Biomedical subjects

Thomas Mussweiler

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas Mussweiler.

13 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Alpha-band activity reflects reduction of mental effort in a comparison task: a source space analysis.

Comparison processes contribute to many core phenomena of social cognition research. Whenever humans judge a given target, they rely on comparisons with a pertinent standard. We propose that comparison processes may be so ubiquitous because they reduce mental effort. To investigate this possibility, we used dense-array Electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings together with a minimum norm source projection approach. As the dependent variable, we examined changes in parietal alpha (8-12 Hz) amplitude during a judgment task. Spectral changes in the alpha frequency range have been reliably related to attentional load, cognitive arousal, or mental effort. Two groups of participants (n=22) were procedurally primed to solve a series of target judgments in a more comparative (experimental group) versus more absolute (control group) manner. While the participants performed the critical judgment tasks, we recorded changes in alpha amplitude. Continuous EEG was transformed into a spherical source space using the minimum norm (L2) estimate and spectral changes were subsequently calculated in the source domain. Statistical parametric mapping in combination with permutation statistics was employed to map regions showing significant group differences. Results demonstrate that comparative processing was associated with smaller changes in alpha amplitude than absolute processing. This difference was most pronounced at parietal source locations, where alpha reduction was at a maximum. Temporal analysis suggested that this effect was present particularly during task preparation and execution. We conclude that comparative information processing may reduce mental effort in judgment tasks.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Olympic medals as fruits of comparison? Assimilation and contrast in sequential performance judgments.

The authors investigated the evaluative consequences of sequential performance judgments. Recent social comparison research has suggested that performance judgments may be influenced by judgments about a preceding performance. Specifically, performance judgments may be assimilated to judgments of the preceding performance if judges focus on similarities between the two. If judges focus on differences, however, contrast may ensue. The authors examined sequential performance judgments, using data gathered from the 2004 Olympic Games as well as data gathered in the laboratory with students or experienced gymnastics judges as participants. Sequential performance judgments were influenced by previously judged performances, and the direction of this influence depended on the degree of perceived similarity between the successive performances.

Achievement↗

PubMed2006

Doing is for thinking! Stereotype activation by stereotypic movements.

Three studies demonstrate that stereotypic movements activate the corresponding stereotype. In Study 1, participants who were unobtrusively induced to move in the portly manner that is stereotypic of overweight people subsequently ascribed more overweight-stereotypic characteristics to an ambiguous target person than did control participants. In Study 2, participants who were unobtrusively induced to move in the slow manner that is stereotypic of elderly people subsequently ascribed more elderly-stereotypic characteristics to a target than did control participants. In Study 3, participants who were induced to move slowly were faster than control participants to respond to elderly-stereotypic words in a lexical decision task. Using three different movement inductions, two different stereotypes, and two classic measures of stereotype activation, these studies converge in demonstrating that stereotypes may be activated by stereotypic movements.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making.

Judicial sentencing decisions should be guided by facts, not by chance. The present research however demonstrates that the sentencing decisions of experienced legal professionals are influenced by irrelevant sentencing demands even if they are blatantly determined at random. Participating legal experts anchored their sentencing decisions on a given sentencing demand and assimilated toward it even if this demand came from an irrelevant source (Study 1), they were informed that this demand was randomly determined (Study 2), or they randomly determined this demand themselves by throwing dice (Study 3). Expertise and experience did not reduce this effect. This sentencing bias appears to be produced by a selective increase in the accessibility of arguments that are consistent with the random sentencing demand: The accessibility of incriminating arguments was higher if participants were confronted with a high rather than a low anchor (Study 4). Practical and theoretical implications of this research are discussed.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

The last word in court--a hidden disadvantage for the defense.

In the legal systems of most western countries, defense attorneys present their sentencing recommendation after the prosecution has presented its sentencing demands. This procedural sequence for criminal cases is intended to balance the impact of both parties on the judge's final decision. Especially the positioning of the defense's plea at the end of the trial follows the fundamental legal principle "in dubio pro reo." Research on judgmental anchoring, however, suggests that the standard procedural sequence may in fact work against this principle. Consistent with this implication, the present studies demonstrate that the defense's sentencing recommendation is anchored on, and consequently assimilated toward, the preceding recommendation by the prosecution. This influence prevents the defense attorney from effectively counterbalancing the prosecutor's demand. Instead, the biased defense attorney's recommendation partially mediates the impact of the prosecutor's demand on the judge's decision. These findings suggest that the standard procedural sequence in court may place the defense at a distinct disadvantage.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Regulatory focus at the bargaining table: promoting distributive and integrative success.

The authors demonstrate that in dyadic negotiations, negotiators with a promotion regulatory focus achieve superior outcomes than negotiators with prevention regulatory focus in two ways. First, a promotion focus leads negotiators to claim more resources at the bargaining table. In the first two studies, promotion-focused negotiators paid more attention to their target prices(i.e., their ideal outcomes) and achieved more advantageous distributive outcomes than did prevention-focused negotiators. The second study also reveals an important mediating process: Negotiators with a promotion focus made more extreme opening offers in their favor. Second, a promotion focus leads negotiators to create more resources at the bargaining table that benefit both parties. A third study demonstrated that in a multi-issue negotiation, a promotion focus increased the likelihood that a dyad achieved a jointly optimal or Pareto efficient outcome compared to prevention-focused dyads. The discussion focuses on the role of regulatory focus in social interaction and introduces the notion of interaction fit.

Achievement↗

PubMed2004

The ups and downs of social comparison: mechanisms of assimilation and contrast.

Social comparisons influence self-evaluations in multiple ways. Sometimes self-evaluations are assimilated toward a given standard. At other times, they are contrasted away from the standard. On the basis of the selective accessibility model (T. Mussweiler, 2003a), the authors hypothesized that assimilation results if judges engage in the comparison process of similarity testing and selectively focus on similarities to the standard, whereas contrast occurs if judges engage in dissimilarity testing and selectively focus on differences. If these alternative comparison mechanisms are indeed at play, then assimilative and contrastive social comparisons should be accompanied by diverging informational foci on similarities versus differences. Results of 5 studies support this reasoning, demonstrating that assimilation results under conditions that foster similarity testing, whereas contrast occurs under conditions that foster dissimilarity testing. Furthermore, assimilative social comparisons are accompanied by a general informational focus on similarities, whereas contrastive comparisons are accompanied by a focus on differences.

Competitive Behavior↗

PubMed2003

What friends are for! The use of routine standards in social comparison.

Social comparisons are frequently used for self-evaluation. As a consequence, judges have to be efficient in each comparison step. Standard selection, however, is traditionally seen as an elaborate process in which judges deliberately select similar standards. We propose that often judges do not engage in such deliberate selection processes. Instead, they use routine standards--standards that have frequently been used for self-evaluation. Consistent with this assumption, Studies 1-3 demonstrate that student participants activate knowledge about their best friend--a likely routine standard--during self-evaluation. In Study 1, lexical decisions for the best friend's name are facilitated after self-evaluation. In Study 2, participants judge their best friend faster after evaluating themselves on the same dimension. In Study 3, this is even the case if the best friend is dissimilar and consequently undiagnostic. Finally, in Study 4, self-evaluations are primarily influenced by comparison information about an experimentally created routine standard.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences.

This article proposes an informational perspective on comparison consequences in social judgment. It is argued that to understand the variable consequences of comparison, one has to examine what target knowledge is activated during the comparison process. These informational underpinnings are conceptualized in a selective accessibility model that distinguishes 2 fundamental comparison processes. Similarity testing selectively makes accessible knowledge indicating target-standard similarity, whereas dissimilarity testing selectively makes accessible knowledge indicating target-standard dissimilarity. These respective subsets of target knowledge build the basis for subsequent target evaluations, so that similarity testing typically leads to assimilation whereas dissimilarity testing typically leads to contrast. The model is proposed as a unifying conceptual framework that integrates diverse findings on comparison consequences in social judgment.

Decision Making↗

PubMed2003

When egocentrism breeds distinctness--comparison processes in social prediction: comment on Karniol (2003).

In contrast with R. Karniol's (2003) protocentric model, this article proposes an egocentric comparison model of social prediction. To predict the experiences and reactions of a target other, judges are assumed to relate self-knowledge to the target via a process of comparing the target with the self. Two alternative comparison processes are distinguished. Similarity testing yields target judgments that are consistent with the self, whereas dissimilarity testing leads to target judgments that are inconsistent with the self. From this perspective, social prediction is egocentric in that it makes use of self-knowledge as its primary representational basis. At the same time, egocentric prediction does not require the self to be seen and judged as similar to the target other. Conceptualizing social predictions as social comparison suggests that predicting the experiences and reactions of others is a highly flexible process.

Ego↗

PubMed2002

The malleability of anchoring effects.

Anchoring effects--the assimilation of a numeric estimate to a previously considered standard--are typically described as very robust and persistent. Based on the assumption that judgmental anchoring involves a hypothesis-testing process in which judges actively seek and generate judgment-relevant target knowledge, it was assumed that anchoring effects might at the same time be fairly malleable. Specifically, subtle influences that change the nature of the tested hypothesis are likely to affect the magnitude of anchoring. Using a procedural priming task, judges were induced to focus on similarities versus differences during a series of anchoring tasks. The results demonstrate that the magnitude of the obtained effect critically depended on this manipulation. In particular, a more pronounced anchoring assimilation effect resulted for judges with a similarity rather than a difference focus. Implications of these findings for models of anchoring as well as for the nature of the anchoring phenomenon are discussed.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

I know you are, but what am I? Self-evaluative consequences of judging in-group and out-group members.

When judging another person, people often spontaneously compare this person with themselves. Six studies examined the self-evaluative consequences of such spontaneous comparisons with in-group versus out-group members. They demonstrate that spontaneous comparisons with in-group members primarily involved the activation of specific individuating knowledge about the self. In particular, knowledge indicating that the self is similar to the judged target was rendered accessible. As a consequence, subsequent self-evaluations that were based on the implications of accessible self-knowledge were assimilated toward in-group targets. Spontaneous comparisons with out-group members, however, primarily involved the activation of more general category knowledge about the self. Specifically, knowledge about judges' membership in a group that distinguished them from the target was rendered accessible. Consequently, self-evaluations were contrasted away from out-group targets.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: the role of negotiator focus.

Three experiments explored the role of negotiator focus in disconnecting negotiated outcomes and evaluations. Negotiators who focused on their target prices, the ideal outcome they could obtain, achieved objectively superior outcomes compared with negotiators who focused on their lower bound (e.g., reservation price). Those negotiators who focused on their targets, however, were less satisfied with their objectively superior outcomes. In the final experiment, when negotiators were reminded of their lower bound after the negotiation, the satisfaction of those negotiators who had focused on their target prices was increased, with outcomes and evaluations becoming connected rather than disconnected. The possible negative effects of setting high goals and the temporal dimensions of the disconnection and reconnection between outcomes and evaluations are discussed.

Attitude↗