Could visual cues moderate the normative influence in promoting energy conservation? A perspective from the construal level

2021 ◽  
Vol 174 ◽  
pp. 105808
Author(s):  
Nan Ye ◽  
Xiao Zhang ◽  
Mengting Zhang ◽  
Joseph Atherley ◽  
Lisong Hou
PLoS ONE ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. e0209469 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anouk M. Griffioen ◽  
Michel J. J. Handgraaf ◽  
Gerrit Antonides

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 132-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Zubow ◽  
Richard Hurtig

Children with Rett Syndrome (RS) are reported to use multiple modalities to communicate although their intentionality is often questioned (Bartolotta, Zipp, Simpkins, & Glazewski, 2011; Hetzroni & Rubin, 2006; Sigafoos et al., 2000; Sigafoos, Woodyatt, Tuckeer, Roberts-Pennell, & Pittendreigh, 2000). This paper will present results of a study analyzing the unconventional vocalizations of a child with RS. The primary research question addresses the ability of familiar and unfamiliar listeners to interpret unconventional vocalizations as “yes” or “no” responses. This paper will also address the acoustic analysis and perceptual judgments of these vocalizations. Pre-recorded isolated vocalizations of “yes” and “no” were presented to 5 listeners (mother, father, 1 unfamiliar, and 2 familiar clinicians) and the listeners were asked to rate the vocalizations as either “yes” or “no.” The ratings were compared to the original identification made by the child's mother during the face-to-face interaction from which the samples were drawn. Findings of this study suggest, in this case, the child's vocalizations were intentional and could be interpreted by familiar and unfamiliar listeners as either “yes” or “no” without contextual or visual cues. The results suggest that communication partners should be trained to attend to eye-gaze and vocalizations to ensure the child's intended choice is accurately understood.


2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 223-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris L. Žeželj ◽  
Biljana R. Jokić

Eyal, Liberman, and Trope (2008) established that people judged moral transgressions more harshly and virtuous acts more positively when the acts were psychologically distant than close. In a series of conceptual and direct replications, Gong and Medin (2012) came to the opposite conclusion. Attempting to resolve these inconsistencies, we conducted four high-powered replication studies in which we varied temporal distance (Studies 1 and 3), social distance (Study 2) or construal level (Study 4), and registered their impact on moral judgment. We found no systematic effect of temporal distance, the effect of social distance consistent with Eyal et al., and the reversed effect of direct construal level manipulation, consistent with Gong and Medin. Possible explanations for the incompatible results are discussed.


1981 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 426-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul C. Stern ◽  
Gerald T. Gardner
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marika Yip-Bannicq ◽  
Patrick E. Shrout ◽  
Yaacov Trope
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document