Who You're Dealing With
Political Theater or Bargaining Failure: Why Presidents Veto
John Gilmour
Presidential Studies Quarterly, September 2011, Pages 471-487
Abstract:
This article tests two competing explanations of presidential vetoes - sequential veto bargaining (SVB) and blame game politics. According to the SVB model, vetoes are the result of uncertainty about the president's true preferences on legislation. According to the blame game model, vetoes result because Congress deliberately passes bills the president will veto as a means of communicating relative positions to outside audiences. This article implements a test of whether a veto was expected at the time a bill achieved final passage, reasoning that if a bill was seen as sure to be vetoed at the time of passage, the veto could not be the product of SVB. The evidence points toward blame game politics as a far more important cause of vetoes than SVB.
-----------------------
Verbal Style, Gubernatorial Strategies, and Legislative Success
Robert Crew & Christopher Lewis
Political Psychology, August 2011, Pages 623-642
Abstract:
This article examines the relationship between a governor's verbal style and his success in achieving his legislative goals. We add a measure of verbal style developed by Roderick Hart to a traditional model used by scholars of political chief executives to explain legislative success. We apply this model to the State of the State addresses of six governors of Florida who served between 1966 and 2006. Our findings reflect the validity of the truism "words matter." Governors who use words and phrases that connote enthusiasm, activity, and realism are more successful in the legislative arena than those who do not.
-----------------------
Naomi Rothman
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, forthcoming
Abstract:
This research proposes that expressed emotional ambivalence elicits greater dominance in observers than expressed happiness or anger because ambivalence conveys deliberation and therefore submissiveness. Four laboratory studies yielded convergent findings across different measures of dominance and manipulations of emotional expressions (videos and vignettes). Study 1 showed that participants can identify the expression of tension and conflict as ambivalence and can reliably distinguish ambivalence expressions from the expression of a related emotion (sadness), as well as unrelated emotions (happiness and anger). Study 2 showed that participants intended to dominate the ambivalent partner significantly more than the happy, angry, or non-emotional partner. Study 3 provides evidence that negotiators dominated the ambivalent partner because they perceived the ambivalent partner as more deliberative, and thus submissive. Study 4 confirmed - using a different manipulation of ambivalence - that expressed ambivalence leads to perceived submissiveness because it suggests greater deliberation.
-----------------------
Boosting wisdom: Distance from the self enhances wise reasoning, attitudes, and behavior
Ethan Kross & Igor Grossmann
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, forthcoming
Abstract:
Although humans strive to be wise, they often fail to do so when reasoning over issues that have profound personal implications. Here we examine whether psychological distance enhances wise reasoning, attitudes and behavior under such circumstances. Two experiments demonstrate that cueing people to reason about personally meaningful issues (Study 1: Career prospects for the unemployed during an economic recession; Study 2: Anticipated societal changes associated with one's chosen candidate losing the 2008 U.S. Presidential election) from a distanced perspective enhances wise reasoning (dialecticism; intellectual humility), attitudes (cooperation-related attitude assimilation), and behavior (willingness to join a bipartisan group).
-----------------------
What Attitudes are Moral Attitudes? The Case of Attitude Heritability
Mark Brandt & Geoffrey Wetherell
Social Psychological and Personality Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Variation in the extent an attitude is imbued with moral conviction is a strong predictor of a variety of consequential social judgments; however, the extant literature has not explained variation in moral conviction. The authors predict that some attitudes may be experienced as moral because they are heritable, promoting group survival and firmly rooting people in these attitudes. To test this hypothesis, the authors surveyed two community samples and a student sample (total N = 456) regarding the extent participants perceived 20 attitudes as moral attitudes, and compared these ratings to established estimates of attitude heritability. Across all three studies, attitudes with greater previously established heritability estimates were more likely to be experienced as moral, even when controlling for a variety of measures of attitude strength and the extent to which an attitude is associated with one's religious beliefs.
-----------------------
Consequentialism is associated with lower moralization
Tamar Kreps
Stanford Working Paper, May 2011
Abstract:
Despite a longstanding consequentialist tradition in moral philosophy that views utilitarian consequences as the basis for moral reasoning, we argue that, to lay perceivers, arguments based on consequences actually seem less moralizing. Three studies show that consequentialism is associated with lower moralization compared to deontological explanations or no explanation at all. Study 1 finds that arguments rated as consequentialist are seen as less indicative of a moral position. Studies 2-¬‐3 find that individuals who provide consequentialist explanations for their views are perceived as less moralizing: Study 2 uses hypothetical targets talking about political issues, and Study 3 uses statements from State of the Union addresses. These findings contribute to our understanding of the lay conception of morality and have practical implications for people considering how to express strong opinions publicly.
-----------------------
Higher Ranks Lead to Less Cooperative Looks
Patricia Chen, Jane Rho & Stephen Garcia
University of Michigan Working Paper, June 2011
Abstract:
Previous research has examined how rankings can influence facial expressions of emotion, and that "thin slices" of information, such as photographed facial expressions, can go a long way in accurately predicting traits and later success. Furthermore, rankings are also related to competence, and competitive behavior, the latter of which is associated with warmth. In 3 studies, we tested the hypothesis that the higher ranked an individual's group is relative to others, the less cooperative the facial expression of that person is judged to be. Study 1 showed that photos of facial expressions of National Hockey League players were ranked as less cooperative when the targets came from higher ranked teams, as compared to lower ranked teams. Study 2 replicated this effect with Business School Deans. Lastly, Study 3 experimentally manipulated relative ranking, showing that this ranking effect on nonverbal expression can be driven by context, rather than just by individual differences or self-selection per se.
-----------------------
The Dark Side of Rapport: Agent Misbehavior Face-to-Face and Online
Sandy Jap, Diana Robertson & Ryan Hamilton
Management Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
A considerable body of research has extolled the virtues of establishing rapport in negotiations. Negotiators who are high in rapport tend to be more likely to reach an agreement and more satisfied with the outcome. Although rapport generally has been found to have positive effects in standard negotiation settings, we investigate the effects of rapport in impasse settings, where conflict between negotiators' core needs means that a successful deal can only be reached when one or both parties acts unethically or "misbehaves," for example, by lying to the negotiation partner. In a series of three experiments, we find that negotiators who have a high level of rapport are more likely to behave unethically than are negotiators who have a low level of rapport. We find this effect holds both when high rapport results from the way in which negotiations are conducted (face-to-face versus computer mediated) and also when rapport is established through a brief rapport-building exercise before negotiations begin. Finally, we find that the negative effects (unethical behavior) - but not the positive effects (satisfaction with the negotiation, trust, and willingness to work in the future with the negotiation partner) - of high rapport are reduced when negotiators are given a simple reminder before negotiations begin that one's actions can have long-term repercussions for one's reputation. Taken together, this research supports the idea that, despite its several advantages, in certain situations rapport has a dark side, of which negotiators must be wary.
-----------------------
Money and Mimicry: When Being Mimicked Makes People Threatened
Jia (Elke) Liu, Kathleen Vohs & Dirk Smeesters
Psychological Science, forthcoming
"[W]e predicted that money-reminded people would perceive the affiliation intention expressed by mimicry to be a threat to their personal freedom, leading them to respond antagonistically in defense. To test these hypotheses, we asked participants reminded of money (or not) to evaluate an interaction partner who had mimicked them (or not). Participants also completed an implicit threat measure to assess whether mimicry can elicit a sense of threat...Money-primed participants liked a mimicking interaction partner less than they did a non-mimicking partner, an effect that was due to enhanced feelings of threat."
-----------------------
Charles Cameron & Jee-Kwang Park
Presidential Studies Quarterly, September 2011, Pages 442-470
Abstract:
The standard "political capital" model of going public assumes presidents do not face mobilized opponents. But often presidents must fight against opponents who themselves go public. We propose studying such situations with an "opinion contest" framework and use new data on Supreme Court nominations to contrast the political capital and opinion contest approaches. From 1930 to 2009 presidents went public over Supreme Court nominees primarily when groups mobilized against the nominee. Republican presidents did so particularly when their nominee would move the Supreme Court's median to the right. When going public, presidents typically engaged in "crafted talk." Finally, going public was associated with more negative votes in the Senate, not fewer, because presidents went public over Supreme Court nominees only when battling an active opposition.
-----------------------
Maya Tamir & Brett Ford
Emotion, forthcoming
Abstract:
According to the instrumental approach to emotion regulation, people may want to experience even unpleasant emotions to attain instrumental benefits. Building on value-expectancy models of self-regulation, we tested whether people want to feel bad in certain contexts specifically because they expect such feelings to be useful to them. In two studies, participants were more likely to try to increase their anger before a negotiation when motivated to confront (vs. collaborate with) a negotiation partner. Participants motivated to confront (vs. collaborate with) their partner expected anger to be more useful to them, and this expectation in turn, led them to try to increase their anger before negotiating. The subsequent experience of anger, following random assignment to emotion inductions (Study 1) or engagement in self-selected emotion regulation activities (Study 2), led participants to be more successful at getting others to concede to their demands, demonstrating that emotional preferences have important pragmatic implications.
-----------------------
Dejun Tony Kong, Ece Tuncel & Judi McLean Parks
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, August 2011, Ppages 219-247
Abstract:
We examined the role of anticipated happiness in negotiation settings. Anticipated happiness is the happiness that individuals expect to experience in the future if certain events do or do not occur. In two studies, we tested the argument that anticipated happiness initiates an approach goal, leading individuals to promote economic interests. Study 1 revealed that anticipated happiness was positively related to the propensity to initiate a negotiation, mediated by an approach goal. In Study 2, we found that anticipated happiness about reaching the target value increased the individual negotiation outcome, mediated by actual target value. Our studies provide insight into how anticipated happiness influences motivation, behavior, and ultimately individual outcomes in negotiations.
-----------------------
Listening, not watching: Situational familiarity and the ability to detect deception
Marc-André Reinhard et al.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
In 4 experiments, the authors investigated the influence of situational familiarity with the judgmental context on the process of lie detection. They predicted that high familiarity with a situation leads to a more pronounced use of content cues when making judgments of veracity. Therefore, they expected higher classification accuracy of truths and lies under high familiarity. Under low situational familiarity, they expected that people achieve lower accuracy rates because they use more nonverbal cues for their veracity judgments. In all 4 experiments, participants with high situational familiarity achieved higher accuracy rates in classifying both truthful and deceptive messages than participants with low situational familiarity. Moreover, mediational analyses demonstrated that higher classification accuracy in the high-familiarity condition was associated with more use of verbal content cues and less use of nonverbal cues.
-----------------------
Why do lie-catchers fail? A lens model meta-analysis of human lie judgments
Maria Hartwig, Charles Bond
Psychological Bulletin, July 2011, Pages 643-659
Abstract:
Decades of research has shown that people are poor at detecting lies. Two explanations for this finding have been proposed. First, it has been suggested that lie detection is inaccurate because people rely on invalid cues when judging deception. Second, it has been suggested that lack of valid cues to deception limits accuracy. A series of 4 meta-analyses tested these hypotheses with the framework of Brunswik's (1952) lens model. Meta-Analysis 1 investigated perceived cues to deception by correlating 66 behavioral cues in 153 samples with deception judgments. People strongly associate deception with impressions of incompetence (r = .59) and ambivalence (r = .49). Contrary to self-reports, eye contact is only weakly correlated with deception judgments (r = -.15). Cues to perceived deception were then compared with cues to actual deception. The results show a substantial covariation between the 2 sets of cues (r = .59 in Meta-Analysis 2, r = .72 in Meta-Analysis 3). Finally, in Meta-Analysis 4, a lens model analysis revealed a very strong matching between behaviorally based predictions of deception and behaviorally based predictions of perceived deception. In conclusion, contrary to previous assumptions, people rarely rely on the wrong cues. Instead, limitations in lie detection accuracy are mainly attributable to weaknesses in behavioral cues to deception. The results suggest that intuitive notions about deception are more accurate than explicit knowledge and that lie detection is more readily improved by increasing behavioral differences between liars and truth tellers than by informing lie-catchers of valid cues to deception.
-----------------------
Ally or adversary: The effect of identifiability in inter-group conflict situations
Ilana Ritov & Tehila Kogut
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, forthcoming
Abstract:
People's tendency to be more generous towards identifiable victims than towards unidentifiable or statistical victims is known as the identifiable victim effect. Recent research (Kogut & Ritov, 2007) called the generality of the effect into question, showing that in cross-national contexts, identifiability affects mostly willingness to help victims belonging to one's ‘in-group'. The present research extends the investigation by examining the identifiability effect in inter-group conflict situations. In three experiments, employing hypothetical contributions as well as real monetary allocation in a dictator-game, we found that identifiability increased generosity towards a member of the adversary group, but it decreased generosity towards a member of one's own group. Possible mechanisms underlying this interaction are discussed.
-----------------------
Two to Tango: Effects of Collaboration and Disagreement on Dyadic Judgment
Julia Minson, Varda Liberman & Lee Ross
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, forthcoming
Abstract:
Four studies examined dyadic collaboration on quantitative estimation tasks. In accord with the tenets of "naïve realism," dyad members failed to give due weight to a partner's estimates, especially those greatly divergent from their own. The requirement to reach joint estimates through discussion increased accuracy more than reaching agreement through a mere exchange of numerical "bids." However, even the latter procedure increased accuracy, relative to that of individual estimates (Study 1). Accuracy feedback neither increased weight given to partner's subsequent estimates nor produced improved accuracy (Study 2). Long-term dance partners, who shared a positive estimation bias, failed to improve accuracy when estimating their performance scores (Study 3). Having dyad members ask questions about the bases of partner's estimates produced greater yielding and accuracy increases than having them explain their own estimates (Study 4). The latter two studies provided additional direct and indirect evidence for the role of naïve realism.
-----------------------
What Exactly Are Victim-Sensitive Persons Sensitive To?
Mario Gollwitzer & Tobias Rothmund
Journal of Research in Personality, forthcoming
Abstract:
Research has repeatedly shown that people who are habitually sensitive towards unjust victimizations tend to behave uncooperatively and hostile under certain circumstances. But what exactly is the underlying motivation for such uncooperativeness? One explanation is that victim-sensitive individuals behave uncooperatively in order to retribute fateful disadvantages in the past; an alternative explanation is that victim-sensitive individuals behave uncooperatively in order to avoid being exploited in the future. Two experimental studies are presented in which participants were confronted with an unfavorable outcome that was either due to bad luck or to another person's mean intentions. Findings from both studies suggest that victim-sensitive individuals are specifically sensitive towards mean intentions, but not to fateful disadvantages in general.
-----------------------
Irina Cojuharenco, David Patient & Michael Bashshur
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, forthcoming
Abstract:
What events do employees recall or anticipate when they think of past or future unfair treatment at work? We propose that an employee's temporal perspective can change the salience of different types of injustice through its effect on cognitions about employment. Study 1 used a survey in which employee temporal focus was measured as an individual difference. Whereas greater levels of future focus related positively to concerns about distributive injustice, greater levels of present focus related positively to concerns about interactional injustice. In Study 2, an experimental design focused employee attention on timeframes that differed in temporal orientation and temporal distance. Whereas distributive injustice was more salient when future (versus past) orientation was induced, interactional injustice was more salient when past orientation was induced and at less temporal distance. Study 3 showed that the mechanism underlying the effect of employee temporal perspective is abstract versus concrete cognitions about employment.
-----------------------
An Empirical Study of Employment Arbitration: Case Outcomes and Processes
Alexander Colvin
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, March 2011, Pages 1-23
Abstract:
Using data from reports filed by the American Arbitration Association (AAA) pursuant to California Code requirements, this article examines outcomes of employment arbitration. The study analyzes 3,945 arbitration cases, of which 1,213 were decided by an award after a hearing, filed and reaching disposition between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007. This includes all the employment arbitration cases administered nationally by the AAA during this time period that derived from employer-promulgated arbitration procedures. Key findings include: (1) the employee win rate among the cases was 21.4 percent, which is lower than employee win rates reported in employment litigation trials; (2) in cases won by employees, the median award amount was $36,500 and the mean was $109,858, both of which are substantially lower than award amounts reported in employment litigation; (3) mean time to disposition in arbitration was 284.4 days for cases that settled and 361.5 days for cases decided after a hearing, which is substantially shorter than times to disposition in litigation; (4) mean arbitration fees were $6,340 per case overall, $11,070 for cases disposed of by an award following a hearing, and in 97 percent of these cases the employer paid 100 percent of the arbitration fees beyond a small filing fee, pursuant to AAA procedures; (5) in 82.4 percent of the cases, the employees involved made less than $100,000 per year; and (6) the mean amount claimed was $844,814 and 75 percent of all claims were greater than $36,000. The study also analyzes whether there is a repeat player effect in employer arbitration. The results provide strong evidence of a repeat employer effect in which employee win rates and award amounts are significantly lower where the employer is involved in multiple arbitration cases, which could be explained by various advantages accruing to larger organizations with greater resources and expertise in dispute resolution procedures. The results also indicate the existence of a significant repeat-employer-arbitrator pairing effect in which employees on average have lower win rates and receive smaller damage awards where the same arbitrator is involved in more than one case with the same employer, a finding supporting some of the fairness criticisms directed at mandatory employment arbitration.