scholarly journals The gatekeeper: individual differences are key in the chain from perception to behaviour

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Perugini ◽  
Andrew Prestwich

A basic assumption in mainstream social cognition is that the path from perception to behaviour is often automatic and direct, as supported for example by several experimental studies showing that priming can lead directly to a congruent behaviour without any need of conscious awareness of the process. However, we argue that the priming of a goal or an object activates individual differences in automatic evaluations at the associative level that in turn are the key predictors of action (gatekeeper model). A study (n = 90) on the American stereotype is presented to support the model. The results show that individual differences of the American stereotype as assessed with the IAT predicts a relevant action (essay evaluation) but only under condition of priming. Broader implications for predictive validity of implicit measures are also discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian A. Nosek ◽  
Rachel G. Riskind

Basic research in implicit social cognition demonstrates that thoughts and feelings outside of conscious awareness or conscious control can influence perception, judgment and action. Implicit measures reveal that people possess implicit attitudes and stereotypes about social groups that are often distinct from their explicitly endorsed beliefs and values. The evidence that behavior can be influenced by implicit social cognition contrasts with social policies that implicitly or explicitly assume that people know and control the causes of their behavior. We consider the present state of evidence for implicit social cognition and its implications for social policy. We conclude that considering implicit social cognition can contribute usefully to policy, but that most uses of implicit measures themselves as selection or evaluation devices is not easily justified.


2015 ◽  
Vol 282 (1814) ◽  
pp. 20151512 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias Franz ◽  
Emily McLean ◽  
Jenny Tung ◽  
Jeanne Altmann ◽  
Susan C. Alberts

Linear dominance hierarchies, which are common in social animals, can profoundly influence access to limited resources, reproductive opportunities and health. In spite of their importance, the mechanisms that govern the dynamics of such hierarchies remain unclear. Two hypotheses explain how linear hierarchies might emerge and change over time. The ‘prior attributes hypothesis’ posits that individual differences in fighting ability directly determine dominance ranks. By contrast, the ‘social dynamics hypothesis’ posits that dominance ranks emerge from social self-organization dynamics such as winner and loser effects. While the prior attributes hypothesis is well supported in the literature, current support for the social dynamics hypothesis is limited to experimental studies that artificially eliminate or minimize individual differences in fighting abilities. Here, we present the first evidence supporting the social dynamics hypothesis in a wild population. Specifically, we test for winner and loser effects on male hierarchy dynamics in wild baboons, using a novel statistical approach based on the Elo rating method for cardinal rank assignment, which enables the detection of winner and loser effects in uncontrolled group settings. Our results demonstrate (i) the presence of winner and loser effects, and (ii) that individual susceptibility to such effects may have a genetic basis. Taken together, our results show that both social self-organization dynamics and prior attributes can combine to influence hierarchy dynamics even when agonistic interactions are strongly influenced by differences in individual attributes. We hypothesize that, despite variation in individual attributes, winner and loser effects exist (i) because these effects could be particularly beneficial when fighting abilities in other group members change over time, and (ii) because the coevolution of prior attributes and winner and loser effects maintains a balance of both effects.


2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 1581-1595
Author(s):  
Garth J. O. Fletcher ◽  
Nickola C. Overall ◽  
Lorne Campbell

Eastwick, Finkel, and Simpson (2018) advanced recommendations for “best practices” in testing the predictive validity of individual differences in the extent to which perceptions of partners match ideal standards (ideal-partner matching). We respond to their article evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of different tests, presenting new analyses of existing data, and setting out conclusions that differ from Eastwick et al. We (a) argue that correlations between ideal standards for attributes in partners and corresponding partner perceptions are relevant to the ideal standards model (ISM), (b) show that important methodological and statistical issues qualify their interpretations of prior research, (c) illustrate a new analytic approach used in the accuracy literature that tests (and controls for) confounds highlighted by Eastwick et al., and (d) provide evidence that the direct-estimation measure of ideal-partner matching is a valid and useful method. We conclude with a cautionary note on the concept of best practices.


2008 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. O’Connor ◽  
Chris J. Jackson

The Learning Styles Profiler (LSP; Jackson, 2002 ) is a modern measure of individual differences in learning style. The LSP is based on a neuropsychological model of learning, modeled on principles of approach and avoidance, and argues for the division of personality into temperament and character. There has been little research into the psychometric structure and predictive validity of this instrument. In Study 1, the factor structure of the LSP is examined, and in Study 2 the criterion-related validity of the LSP is assessed. Results support the proposed factor structure of the LSP and show that 3 of the 4 LSP scales are significant predictors of Job Performance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document