The present study aimed to examine the possibility that the reputation of a rape victim and the prejudice that women desire violent sex interactively influence third party bystanders' blame of the victim and assessment of psychological damage suffered by the victim. College students (n=399; 177 men, 222 women) responded to a questionnaire. Respectability was defined as follows: less respectable victims were part-time cabaret hostesses and the average respectable victims were average female students. Results indicated that less respectable victims were blamed more and assessed as having suffered less damage in comparison to the average student victims. In addition, there was an interaction between respectability and respondents' prejudices about the sexual desires of women, such that the effect of respectability on blaming the victim was limited to respondents with fewer prejudices about the sexual desires of women.
Traditionally, research in social psychology has focused on the mean values of target variables. In most cases, this is simply because the mean value is the target of most statistical methods and often does not reflect the theoretical basis. Consequently, this has narrowed the perspective of researchers and possibly caused misunderstandings of social phenomena. In this study, we introduce quantile regression to solve this problem, which predicts the pth percentile of a target variable for any value of p. As an example, we theoretically predicted that the effect of extraversion on personal network size is different among the right (upper) and left (lower) parts of the distribution and tested this prediction using quantile regression. The result showed that extraversion positively correlates with the 70th-90th percentile of personal network size to a greater extent than that of the 30th-10th percentile. This result indicates that the distribution of personal network size not only moves toward the right but also becomes right-skewed as extraversion increases.
Whether people punish an unfair partner has been investigated using the ultimatum game, in which a proposer makes an offer of how to divide a fixed amount of money between him/herself and a responder, and the responder decides whether to accept or reject the proposer's offer. Previous studies have revealed that it is the proposer's unfair intention, rather than the unfair offer itself, that increases the rejection rate. However, all of the previous studies employed the strategy method, wherein the responders had to decide whether to reject various offers before examining the proposer's actual offer. The primary purpose of the present study was to examine whether the effect of unfair intention would be replicated when the responders made their decision upon receipt of the proposer's offer. Accordingly, in the present study, participants received an unfair offer (i.e., the proposer would take 90% of the resource) that was made intentionally or unintentionally, and then decided whether to accept it. The result showed that the unfair offer was rejected more frequently in the intention condition than the no-intention condition.
The present study attempted to examine whether explicit and implicit measures of aggressiveness would predict aggressive behavior and whether the effects would be moderated by provocation. Seventy-one students voluntarily participated in the experiment, with their explicit aggressiveness measured by the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BAQ) and their implicit aggressiveness measured by the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Aggressive behavior was deduced by the levels of unpleasant noises which the participants gave a partner in the evaluation of his/her drawings either in the provocation or non-provocation conditions. The results showed that only IAT was significantly related with the level of unpleasant noises, independently of provocation, suggesting that aggressive behavior was predicted by the implicit measure of aggressiveness but not by the explicit measure of it.
This study investigated the effect of high-level/low-level construals and deliberative/implemental mindsets on self-regulation within social settings. High- vs. low-level construals (Study 1, n=97) or deliberative vs. implemental mindsets(Study 2, n=95) were induced in participants, using previously validated priming procedures. They were then asked to complete measures about the "value" and "cost" of the behavior, "negative evaluation of temptations," and "behavioral intention" in each conflict scenario in which social self-regulation ability was required (self-assertiveness, patience, and emotion/desire inhibition scenes in social settings). The results of Study 1 showed that participants in whom high-level construals were activated had higher primary behavioral value ratings, lower evaluation of behavioral cost, and stronger intentions than their counterparts with low-level construals. No difference in negative evaluations of temptation was found. In Study 2, mindsets had no effect on the evaluation of behavior. These results indicated that the activation of high-level construals contributes to self-regulation in the context of social conflict, while deliberative/implemental mindsets had no effect on conflict behaviors within social settings.
The role of emotional suppression and expression in the affective priming effect was addressed by examining the consequences of expressing one's emotions toward the primes within the framework of the affect misattribution procedure (AMP: Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005). Consistent with previous findings, pleasant or unpleasant picture primes influenced subsequent evaluations of unrelated neutral targets, despite blatant warning to ignore the primes. Interestingly, however, the affective priming effect disappeared when participants expressed their affective responses toward the primes. Moreover, the effect of negative emotional expression was moderated by individual differences in self-rumination. These findings suggest that an affective priming effect ensues when affect is kept unexpressed.