Are All Voices Created Equal?: Conditional Indirect Effects of Directness of One\u27s Voice on Perceived Uncertainty and Performance

The purpose of the current investigations was to examine the effects of the amount of voice one is given during decision-making on group behaviors. In particular, across two studies, participants were members of groups that needed to make a decision. In these situations, participants were provided varying degrees of voice during a decision-making process. Depending on the study, participants were either given a direct voice (Personal Voice), an indirect voice (Group Voice), a direct voice and an indirect voice (Composite Voice), or were not allowed a voice (No Voice). The results of Study 1 found that having Personal Voice or Composite Voice is related to increased perceptions of control, trust, and certainty, and is related to more predicted effort put forth for the group. In contrast, having Group Voice or No Voice was shown to be related to low levels of control, trust, and certainty. Furthermore, Group Voice was related to less predicted effort given toward achieving group goals. The findings of Study 1 suggest that the reason more voice is related to more positive group effort is because of how trust in the decision-maker is positively related to being more certain of what that decision-maker will do, which in turn predicts more certainty of how the decision will affect one\u27s self as a member of the group in the future. The results of Study 2 found that Personal Voice was related to increased perceptions of voice and certainty, with Group Voice and No Voice related to low levels of certainty. Interestingly, Study 2 found that more voice given to group members was related to less behavioral output on behalf of the group. The relationship between having more voice and less effort was explained by perceptions of certainty. The findings of the current research suggest that groups must take care to ensure their members are treated in a fair manner because there are both benefits and limitations to providing members a voice during decision-making

Under the Radar: Everyday Sadism Predicts Both Passive-Aggressive Harms and Beneficial Actions After Accounting for Prosocial Tendencies

Two studies examined the predictive value of everyday sadism in determining participants\u27 choices to cause frustration to a hypothetical other, controlling for prosocial characteristics (cognitive and affective empathy, helpfulness). In Study 1 (n = 154), forward-stepwise multiple regression analyses indicated direct physical sadism levels predicted participants\u27 assignment of easy and difficult math items after levels of prosocial characteristics were statistically controlled. In Study 2 (n = 110), forward-stepwise multiple regression analyses indicated participants\u27 levels of direct physical sadism predicted the assignment of easy and difficult math items across two math tasks (a replication of study one and a second math task related to the first). Study 2 analyses also revealed both direct verbal and physical sadism predicted the assignment of moderately difficult math items. Additional analyses further suggest direct verbal sadism predicted choosing to frustrate others in a more common, everyday experience. These findings suggest levels of direct physical and verbal sadism are important independent predictors of individuals\u27 decisions to inflict non-physical forms of frustration on others

Thank God for My Successes (Not My Failures): Feeling God’s Presence Explains a God Attribution Bias

Little research has investigated attributional biases to God for positive and negative personal events. Consistent with past work, we predicted that people who believe in God will attribute successes more to God than failures, particularly for highly religious people. We also predicted that believing that God is a part of the self would increase how much people felt God’s presence which would result in giving God more credit for successes. Our study (N = 133) was a two-factor, between-subject experimental design in which participants either won or lost a game and were asked to attribute the cause of this outcome to themselves, God, or other factors. Furthermore, participants either completed the game before or after responding to questions about their religious beliefs. Overall, there was support for our predictions. Our results have important implications for attribution research and the practical psychological experiences for religious people making attributions for their successes and failures