Swift Neighbors and Persistent Strangers: A Cross‐Cultural Investigation of Trust and Reciprocity in Social Exchange

In four countries, levels of trust and reciprocity in direct-reciprocal exchange are compared with those in network-generalized exchanges among experimentally manipulated groups’ members (neighbors) or random experimental participants (strangers). Results show that cooperation decreases as social distance increases; and, that identical network-generalized exchanges generate different amounts of trusting behavior due solely to manipulated social identity between the actors. This study demonstrates the interaction of culture and social identity on the propensity to trust and reciprocate and also reveals differing relationships between trust and reciprocation in each of the four countries, bringing into question the theoretical relationship between these cooperative behaviors

Belief in the unstructured interview: The persistence of an illusion

Abstract Unstructured interviews are a ubiquitous tool for making screening decisions despite a vast literature suggesting that they have little validity. We sought to establish reasons why people might persist in the illusion that unstructured interviews are valid and what features about them actually lead to poor predictive accuracy. In three studies, we investigated the propensity for "sensemaking" -the ability for interviewers to make sense of virtually anything the interviewee saysand "dilution"-the tendency for available but non-diagnostic information to weaken the predictive value of quality information. In Study 1, participants predicted two fellow students' semester GPAs from valid background information like prior GPA and, for one of them, an unstructured interview. In one condition, the interview was essentially nonsense in that the interviewee was actually answering questions using a random response system. Consistent with sensemaking, participants formed interview impressions just as confidently after getting random responses as they did after real responses. Consistent with dilution, interviews actually led participants to make worse predictions. Study 2 showed that watching a random interview, rather than personally conducting it, did little to mitigate sensemaking. Study 3 showed that participants believe unstructured interviews will help accuracy, so much so that they would rather have random interviews than no interview. People form confident impressions even interviews are defined to be invalid, like our random interview, and these impressions can interfere with the use of valid information. Our simple recommendation for those making screening decisions is not to use them

Belief in the unstructured interview: The persistence of an illusion

Unstructured interviews are a ubiquitous tool for making screening decisions despite a vast literature suggesting that they have little validity. We sought to establish reasons why people might persist in the illusion that unstructured interviews are valid and what features about them actually lead to poor predictive accuracy. In three studies, we investigated the propensity for “sensemaking” - the ability for interviewers to make sense of virtually anything the interviewee says—and “dilution”—the tendency for available but non-diagnostic information to weaken the predictive value of quality information. In Study 1, participants predicted two fellow students’ semester GPAs from valid background information like prior GPA and, for one of them, an unstructured interview. In one condition, the interview was essentially nonsense in that the interviewee was actually answering questions using a random response system. Consistent with sensemaking, participants formed interview impressions just as confidently after getting random responses as they did after real responses. Consistent with dilution, interviews actually led participants to make worse predictions. Study 2 showed that watching a random interview, rather than personally conducting it, did little to mitigate sensemaking. Study 3 showed that participants believe unstructured interviews will help accuracy, so much so that they would rather have random interviews than no interview. People form confident impressions even interviews are defined to be invalid, like our random interview, and these impressions can interfere with the use of valid information. Our simple recommendation for those making screening decisions is not to use them

On Getting People To Cooperate When Facing A Social Dilema: Moralizing Helps

17 page

The Importance of Relevance: Willingness to Share eHealth Data for Family Medicine Research

Objective: To determine the proportion of family medicine patients unwilling to allow their eHealth data to be used for research purposes, and evaluate how patient characteristics and the relevance of research impact that decision.Design: Cross-sectional questionnaire.Setting: Acute care respiratory clinic or an outpatient family medicine clinic in Montreal, Quebec.Participants: Four hundred seventy-four waiting room patients recruited via convenience sampling.Main Outcome Measures: A self-administered questionnaire collected data on age, gender, employment status, education, mother tongue and perceived health status. The main outcome of was self-reported relevance of three research scenarios and willingness or refusal to share their anonymized data. Responses were compared for family practice vs. specialty care patients.Results: The questionnaire was completed by 229 family medicine respondents and 245 outpatient respondents. Almost a quarter of all respondents felt the research was not relevant. Family medicine patients (15.7%) were unwilling to allow their data to be used for at least one scenario vs. 9.4% in the outpatient clinic. Lack of relevance (OR 11.55; 95% CI 5.12–26.09) and being in family practice (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.06–4.27) increased the likelihood of refusal to share data for research.Conclusion: Family medicine patients were somewhat less willing to share eHealth data, but the overall refusal rate indicates a need to better engage patients in understanding the significance of full access to eHealth data for the purposes of research. Personal relevance of the research had a strong impact on the responses arguing for better efforts to make research more pertinent to patients

Scientific Standards of Psychological Practice: Issues and Recommendations

This volume was a result of a three-day conference held in Reno at the University of Nevada January 6-9, 1995. The conference was organized by the editors of this volume, along with Todd R. Risley. It brought together national leaders in applied psychology to explore the implications of scientific-based standards of practice. The conference attendees addressed such questions as: can we create such standards? Should we do it? How should it be done? What are some of the problems to be solved and pitfalls to be avoided? This volume challenges the discipline to begin to ensure that scientific knowledge is actually used in clinical practice

Policy Forum: Studying Eyewitness Investigations in the Field

This article considers methodological issues arising from recent efforts to provide field tests of eyewitness identification procedures. We focus in particular on a field study (Mecklenburg 2006) that examined the “double blind, sequential” technique, and consider the implications of an acknowledged methodological confound in the study. We explain why the confound has severe consequences for assessing the real-world implications of this study

Social Preferences and the Efficiency of Bilateral Exchange

Under what conditions do social preferences, such as altruism or a concern for fair outcomes, generate efficient trade? I analyze theoretically a simple bilateral exchange game: Each player sequentially takes an action that reduces his own material payoff but increases the other player’s. Each player’s preferences may depend on both his/her own material payoff and the other player’s. I identify necessary conditions and sufficient conditions on the players’ preferences for the outcome of their interaction to be Pareto efficient. The results have implications for interpreting the rotten kid theorem, gift exchange in the laboratory, and gift exchange in the field