Area Programs

Nov 7

12-1:30pm

David Nussbaum, The University of Waterloo

Defensiveness vs. Remediation: The Role of Self-Theories in Responding to Negative Feedback

Do people's beliefs about the nature of intelligence (whether it is fixed or can be improved) affect the way they respond to negative intelligence feedback? While a great deal of research has found that people tend to respond defensively to negative feedback, we hypothesized that this effect would be moderated by whether people understand that feedback to be a reflection on a stable entity (in which case we would expect defensiveness), or an improvable one (in which case we expect people to take remedial action). Across three studies we found that participants primed with a fixed theory of intelligence responded more defensively to negative feedback than those primed with the theory that intelligence is improvable, who tended to focus on self-improvement. Moreover, we found that participants' responses in both conditions were driven by a self-esteem maintenance process.

Harper 140

Nov 13

12-1:30pm

Daniel Molden, Northwestern University

How Motivations for Growth or Security Influence Reciprocity, Cooperation, and Commitment

People must often strike a delicate balance between focusing on their own independent concerns versus the interdependent concerns that arise out their relationships with others. Much previous work has examined the cultural and personality differences that can directly influence this balance and lead people to prioritize more independent or interdependent outcomes. In my talk, I will present several lines of research that extend past work by investigating how the activation of broad, fundamental motivations for attaining growth (i.e., promotion) or maintaining security (i.e., prevention) might also influence how people prioritize such outcomes. This research demonstrates that whereas general motivations for prevention tend to focus people on their obligations and responsibility toward others, general motivations for promotion tend to focus people on their own personal opportunities for gain. As compared to promotion-focused individuals, prevention-focused individuals (a) show greater reciprocity and concerns with equity in trust games in which others have invested resources in them; (b) greater cooperation with and investment in others in public goods and dictator games, in which they must sacrifice their own resources; and (c) greater commitment to established relationships, even to the point of derogating the attractiveness of alternate relationship partners. Broader implications of these findings for understanding independent and interdependent motivations will be discussed.

Harper 140

Nov 20

12-1:30pm

Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis

Is it Safe to Speak Out? The Role of Costs in Bystanders’ Decision to Confront Prejudice

Previous research suggests that confrontation – expressing dissatisfaction with prejudiced behavior directly to the perpetrator – can effectively curb subsequent expressions of prejudice. In spite of confrontation’s success as a prejudice reduction tool, people are often reluctant to confront perpetrators. My colleagues and I developed the Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) Model to outline the factors that facilitate vs. inhibit prejudice confrontation. One of those factors is the cost of confronting. Just as targets fear retaliation and risk being labeled a “whiner” or “complainer” for speaking out about their own experiences with prejudice, third-party bystanders who witness prejudice directed at others may also fear the potential negative repercussions of confronting (e.g., angering the perpetrator, losing their job). I will present the results of a survey and a scenario study, as well as preliminary results from an ongoing laboratory experiment, that highlight the role of costs in bystanders’ decision to confront prejudice.

Harper 140