A tool for thought! When comparative thinking reduces stereotyping effects

Stereotypes have pervasive, robust, and often unwanted effects on how people see and behave towards others. Undoing these effects has proven to be a daunting task. Two studies demonstrate that procedurally priming participants to engage in comparative thinking with a generalized focus on differences reduces behavioral and judgmental stereotyping effects. In Study 1, participants who were procedurally primed to focus on differences sat closer to a skinhead – a member of a negatively stereotyped group. In Study 2, participants primed on differences ascribed less gender stereotypic characteristics to a male and female target person. This suggests that comparative thinking with a focus on differences may be a simple cognitive tool to reduce the behavioral and judgmental effects of stereotyping

When ethnic minority students are judged as more suitable for the highest school track: a shifting standards experiment

When students are grouped into school tracks, this has lasting consequences for their learning and later careers. In Germany to date, some groups of students (boys, ethnic minority students) are underrepresented in the highest track. Stereotypes about these groups exist that entail negative expectations about their suitability for the highest track. Based on the shifting standards model, the present research examines if and how stereotypes influence tracking recommendations. According to this theory, members of negatively stereotyped groups will be judged more leniently or more strictly depending on the framing of the judgment situation (by inducing minimum or confirmatory standards). N = 280 teacher students participated in a vignette study in which they had to choose the amount of positive evidence for suitability they wanted to see before deciding to recommend a fictitious student to the highest track. A 2 (judgment standard: minimum vs. confirmatory) × 2 (target student’s gender: male vs. female) × 2 (target student’s ethnicity: no migration background vs. Turkish migration background) between-subjects design was used. No effects of target gender occurred, but the expected interaction of target’s ethnicity and judgment standard emerged. In the minimum standard condition, less evidence was required for the ethnic minority student to be recommended for the highest track compared to the majority student. In the confirmatory standards condition, however, participants tended to require less evidence for the ethnic majority student. Our experiment underlines the importance of the framing of the recommendation situation, resulting in a more lenient or stricter assessment of negatively stereotyped groups

Warum sozialpsychologische Forschung für die Rechtswissenschaften von Interesse ist

Ziel des Artikels ist es, zu ergründen, welchen Beitrag die psychologische Forschung für die Rechtswissenschaften im Rahmen des Governance-Ansatzes leisten kann. Wir umreißen, mit welchen Fragestellungen sich die psychologische und insbesondere die sozialpsychologische Forschung beschäftigt, und verdeutlichen anhand eines Beispiels, warum die Erkenntnisse aus dieser Forschung für die Ziele der Rechtswissenschaften relevant sind. Zudem stellen wir das Experiment als eine zentrale Forschungsmethode der Psychologie vor und zeigen dessen Vorteile und Grenzen auf

Warum sozialpsychologische Forschung für die Rechtswissenschaften von Interesse ist

Ziel des Artikels ist es, zu ergründen, welchen Beitrag die psychologische Forschung für die Rechtswissenschaften im Rahmen des Governance-Ansatzes leisten kann. Wir umreißen, mit welchen Fragestellungen sich die psychologische und insbesondere die sozialpsychologische Forschung beschäftigt, und verdeutlichen anhand eines Beispiels, warum die Erkenntnisse aus dieser Forschung für die Ziele der Rechtswissenschaften relevant sind. Zudem stellen wir das Experiment als eine zentrale Forschungsmethode der Psychologie vor und zeigen dessen Vorteile und Grenzen auf

Do behavioral observations make people catch the goal?:A meta-analysis on goal contagion

Goal contagion is a social-cognitive approach to understanding how other people's behavior influences one's goal pursuit: An observation of goal-directed behavior leads to an automatic inference and activation of the goal before it can be adopted and pursued thereafter by the observer. We conducted a meta-analysis focusing on experimental studies with a goal condition, depicting goal-directed behavior and a control condition. We searched four databases (PsychInfo, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, and JSTOR) and the citing literature on Google Scholar, and eventually included e = 48 effects from published studies, unpublished studies and registered reports based on 4751 participants. The meta-analytic summary effect was small - g = 0.30, 95%CI [0.21; 0.40], tau(2) = 0.05, 95%CI [0.03, 0.13] - implying that goal contagion might occur for some people, compared to when this goal is not perceived in behavior. However, the original effect seemed to be biased through the current publication system. As shown by several publication-bias tests, the effect could rather be half the size, for example, selection model: g = 0.15, 95%CI [-0.02; 0.32]. Further, we could not detect any potential moderator (such as the presentation of the manipulation and the contrast of the control condition). We suggest that future research on goal contagion makes use of open science practices to advance research in this domain

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Warum sozialpsychologische Forschung für die Rechtswissenschaften von Interesse ist

ENGLISH: The aim of this article is to discuss how psychological research can inform law in the context of governance. We briefly describe the areas of investigation of psychological research and social psychological research in particular. Based on a n example, we highlight why psychological findings are relevant for law. In addition, we describe the experiment as a central research method of psychological research and discuss its strengths and its limitations. DEUTSCH: Ziel des Artikels ist es, zu ergründen, welchen Beitrag die psychologische Forschung für die Rechtswissenschaften im Rahmen des Governance-Ansatzes leisten kann. Wir umreißen, mit welchen Fragestellungen sich die psychologische und insbesondere die sozialpsychologische Forschung beschäftigt, und verdeutlichen anhand eines Beispiels, warum die Erkenntnisse aus dieser Forschung für die Ziele der Rechtswissenschaften relevant sind. Zudem stellen wir das Experiment als eine zentrale Forschungsmethode der Psychologie vor und zeigen dessen Vorteile und Grenzen auf

Looking Towards the Past or the Future Self: How Regulatory Focus Affects Temporal Comparisons and Subsequent Motivation

Temporal selves are a rich source of potential comparison standards, yet little is known about the preference for specific temporal selves. We examine whether regulatory focus influences to what extent people compare themselves to future or past selves. Promotion-focused individuals, who focus on positive outcomes, were more likely to compare themselves to their future selves (Study 1), specifically while appraising themselves in a domain in which the future self was seen as superior to the current self (Study 2). However, prevention-focused individuals, who focus on negative outcomes, did not orient themselves towards their past, inferior, selves. Supporting a cognitive fit hypothesis, individuals in a promotion-mindset were more motivated to improve when comparing with their future (vs. past) self (Study 3)