive and innovative pneumatic abdominal-pelvic compression device made with a cloth binder and soccer ball. Objective To measure the change in distal aortic blood flow before and after placement of the device. Method A comparative study was done on nine healthy volunteers measuring the flow in the distal aorta before and after placement of a pneumatic abdominal binder. Result Distal aortic flow decreased by over half when the device was inflated. Conclusion An inexpensive pneumatic external abdominal compression "Ball and Binder" device was able to decrease flow to the pelvis by over half. This provides an additional tool for rapid treatment of postpartum hemorrhage unresponsive to routine initial measures.

In contrast to many demonstrations of social loafing, relatively few studies have documented group motivation gains. One such exception was O. Köhler's (1926, 1927) finding that team members working together did better at a taxing persistence task than would be expected from their individual performances, particularly when there was a moderate discrepancy in coworkers' capabilities. In Experiment 1, we developed a paradigm within which Köhler's overall motivation gain effect could be replicated, although the discrepancy in coworkers' capabilities did not moderate these motivation gains (after statistical artifacts were taken into account). Experiment 2 indicated that this motivation gain occurred under conjunctive but not under additive task demands, suggesting that the instrumentality of one's contribution to valued outcomes is a more likely explanation of the Köhler effect than social comparison processes.

This article considers a practice in scientific communication termed HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known). HARKing is defined as presenting a post hoc hypothesis (i.e., one based on or informed by one's results) in one's research report as i f it were, in fact, an a priori hypotheses. Several forms of HARKing are identified and survey data are presented that suggests that at least some forms of HARKing are widely practiced and widely seen as inappropriate. I identify several reasons why scientists might HARK. Then I discuss several reasons why scientists ought not to HARK. It is conceded that the question of whether HARKing ' s costs exceed its benefits is a complex one that ought to be addressed through research, open discussion, and debate. To help stimulate such discussion (and for those such as myself who suspect that HARKing's costs do exceed its benefits), I conclude the article with some suggestions for deterring HARKing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly assumed the functional equivalence of different sized juries (at least in the range of 6- to 12-person groups). Several formal models of jury decision making predict that larger juries should hang more often, particularly for very close cases. Failures to confirm this prediction in several previous studies were attributed to inadequate sample sizes or to insufficiently close cases. An experimental simulation study that minimized these problems was undertaken to test the models' prediction. Social decision scheme and social transition scheme analyses permitted comparisons of the decision-making processes of the different-sized mock juries. The effect of the method used to poll group members' verdict preferences was also examined. As group size increased, the observed probability of a hung jury increased significantly. No process differences between 6- and 12-person groups were detected, but 3-person groups did exhibit several process differences from the larger groups. When cases were very close, the likelihood of a hung jury for typically sized juries was found to be lower when the group was polled by secret ballot than when a show-of-hands polling method was used.

Investigators have frequently noted a leniency bias in mock jury research, in which deliberation appears to induce greater leniency in criminal mock jurors. One manifestation of this bias, the asymmetry effect, suggests that proacquittal factions are more influential than proconviction factions of comparable size. A meta-analysis indicated that these asymmetry effects are reliable across a variety of experimental contexts. Experiment 1 examined the possibility that the leniency bias is restricted to the typical college-student subject population. The decisions of college-student and community mock jurors in groups beginning deliberation with equal faction sizes (viz., 2:2) were compared. The magnitude of the asymmetry effect did not differ between the two populations. We hypothesized that the asymmetry effect was caused by an asymmetric prodefendant standard of proof--the reasonable-doubt standard. In Experiment 2, subjects received either reasonable-doubt or preponderance-of-evidence instructions. After providing initial verdict preferences, some subjects deliberated in groups composed with an initial 2:2 split, whereas other subjects privately generated arguments for each verdict option. A significant asymmetry was found for groups in the reasonable-doubt condition, but group verdicts were symmetrical under the preponderance-of-evidence instructions. Shifts toward leniency in individual verdict preferences occurred for group members, but not for subjects who performed the argument-generation task. The theoretical and applied significance of these findings is discussed.