Reference - Weebly
| |Category |Reference |Shorthand |Description |
|1 |Risk |Gupta, R., Derevensky, J.L., & Ellenbogen, S. (2006). |Gupta, Derevensky, & Ellenbogen, |Personality and risk-taking. A discriminant analysis found that high levels of |
| | |Personality characteristics and risk-Taking tendencies among |2006 |Disinhibition, Boredom Susceptibility, Cheerfulness and Excitability, as well as low |
| | |adolescent gamblers. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, | |levels of Conformity, and Self-Discipline are strongly associated with the function that |
| | |38, 201-213. |Gupta, Derevensky, & Ellenbogen |best predicts problem gambling severity level. The findings suggest that there exist |
| | | |(2006) |qualitative differences in personality and risk-taking styles for adolescents based upon |
| | | | |the severity of their gambling behaviour, lending support to the premise that certain |
| | | | |types of individuals are more susceptible than others to developing a gambling problem. |
|2 |Risk |Wallsten, T.S., Pleskac, T.J., & Lejuez, C. W. (2005). |Wallsten, Pleskac, & Lejuez, 2005|A good review on BART, and several studies validating the use of BART as a risk-taking |
| | |Modeling behavior in a clinically diagnostic sequential | |measurement tool. |
| | |risk-taking task. Psychological Review, 112, 862-880. |Wallsten, Pleskac, & Lejuez |My main criticism is that the decision of each trial is not independent; hence risk-taking|
| | | |(2005) |is confounded with practice and/or learning effects. For example, if I had won $1 in trial|
| | | | |one, I’d be more willing to lose $1 in trial two because overall I gain nothing. But if I |
| | | | |had won $1 in trial one, I may be more conservative (less risk-taking) in trial 2 to |
| | | | |prevent further losses. |
|3 |Risk, friends & methods |Gardner, M., & Steinberg, L. (2005). Peer influence on risk |Gardner & Steinberg, 2005 |A video-game called “Chicken” used to assess risk-taking. |
| | |taking, risk preference, and risky decision making in | |The presence of peers increased risk-taking by 50% among college undergrads but had no |
| | |adolescence and adulthood: An experimental study. |Gardner & Steinberg (2005) |effect at all on adults. |
| | |Developmental Psychology, 41, 625-635. | |Must cite in detail. |
| | | | |However, peer influence was not tightly defined. It was operationalized as peer presence. |
| | | | |Author concluded that it is not known why peer presence affected results. |
|4 |Risk |Lejuez, C.W., Read, J.P., Kahler, C.W., Richards, J.B., |Lejuez et. al., 2002 |The original BART. Players would see a balloon on the computer screen, with the option of |
| |(methods) |Ramsey, S.E, Stuart, G.L, Strong, D.R., & Brown, R.A. (2002). | |“Pump” or “Collect money”. Ss’ task was to earn as much money as possible. For each trial,|
| |5 |Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: The Balloon|Lejuez et. al. (2002) |each pump that did not explode the balloon earned them 5 cents; if it explodes, they lose |
| | |Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology:| |the money for the trial. The probability of the balloon exploding was randomly |
| | |Applied, 8, 75-84. | |determined—in some cases, even one pump would explode; in other cases, 20 pumps will still|
| | | | |not make it explode. Ss were given gift certificates for any amount earned. DV was the |
| | | | |number of pumps. |
|6 |Risk |Sorrentino, R.M, Hewitt, E.C, & Raso-Knott, P.A. (1992). |Sorrentino, Hewitt, & Raso-Knott,|This study uses both Atkinson Ring Toss (expt 1) and Lucky Beads (expt 2). |
| |(methods) |Risk-taking in games of chance and skill: Informational and |1992 |Atkinson Ring Toss |
| | |affective influences on choice behavior. Journal of | |Ss’ task was to throw wooden rings as close to a 1-ft slanting pole as possible. Before |
| | |Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 522-533. |Sorrentino, Hewitt, & Raso-Knott |all the throws, Ss were asked to estimate their accuracy for distances 1, 3, 5, 7, …21 ft |
| | | |(1992) |from the pole. Then for the real throws (10 trials), Ss could choose the distance between |
| | | | |them and the pole, from 1-21 ft. |
| | | | |Measures of risk-taking was the distance of the actual throw compared with the subjective |
| | | | |probabilities assigned to these distances, and grouped into low, moderate and high risk. |
|7 |Groupthink |Silverthorne, C.P. (1971). Information input and the group |Silverthorne, 1971 |Studies on risky shift |
| | |shift phenomenon in risk taking. Journal of Personality and | | |
| | |Social Psychology, 23, 456-461. |Silverthorne (1971) | |
|8 |Friendship |Bodnar, S. (1992). Friendship and the construction of the |Bodnar, 1992 |Good resource on friendship processes, developmental perspective on friendship. |
| | |person in adult development. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, City | | |
| | |University of New York. |Bodnar (1992) | |
| | | | | |
|9 |Friendship |Bukowski, W.M, Hoza, B., & Boivin, M. (1994). Measuring |Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin, 1994 |In CL Bound Journals |
| | |friendship quality during pre- and early adolescence: The | |HM258 JSP v0011 94 |
| | |development and psychometric properties of the Friendship |Bukowski, Hoza, & Boivin (1994) |Not as relevant has Polimeni et al’s scale below because the items are more tailored to |
| | |Qualities Scale. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,| |young children and seem more kiddy. |
| | |11, 471-484. | | |
|10 |Friendship |Polimeni, A, Hardie, E., & Buzwell, S. (2002). |Polimeni, Hardie, & Buzwell, |In HSSML Bound Journals. |
| | |Friendship Closeness Inventory: Development and|2002 |BF1 PSR v90 n1-2 2002. This scale is better than the one above cos the sample is more relevant. However, it |
| | |psychometric evaluation. Psychological Reports,| |was developed to measure same-sex friendships, so it has not been validated for cross-sex friendships yet. But |
| | |91, 142-152. |Polimeni, Hardie, & Buzwell |it is not from a good journal. |
| | | |(2002) | |
|11 |Friendship |Armsden, G.C., & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The |Armsden & Greenberg, 1987 |The IPPA is about the only scale measuring peer attachment, and it’s from a good journal (IF >1). There are 3 |
| | |Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment: | |subscales, Trust, Communication and Alienation, and two parts to each subscale for parent (28 items) and peers.|
| | |Individual differences and their relationship |Armsden & Greenberg (1987) |(20 items). In a latter report (1989), the authors suggested using the individual subscales would be better for|
| | |to psychological well-being in adolescence. | |a specific measurement. |
| | |Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 427-454. | | |
|12 |Friendship |Hawthorne, G. (2006). Measuring social |Hawthorne, 2006 |This scale is more about friendships in general, how isolated socially one is. Not very relevant. |
| | |isolation in older adults: Development and | | |
| | |initial validation of the friendship scale. |Hawthorne (2006) | |
| | |Social Indicators Research, 77, 521-548. | | |
|13 | |Freedman, J., & Fraser, S. (1966). Compliance | |foot-in-the-door technique |
| | |without pressure: the foot-in-the-door | | |
| | |technique. Journal of Personality and Social | | |
| | |Psychology, 4, 195-202. | | |
|14 |Groupthink |Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The |Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969 | |
| | |group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of | | |
| | |Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125-135.|Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969) | |
|15 |Risk |Yates, J.F. & Stone, E.R. (1992). The risk |Yates & Stone, 1992 |The three elements of risk are clearly defined. Very important concepts about risk. |
| | |construct. In J.F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking | | |
| | |behavior (pp. 1-26). Chichester: John Wiley & |Yates & Stone (1992) | |
| | |Sons. | | |
|16 |Risk |Demaree, H,A,, DeDonno., M.A., Burns, K.J., & |Demaree, DeDonno, Burns, |New measure of risk-taking, the P-game and the W-game, measuring risk-taking preferences in slot-like games. |
| |(methods) |Everhart, D.E. (2008). You bet: How personality|Everhart, 2008 |DV1 is amount wagered. U = utility, P = probability, W = wager, J = jackpot. |
| | |differences affect risk-taking preferences. | |The W-game |
| | |Personality and Individual Differences, 44, |Demaree, DeDonno, Burns, |Ss varied their wager amount; U and P were fixed (U = 0, P = .13). This is similar to casino slot machines |
| | |1484–1494. |Everhart (2008) |where player determines how much money to put in, while P and U are fixed by casino. The dependent measure of |
| | | | |risk-taking was the average wager across 25 trials. |
| | | |Demaree et al., 2008 |The P-game |
| | | | |Ss varied the probability of winning, W fixed at $4. The dependent measure of risk-taking was the average |
| | | |Demaree et al. (2008) |probability across 25 trials. |
| | | | | |
|17 |Risk |Noval, J., & Mitchell, Z. (2003). The wheel of |Noval & Mitchell, 2003 |Participants were more likely to place riskier gambles on a poker chips game when in the presence of their |
| |(methods) |misfortune: Using gambling to assess the link | |friends than when in the presence of strangers. The study also suggests attachment as secure base effects. |
| |& risk |between risky behavior and attachment. Colgate |Noval & Mitchell (2003) | |
| | |University Journal of Sciences, 35, 157-170. | | |
|18 |Risk |Morewedge, K.C., Gilbert, D.T., Keysar, B., |Morewedge, Gilbert, Keysar, |People prefer a big gain to be segregated into aggregate-equivalent small gains. May apply to gambling |
| | |Berkovits, M.J., & Wilson, T.D. (2007). |Berkovits & Wilson, 2007 |paradigm. |
| | |Mispredicting the hedonic Benefits of | | |
| | |segregated gains. Journal of Experimental |Morewedge, Gilbert, Keysar, | |
| | |Psychology: General, 136, 700–709. |Berkovits & Wilson (2007) | |
| | | | | |
| | | |Morewedge et al., 2007 | |
| | | | | |
| | | |Morewedge et al. (2007) | |
|19 | |Araya, T., Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., & | |-Not Used- |
| | |Hedlund, L. (2002). Reducing prejudice through | | |
| | |priming of control-related words. Experimental | | |
| | |Psychology, 49, 222-227. | | |
|20 |Risk |Zuckerman, M. (2006). Sensation seeking and |Zuckerman, 2006 |Good resource, especially on SSS, personality and psychobiology determinants of risk |
| | |risky behavior. Washington, DC: American | | |
| | |Psychological Association. |Zuckerman (2006) | |
|21 |Attachment |Collins, N. L. & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult | |Attachment questionnaire. Seems more geared towards romantic attachment. |
| | |attachment, working models, and relationship | | |
| | |quality in dating couples. Journal of | | |
| | |Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.| | |
|22 |Attachment |Feeney, J. A., Noller, R, & Hanrahan, M. | |Attachment questionnaire |
| | |(1994). Assessing adult attachment. In M. B. | | |
| | |Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in | | |
| | |adults: Theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. | | |
| | |128-152). New York: Guilford. | | |
|23 |Attachment |Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). | |Attachment questionnaire. A four-item statement where individuals choose the statement that best describes |
| | |Attachment styles among young adults: A test of| |them. |
| | |a fourcategory model. Journal of Personality | | |
| | |and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244. | | |
|24 |Risk |Hudgens, G.A., & Fatkin, L.T. (1984). Sex |Hudgens & Fatkin, 1984 |Ss’s task were to navigate tanks across a minefield, with mines represented as dots on screen. On any trial, |
| | |differences in risk taking: Repeated sessions | |the density of mines (and hence probability of success) in the field would be varied. There are 5 different |
| | |in a computer-simulated task. The Journal of |Hudgens & Fatkin (1984) |densities of mines, with each density having 20 patterns (i.e. total 100 different patterns). On seeing a |
| | |Psychology, 119, 197-206. | |pattern of mines, Ss were asked to estimate the chance of a successful crossing. Then they would press “Go” or |
| | | | |“no Go”. Ss earned +5, -5, +1, -3 for Go/Successful crossing, Go/unsuccessful crossing, No Go/ when it would be|
| | | | |an unsuccessful crossing, no Go/ when it would be a successful crossing. |
| | | | |Ss and researchers were enlisted military personnel. gender differences were found. |
|25 |Risk |Slovic, P. (1962). Convergent validity of | |Ss were asked to check those of a group of 15 terms which belong to a stated category. The terms were ambiguous|
| |(methods) |risk-taking measures. Journal of Abnormal and | |and it is predicted that high risk takers will check more terms than low risk takers. Seems very similar to the|
| | |Social Psychology, 65, 68-71. | |MCQ method I proposed. But the author only described his method in 4 lines, so it was too vague to make out |
| | | | |anything concrete to compare mine with his. |
|26 |Emotion & risk |Isen, A.M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of|Isen & Patrick, 1983 |One of the first studies on emotions and risk-taking. They found that happy Ss made low-risk bets, but wagered |
| | |positive feelings on risk taking: When the | |less than controls on high-risk bets. They used a paradigm of risk probabilities. (Study 1). Importantly, this |
| | |chips are down. Organizational Behavior and |Isen & Patrick (1983) |study uses RP points as the bet. But in Study 2, using vignettes, the results of Study 1 were not obtained. So |
| | |Human Performance, 31, 194-202. | |these two paradigms may not be very validated. |
| | | | |Second, research by Isen and her colleagues has shown that |
| | | | |positive affect makes people risk averse. Isen and Patrick (1983) |
| | | | |showed that inducing positive affect caused people to increase |
| | | | |the amount they bet when the likelihood of winning was high— |
| | | | |but caused them to bet less if there was high probability of losing. |
| | | | |Isen and Geva (1987) found that inducing positive affect |
| | | | |caused people to be less willing to gamble unless there was a |
| | | | |very high likelihood of winning. |
|27 |Emotion, self and risk |Leith, K.P., & Baumeister, R.F. (1996). Why do |Leith & Baumeister, 1996 |Expt uses a lottery decision paradigm: 70% of winning $2 vs 2% of winning $25. The latter is known as long-shot|
| | |bad moods lead to self-defeating behavior? | |(high risk, high payoff). In either choices, if they lose, they were told that they’d be subjected to noise |
| | |Emotion, risk taking, and self-regulation. |Leith & Baumeister (1996) |stress (nails scratching blackboard) as punishment. They manipulated Ss’ mood. Risky decisions are limited to |
| | |Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, | |negative moods characterized by high arousal (e.g. anger, embarrassment). An important instruction is noted: |
| | |71, 1250-1267. | |“The experimenter also said that the money was from a research grant in order to dispel any concerns (or |
| | | | |desires) the participant may have had about taking the experimenter's money.” |
| | | | |Perhaps self-esteem is a mediator between friendship and risk. |
| | | | |An important argument is made: opposite mood states doesn’t necessarily imply opposite effects. |
| | | | |Important mediator manipulation |
|28 |Emotion and risk |Lerner, J.S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, |Lerner & Keltner, 2001 |Expt uses Tversky and Kahneman (1981) risk preference reversal (e.g. Asian disease problem: save 200 ppl, 1/3 |
| | |anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and | |chance of saving 600, etc). Some options are more “risk-averse” than others, even though the expected outcomes |
| | |Social Psychology, 81, 146-159. |Lerner & Keltner (2001) |are the same. It can be argued that these are decisional framing choices, as the authors say. Doesn’t really |
| | | | |measure risk-taking to me. But it brings home an important point: emotions affect our preference for certain |
| | | | |decision frames, moderated by appraisals of certainty and mediated by appraisals of control. |
| | | | |The study also uses Weinstein’s (1980) optimism scale. It suggests controllability as a possible factor leading|
| | | | |to risk. |
|29 |Risk |Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W.M., Zvolensky, M.J., & |Lejuez, Aklin, Zvolensky, & |The real-world tasks are smoking, driving without use of seatbelts, drinking, doing drugs, etc. |
| |(methods) |Pedulla, C.M. (2003). Evaluation of Balloon |Pedulla, 2003 |It’s correlational and does not predict future risky behaviors. |
| | |Analogue Risk Task (BART) as a predictor of | | |
| | |adolescent real-world risk-taking behaviors. |Lejuez, Aklin, Zvolensky, & | |
| | |Journal of Adolescence, 26, 475-479. |Pedulla (2003) | |
| | |doi:10.1016/S0140-1971(03)00036-8 | | |
| | | |Lejuez et al., 2003b | |
| | | | | |
| | | |Lejuez et al. (2003b) | |
|30 |Risk |Lejuez, C. W., Aklin, W.M., Jones, H.A., |Lejuez et al., 2003a | |
| |(methods) |Richards, J.B., Strong, D.R., Kahler, C.W., & | | |
| | |Read, J.P. (2003a). The balloon analogue risk |Lejuez et al. (2003a) | |
| | |task (BART) differentiates smokers and | | |
| | |nonsmokers. Experimental and Clinical | | |
| | |Psychopharmacology, 11, 26-33. | | |
|31 |Risk |Vigil-Colet, A. (2007). Impulsivity and |Vigil-Colet (2007) |Experimenter didn’t exclude number of unexploded balloons as the DV, unlike Lejuez (2002). Rather, total number|
| |(methods) |decision making in the balloon analogue | |of presses was the DV. |
| | |risk-taking task. Personality and Individual | | |
| | |Differences, 43, 37-45. | |It is not clear whether impulsivity is related to decision-making processes. Although recent studies have |
| | | | |proposed that these kinds of processes are not related to impulsivity, most of them have focused only on |
| | | | |certain dimensions of impulsivity such as ‘‘narrow impulsivity’’ and not taken into account other dimensions |
| | | | |such as functional impulsivity or venturesomeness. Using Dickman’s model of dysfunctional and functional |
| | | | |impulsivity we have analysed the relationships between measures of these dimensions, the dimensions |
| | | | |measured by the I7 questionnaire, and various parameters of the Balloon Analogue Risk Taking Task (BART). The |
| | | | |BART is a widely used measure of risk-taking propensity which we have modified in order to manipulate the risk |
| | | | |associated with the task. The results obtained show that neither dysfunctional impulsivity nor narrow |
| | | | |impulsivity are related to decision processes in this task while functional impulsivity is related to an |
| | | | |‘‘impulsive decision-making’’ style only in the low risk condition. Venturesomeness also |
| | | | |showed a significant relationship with BART results in the low risk condition, although partial correlation |
| | | | |analysis suggested that these results are mainly due to functional impulsivity. |
|32 |Risk |Hopko, D.R., Lejuez, C.W., Daughters, S.B., |Hopko et al., 2006 | |
| |(methods) |Aklin, W.M., Osborne, A., Simmons, B.L., | | |
| | |Strong, D.R. (2006). Construct validity of the |Hopko et al. (2006) | |
| | |Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART): Relationship| | |
| | |with MDMA use by inner-city drug users in | | |
| | |residential treatment. Journal of | | |
| | |Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28, | | |
| | |95-101. | | |
|33 |Methods |Vasa, R.A., Carlino, A.R., London, K., & Min, |Vasa, Carlino, London, & Min, |A list of positive, threat and neutral words can be found here. The words were taken from norms from Bradley |
| | |C. (2006). Valence ratings of emotional and |2006 |and Lang Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW), which cost $. Of special note is that under List of Positive|
| | |non-emotional words in children. Personality | |Primes, “Friend” is a positive prime. |
| | |and Individual Differences, 41, 1169-1180. |Vasa, Carlino, London, & Min | |
| | | |(2006) |My control-positive and control-neutral were fully taken from here. |
|34 |Gambling |Petry, N.M., & Roll, J.M. (2006). | |HV6708 Gam 2006 |
| | |Cognitive-behavioral treatments for | |Haven’t read yet, but there’s a chapter on experimental methodology in studying gambling behavior. |
| | |pathological gambling. In Gambling: behavior | | |
| | |theory, research, and application, by Patrick | | |
| | |M. Ghezzi, et al. Reno (Eds.). NV: Context | | |
| | |Press | | |
|35 |Gambling |Understanding and treating the pathological | |RC569.5 Gam.La 2002 |
| | |gambler / Robert Ladouceur ... [et. al.]. | | |
| | |Chichester: Wiley, 2002. | | |
|36 |Methods (mediator) |Spencer, S.J. Zanna, M.P., & Fong, G.T. (2005).|Spencer, Zanna, & Fong, 2005 |Table 1 is important. It explains the type of setup that are best suited to test mediation for a particular |
| | |Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments | |design. 3 models are identified: experimental causal chain, measurement of mediation and moderation of process.|
| | |are often more effective than mediational |Spencer, Zanna, & Fong (2005) |Along with each design are assumptions needed to be fulfilled to provide strong evidence of mediation. A very |
| | |analyses in examining psychological processes. | |good paper! |
| | |Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, | | |
| | |89, 845 – 851. | | |
|37 |CLT |Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Stephan, E. | | |
| | |Psychological distance. (2007). In A.W. | | |
| | |Kruglanski & E.T. Higgins (Eds.), Social | | |
| | |psychology: Handbook of basic principles (Vol. | | |
| | |2, pp. 353 – 383). New York: Guilford Press. | | |
|38 |Risk and emotion |Rivers, S.E., Reyna, V.F., & Mills, B. (2008). |Rivers, Reyna, & Mills, 2008 |A useful paper to cite for the emotion(risk-taking link. But it doesn’t explore much about how positive |
| | |Risk taking under the influence: A fuzzy-trace | |emotions lead to (or not) risk-taking |
| | |theory of emotion in adolescence. Developmental|Rivers, Reyna, & Mills. (2008)|The fuzzy-trace theory has more to do with risk perception, which is not very relevant here. |
| | |Review, 28, 107 – 144. | |Excellent references on emotions. |
|39 |Risk and emotion |Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K., & |Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & |Not very useful in general, but some parts are good for citing. |
| | |Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. |Welch, 2001 |Good moods and optimism and choices (p. 271) |
| | |Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267 – 286. | |Risk-as-feelings model identifies situational factors that can influence risk taking that would not be |
| | | |Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & |predicted by consequentialist models. |
| | | |Welch (2001) |Risk taking is content- and context-specific. |
| | | | |The emotions experienced during the decision-making process is the focus of the paper because most studies are |
| | | | |concerned with emotions experienced after the decision. Figure 3 is useful. |
|40 |CLT |Fujita, K., Henderson, M., Eng, J., Trope, Y., |Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope,|Findings: spatially distant events are associated with high-level construals (abstract features), and that |
| | |& Liberman, N. (2006). Spatial distance and |& Liberman, 2006 |spatial distance is a dimension of psychological distance. |
| | |mental construal of social events. | |A very simple and elegant paper, but without moderators. |
| | |Psychological Science, 17, 278-282. |Fujita, Henderson, Eng, Trope,|Important points are: (i) the manipulation of distance – the first of its kind; (ii) the manipulation had an |
| | | |& Liberman (2006) |effect on social judgments. |
| | | | | |
| | | |Fujita et al., 2006 | |
| | | |Fujita el al. (2006) | |
|41 |CLT |Rim, S., Uleman, J. S., & Trope, Y. (May, |Rim, Uleman, & Trope, 2007 |Poster can be downloaded. They used the same manipulation of spatial distance as Fujita et al. (2006) and it |
| | |2007). Spatial distance affects implicit | |had an effect on social judgments. |
| | |impressions of others. Poster presented at the |Rim, Uleman, & Trope (2007) | |
| | |annual meeting of the Association for | | |
| | |Psychological Science. Memphis, TN. | | |
|42 |Friendship |Tesser, A., Campbell, J., & Smith, M. (1984). |Tesser, Campbell, & Smith, |People choose friends who are highly similar to themselves in terms of overall ability and who are interested |
| | |Friendship choice and performance: |1984 |in and perform well on those activities that are consequential to them (p. 573). It is supposedly to be ego |
| | |Self-evaluation maintenance in children | |boosting, maintaining a stable sense of self. The sample was children. |
| | | |Tesser, Campbell, & Smith | |
| | | |(1984) | |
|43 |Friendship |Soloman, S., & Knafo, A. (2007). Value |Soloman & Knafo, 2007 |Similar findings as Tesser et al. (1984). The sample was Israeli adolescents. Includes a measure of friendship |
| | |similarity in adolescent friendships. In Terry | |closeness, though this measure is not validated. |
| | |C. Rhodes (Ed.), Focus on adolescent behavior |Soloman & Knafo (2007) | |
| | |research (pp. 133-155). Hauppauge, N.Y.: Nova | | |
| | |Science Publishers, Inc. | | |
|44 |Risk and friendship |Jaccard, J., Blanton, H., & Dodge, T. (2005). |Jaccard, Blanton, & Dodge, |It’s correlational, but may still be a very good evidence. Sample was Grade 7-11 students; risk operationalised|
| | |Peer influence on risk behavior: An analysis of|2005 |as risk activities related to sexual activity and binge drinking. |
| | |the effects of a close friend. Developmental | |It makes an important point: friends may lead to more risk taking because of artifacts in measurement, |
| | |Psychology, 41, 135-147. |Jaccard, Blanton, & Dodge |selection effects or parallel effects (p. 136), which the current literature doesn’t tell apart. |
| | | |(2005) |A very good review of close friend effects |
|45 |Friendship |Bukowski, W.M., & Sippola, L.K. (2005). |Bukowski & Sippola, 2005 | |
| | |Friendship and development: Putting the most | | |
| | |human relationship in its place. In Lene A. |Bukowski & Sippola (2005) | |
| | |Jensen & Reed W. Larson (Eds.), New horizons in| | |
| | |developmental theory and research (pp. 91 – | | |
| | |98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. | | |
|46 |Risk and gender |Byrnes, J.P., Miller, D.C., & Schafer, W.G. |Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, |An important paper, regardless of the focus on gender. The paper really explains the risk literature, grouping |
| | |(1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A |1999 |it into 3 categories and providing much clarification to the diverse literature Accordingly, the authors also |
| | |meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367| |reviewed the methods used to measure risk and grouped them into a few categories. A must cite! |
| | |– 383. |Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer | |
| | | |(1999) | |
|47 |Risk and optimism |Helweg-Larsen, M. & Shepperd, J.A. (2001). Do |Helweg-Larsen & Shepperd, 2001|A good resource for optimism (measurement and manipulation) and emotion. Weinstein (1980) optimism scale |
| | |moderators of the optimistic bias affect | |doesn’t seem to be very useful to me, but may be worth looking into |
| | |personal or target risk estimates? A review of |Helweg-Larsen & Shepperd | |
| | |the literature. Personality and Social |(2001) | |
| | |Psychology Review, 5, 74 – 95. | | |
|48 |Risk |Morrongiello, B.A., & Dawber, T. (2004). |Morrongiello & Dawber, 2004 |A few important points are highlighted in the abstract. |
| | |Identifying factors that relate to children’s | |Best friends are similar in risk-taking ( supports the findings that friends are similar in values |
| | |risk-taking decisions. Canadian Journal of |Morrongiello & Dawber (2004) |Friends influences each others’ risk taking tendencies |
| | |Behavioural Science, 36, 255 – 266. | |However, the sample is children, mean age 9 years old. |
| | | | |“Children are most prone to influence about risk-taking from other children with whom they share a valued |
| | | | |relationship” (p. 265) |
|49 |Risk and emotion |Mann, L. (1992). Stress, affect, and | | |
| | |risk-taking. In J.F. Yates (Ed.), Risk-taking | | |
| | |behavior (pp. 1-26). Chichester: John Wiley & | | |
| | |Sons. | | |
|50 |Risk and self efficacy |Llewellyn, D.J., Sanchez, X., Asghar, A., & |Llewellyn, Sanchez, Asghar, & |It suggests that risk takers take risks when they feel confident in their abilities and are high in |
| | |Jones, G. (2008). Self-efficacy, risk taking |Jones, 2008 |self-efficacy. Perhaps self-efficacy can enhance people’s risk-taking propensity. |
| | |and performance in rock-climbing. Personality | | |
| | |and Individual Differences, 45, 75 – 81. |Llewellyn, Sanchez, Asghar, & | |
| | | |Jones (2008) | |
| | | | | |
| | | |Llewellyn et al., 2008 | |
| | | | | |
| | | |Llewellyn et al. (2008) | |
|51 |Risk |Mitchell, S.H., Schoel, C., & Stevens, A.A. |Mitchell, Schoel, & Stevens, |It uses a modified version of the BART, called the 2BIT. So this is another study that supported the use of |
| | |(2008). Mechanisms underlying heightened risk |2008 |BART as a valid risk-taking measure. The findings that adolescents show increased risk-taking compared to |
| | |taking in adolescents as compared with adults. | |adults because of sensitivity to immediate consequences is irrelevant to my study. References to Reyna (2004) |
| | |Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 272 – 277. |Mitchell, Schoel, & Stevens |and Steinberg (2007) may be useful. |
| | | |(2008) | |
|52 |Risk, power and optimism |Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A.D. (2006). Power, | |Sense of power (IV) increases optimism in risk perception (MV1) but not self-efficacy (MV2) and this leads to |
| | |optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of | |more risky behaviors (DV). |
| | |Social Psychology, 36, 511 – 536. | |Power influences the relative activation of the behavioral approach system and inhibition systems. See comments|
| | | | |of individual experiments in printed article. In general, even though the experiments were not well done, but |
| | | | |the points were convincingly argued. |
|53 |Risk and power |Lammers, J., Galinsky, A.D., Gordijn, E.H., & |Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn, & |Risk preference was measured and was found to be moderated by legitimacy. In Study 3, legitimacy and power were|
| | |Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy moderates the |Otten, 2008 |primed supraliminally through a word search paradigm. Then a gain/loss frame was presented (risk preference). |
| | |effects of power on approach. Psychological | |In Study 4, power and legitimacy were manipulated. Results were similar. |
| | |Science, 19, 558 – 564. |Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn, & | |
| | | |Otten (2008) | |
|54 |Friend and priming |Fitzsimons, G.M., & Bargh, J.A. (2003). |Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003 |The first experiment I’ve read that primes friendship (and mother). An ingenious manipulation is noted “While |
| | |Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of | |they were engaged in this task, the experimenter looked at the first page of the questionnaire of one of the |
| | |interpersonal goals associated with |Fitzsimons & Bargh (2003) |participants (randomly selected), which listed the name of the participant’s best friend. The experimenter then|
| | |relationship partners. Journal of Personality | |entered this name into a computer program in two other computers in the lab room. Thus, in each session, both |
| | |and Social Psychology, 84, 146 – 164. | |participants were primed with the same name, but for only one of these participants did this name represent his|
| | | | |or her best friend.” (p. 156). 3 ways of priming friends are noted: “think of a good friend whom they know |
| | | | |quite well and with whom they do not work” (p. 152); form a vivid image of their best friend and describe their|
| | | | |appearance in words; subliminal priming (see above), |
| | | | |Impt point: Interpersonal goals are component features of relationship representations and that mere activation|
| | | | |of those representations, even in the partner’s physical absence, causes the goals to become active and to |
| | | | |guide behavior nonconsciously within the current situation. |
| | | | | |
|55 |Risk perception and risk |Mills, B., Reyna, V.F., & Estrada, S. (2008). |Mills, Reyna, & Estrada, 2008 |Impt finding: how one thinks about risk (global vs. specific) will lead to different risk-taking tendencies. |
| |taking |Explaining contradictory relations between risk| |The mental representation of constructs in memory mediates this effect. However, the design is correlational. |
| | |perception and risk-taking. Psychological |Mills, Reyna, & Estrada (2008)|The weakness of the paper is that Ss retrospectively thinking of past events, but neither future behavior was |
| | |Science, 19, 429 – 433. | |predicted or measured. It simply reflected behavioral intentions. |
|56 |Friendship and emotions |Mendelson, M.J., & Kay, A.C. (2003). Positive |Mendelson & Kay, 2003 |MFQ |
| | |feelings in friendship: Does imbalance in the | |It also suggests that friendship activates positive feelings because positive feelings covaried directly with |
| | |relationship matter? Journal of Social and |Mendelson & Kay (2003) |friendship levels. |
| | |Personal Relationship, 20, 101-116. | | |
|57 |Friendship |Mendelson, M.J., & Aboud, F.E. (1999). |Mendelson & Aboud, 1999 |MFQ |
| | |Measuring friendship quality in late | | |
| | |adolescents and young adults: McGill Friendship|Mendelson & Aboud (1999) | |
| | |Questionnaires. Canadian Journal of Behavioural| | |
| | |Science, 31, 130-132. | | |
|58 |Risk (methods) |Hergovich, A., Arendasy, M. E., Sommer, M., & |Hergovich, Arendasy, Sommer, &|This paradigm is similar to the “Chicken” video game by Gardner & Steinberg (2005), but participants have to be|
| | |Bognar, B. (2007). The Vienna risk-taking |Bognar, 2007 |real drivers. |
| | |test-traffic: A new measure of road traffic | | |
| | |risk-taking. Journal of Individual Differences,|Hergovich, Arendasy, Sommer, &| |
| | |28, 198 – 204. |Bognar (2007) | |
|59 |Risk |Hanoch, Y., Johnson, J.G., & Wilke, A. (2006). |Hanoch, Johnson, & Wilke, 2006|It makes an important point about the domain specificity in risk-taking, which is also supported by meta |
| | |Domain specificity in experimental measures and| |analytic findings. People who exhibit high levels of risk-taking behavior in one content area can exhibit |
| | |participant recruitment: An application to |Hanoch, Johnson, & Wilke |moderate levels in other risky domains.. Risk taking among targeted subsamples can be explained within a |
| | |risk-taking behavior. Psychological Science, |(2006) |cost-benefit framework and is largely mediated by the perceived benefit of the activity, and to a lesser extent|
| | |17, 300 – 304. | |by the perceived risk. |
|60 |CLT |Henderson, M. D., Fujita, K., Trope, Y., & |Henderson, Fujita, Trope, & |Spatial distance has an effect on social judgment. |
| | |Liberman, N. (2006). Transcending the “here”: |Liberman, 2006 | |
| | |The effect of spatial distance on social | | |
| | |judgment. Journal of Personality and Social |Henderson, Fujita, Trope, & | |
| | |Psychology, 91, 845-856. |Liberman (2006) | |
|61 |CLT |Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal |Trope & Liberman, 2003 | |
| | |construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403-421. | | |
| | | |Trope & Liberman (2003) | |
|62 |CLT |Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006).|Bar-Anan, Liberman, & Trope, | |
| | |The association between psychological distance |2006 | |
| | |and construal level: Evidence from an implicit | | |
| | |association test. Journal of Experimental |Bar-Anan, Liberman, & Trope | |
| | |Psychology: General, 135, 609-622. |(2006) | |
|63 |Risk |Magar, E.C.E., Phillips, L.H., & Hosie, J.A. |Magar, Phillips, & Hosie, 2008|Strangely, they didn’t quote Leith & Baumeister (1996) who did the same study but in an experimental context. |
| | |(2008). Self-regulation and risk-taking. | |Self regulation was separately measured as emotion regulation (ERQ) and cognitive regulation (DEX) and |
| | |Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 153|Magar, Phillips, & Hosie |correlated with risky behavioral measures. |
| | |– 159. |(2008) | |
|64 |Risk and personality |Zimbardo, P.G., Keough, K.A., & Boyd, J.N. |Zimbardo, Keough, & Boyd, 1997| |
| | |(1997). Present time perspective as a predictor| | |
| | |of risky driving. Personality and Individual |Zimbardo, Keough, & Boyd | |
| | |Differences, 23, 1007 – 1023. |(1997) | |
|65 |Risk and friendship |Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk taking in |Steinberg, 2007 |Fig. 2 shows support that friends lead to more risk taking. “The mere presence of peers makes the rewarding |
| | |adolescence: New perspectives from brain and | |aspects of risky situations more salient by activating the same circuitry that is activated by exposure to |
| | |behavioral science. Current Directions in |Steinberg (2007) |nonsocial rewards when individuals are alone…risk taking is associated with relatively greater activation of |
| | |Psychological Science, 16, 55 – 59. | |the socioemotional network” (p. 56). |
|66 |Risk |Loewenstein, G., Rick, S., & Cohen, J.D. |Loewenstein, Rick, & Cohen, | |
| | |(2008). Neuroeconomics. Annual Review of |2008 | |
| | |Psychology, 59, 647 – 672. | | |
| | | |Loewenstein, Rick, & Cohen | |
| | | |(2008) | |
|67 |Risk and decision making |Reyna, V.F. (2004). How people make decisions |Reyna, 2004 | |
| | |that involve risk: A dual-process approach. | | |
| | |Current Directions in Psychological Science,13,|Reyna (2004) | |
| | |60 – 66. | | |
|68 |Risk and control |Horswill, M.S., & McKenna, F.P. (1999). The |Horswill & McKenna, 1999 |The lit review says that locus of control is related to risk taking. |
| | |effect of perceived control on risk taking. | |The experiment manipulated control by having Ss imagine they were the driver or passengers, and a second task |
| | |Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 377 –|Horswill & McKenna (1999) |measuring risk was that they were to choose between different driving speeds. Those who were in control |
| | |391. | |(drivers) were more comfortable with higher levels of risk (high driving speeds) than controls (passengers). |
|69 |Risk |Stone, E.R., Yates, A.J., & Caruthers, A.S. | | |
| | |(2002). Risk taking in decision making for | | |
| | |others versus the self. Journal of Applied | | |
| | |Social Psychology, 32, 1797 – 1824. | | |
|70 |Risk and emotion |Shiv, B., Loewenstein, G., Bechara, A., |Shiv, Loewenstein, Bechara, |The only important point is that it shows how emotions affect probability decisions and the effect of prior |
| | |Damasio, H., & Damasio, A.R. (2005). Investment|Damasio, Damasio, 2005 |outcomes on behavior. |
| | |behavior and the negative side of emotion. | | |
| | |Psychological Science, 16, 435 – 439. |Shiv, Loewenstein, Bechara, | |
| | | |Damasio, Damasio (2005) | |
|71 |Risk and decision making |Williams, D.J. (2007). Risk and decision |Williams, 2007 |Has a few good definitions and conceptualizations about risk. |
| | |making. In M. Cook, J. Noyes & Y. Masakowski | | |
| | |(Eds.), Decision making in complex environments|Williams (2007) | |
| | |(pp. 43 – 54). Burlington, VT: Ashgate | | |
| | |Publishing Limited. | | |
|72 |Risk and decision making |Sicard, B., Jouve, E., Blin, O. (2007). Risk | |Not much use. |
| | |and decision making. In M. Cook, J. Noyes & Y. | | |
| | |Masakowski (Eds.), Decision making in complex | | |
| | |environments (pp. 55 – 64). Burlington, VT: | | |
| | |Ashgate Publishing Limited. | | |
|73 |Emotions |Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., DeWall, C.N., & | | |
| | |Zheng, L.Q. How emotion shapes behavior: | | |
| | |Feedback, anticipation, and reflection rather | | |
| | |than direct causation. Personality and Social | | |
| | |Psychology Review, 11, 167 – 203. | | |
|74 |Emotions |Zeelenberg, M., Nelissen, R.M.A., Breugelmans, | |Unprinted |
| | |S.M., & Pieters, R. (2008). On emotion | | |
| | |specificity in decision making: Why feeling is | | |
| | |for doing. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, | | |
| | |18-27. | | |
|75 |CLT |Herzog, S.M., Hansen, J., & Wanke, M. (2007). | | |
| | |Temporal distance and ease of retrieval. | | |
| | |Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, | | |
| | |483-488. | | |
|76 |CLT |Liberman, N., Sagristano, M. D., & Trope, Y. | | |
| | |(2002). The effect of temporal distance on | | |
| | |level of mental construal. Journal of | | |
| | |Experimental Social Psychology , 38, 523-534. | | |
|77 |CLT |Liberman, N., Trope, Y., Macrae, S., & Sherman,| | |
| | |S. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal | | |
| | |on the temporal distance of activity enactment.| | |
| | |Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, | | |
| | |143-149. | | |
|78 |CLT |Fujita, K., Eyal, T., Chaiken, S., Trope, Y., &| | |
| | |Liberman, N. (2008). Influencing attitudes | | |
| | |towards near and distant objects. Journal of | | |
| | |Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 562 – 572. | | |
|79 |Risk and emotion |Chou, K.L., Lee, T.M.C., & Ho, A.H.Y. (2007). | |Risk taking tendency was greater for people in happy mood than those in sad mood., consistent with Forgas’ |
| | |Does mood state change risk taking tendency in | |Affect Infusion Model. |
| | |older adults? Psychology and Aging, 22, 310 – | | |
| | |318. | | |
|80 |Risk and groups |Clark, R.D. (1971). Group-induced shift towards| | |
| | |risk: A critical appraisal. Psychological | | |
| | |Bulletin, 76, 251 – 270. | | |
|81 |Risk |Lopes, L.L. (1997). Between hope and fear: The | | |
| | |psychology of risk. In William M. Goldstein & | | |
| | |Robin M. Hogarth (Eds.), Research on judgment | | |
| | |and decision making: currents, connections, and| | |
| | |controversies. New York: Cambridge University | | |
| | |Press | | |
|82 |Motivation and risk |Atkinson, J.W. (2000). Motivational | | |
| | |Determinants of Risk-Taking Behavior. In E. | | |
| | |Tory Higgins, Arie W. Kruglanski (Eds.), | | |
| | |Motivational science: social and personality | | |
| | |perspectives. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology | | |
| | |Press. | | |
|83 |Risk (methods) |Lejuez, C.W., Aklin, W., Daughters, S., |Lejuez et al., 2007 |BART-Y differs from BART in that the reward is not money based on how many pumps were successful but rather |
| | |Zvolensky, M., Kahler, C., & Gwadz, M. (2007). | |prizes depending on the pumps. |
| | |Reliability and validity of the youth version |Lejuez et al. (2007) |The authors suggested in the discussion that “future studies should expand the scope of environment variables |
| | |of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART-Y) in | |that may predict risk-taking behaviors, such as peer influence” (p. 110) |
| | |the assessment of risk-taking behavior among | | |
| | |inner-city adolescents. Journal of Clinical | | |
| | |Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36, 106 – 111.| | |
|84 |Risk and friends |Allen, J.P., Porter, M.R., & McFarland, F.C. |Allen, Porter, & McFarland, |Another study supporting that peer influence risk taking behaviors. From abstract: “observed susceptibility to |
| | |(2006). |2006 |peer influence with a close friend predicted future responses to negative peer pressure, but it was also |
| | |Leaders and followers in adolescent close | |related to broader markers of problems in functioning, including decreases in |
| | |friendships: Susceptibility to peer influence |Allen, Porter, & McFarland |popularity, and increasing levels of depressive symptoms, over time. Susceptibility to peer influence was also |
| | |as a predictor of risky behavior, friendship |(2006) |linked to higher concurrent levels of substance use, externalizing behavior, and sexual activity. Results are |
| | |instability, and depression. Development and | |interpreted as reflecting the central role of establishing autonomy with peers in psychosocial development.” |
| | |Psychopathology, 18, 155 – 172. | |[Not printed] |
|85 | |Banse, R. (2001). Affective priming with liked | |Investigated whether the affective priming paradigm from R. H. Fazio et al (1986) could be used as an implicit |
| | |and disliked persons: Prime visibility | |measure of person schemata. Names and faces of friends or romantic partners (LP) and of a disliked person (DP) |
| | |determines congruency and incongruency effects.| |were used as primes. It was explored whether: (1) stimuli relating to liked and disliked persons elicit |
| | |Cognition & Emotion, 15, 501-520. | |congruency priming effects (PE) similar to those reported for words; (2) masked and unmasked priming procedures|
| | | | |had similar effects; and (3) whether individual differences in the implicit measure were related to explicit |
| | | | |measures of relationship quality. For clearly visible primes the expected congruence PE were found across names|
| | | | |and faces. For marginally visible primes unexpected reverse PE were observed for the DP. In Exp 2, a confound |
| | | | |of the familiarity and evaluation of the significant other primes was removed. A reverse PE was demonstrated |
| | | | |for masked primes in both LP and DP conditions. On the group level, effects were consistent across name and |
| | | | |face primes, providing strong evidence that PE were caused by the activation of person schemata. The |
| | | | |reliability of inter-individual differences in person-specific PE was found to be unsatisfactory, and |
| | | | |correlations with explicit measures were not consistent across name and face priming conditions. |
|86 |Friend and priming |Banse, R. (1999). Automatic evaluation of self |Banse, 1999 |Very useful article. Good reviews of relational schemas and methodology in priming. Banse used romantic |
| | |and significant others: Affective priming in | |partnership, friendship (both positive affect), and neutral words as stimuli. She discussed that even neutral |
| | |close relationships. Journal of Social and | |words are not truly affective neutral due to mere exposure effect. |
| | |Personal Relationships, 16, 803-821. | |Investigated how a subliminal presentation of the first names and faces of relationship partners (friends vs. |
| | | | |romantic partners) modulated the evaluation of immediately following Chinese letters. All priming effects were |
| | | | |replicated for friends and romantic partners. The short-term stability of individual priming effects was low. |
| | | | |No significant relations between priming effects and relationship satisfaction or attachment styles were found.|
| | | | |The results suggest that affect is an integral part of the relationship schema, but that the amplitude of this |
| | | | |evaluative reaction does not reflect individual differences in relationship satisfaction or attachment styles. |
| | | | |Our friends and romantic partners automatically elicit positive affective response. |
|87 |Method (priming) and friends |Chartrand, T. L., Dalton, A. N, & Fitzsimons, |Chartrand, Dalton, & |The experiments uses name primes of friend and mother. Priming is used as a tool to examine unconscious |
| | |G. J. (2007). Nonconscious relationship |Fitzsimons, 2007 |activation of relational schemas. In Study 2, they investigated a personality trait, reactance. |
| | |reactance: When significant others prime | |The article has a few powerful statements worth emulating, and has good explanations about priming and |
| | |opposing goals. Journal of Experimental Social |Chartrand, Dalton, & |relational schemas. The main argument is that “significant others exert an influence even when their |
| | |Psychology, 43, 719-726. |Fitzsimons (2007) |psychological presence is not consciously recognized by the individual” (p. 719). In this case, the influence |
| | | | |is on goal pursuit. |
|88 |Method (priming) and friends |Shah, J. (2003). Automatic for the people: How |Shah, 2003 |[Printed; from abstract] Five studies are presented that explore how representations of significant others may |
| | |representations of significant others | |automatically affect goal pursuit. Specifically, evidence is presented that suggests goals may be primed by |
| | |implicitly affect goal pursuit. Journal of |Shah (2003) |one's representation of a significant other and that this priming may be moderated by one's closeness to this |
| | |Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 661-681.| |other individual. It is also shown to be affected by the number of different goals associated with this person.|
| | | | |The greater the number of goals associated with a significant other, the less likely this individual will |
| | |*In print, it’s Shah 2003. But online citations| |invoke any 1 goal very strongly. Such goal priming is shown to have implications for the extent to which goals |
| | |generally write Shah & Kruglanski, 2003 | |are pursued (as seen through task persistence and performance) as well as the extent to which they are |
| | | | |inhibited or ignored (especially when an individual is associated with a goal unrelated to a current pursuit). |
|89 |Method (priming) |Dijksterhuis, A., Preston, J., Wegner, D.M., & |Dijksterhuis, Preston, Wegner,|[Not printed but saved; not sure if useful] Three studies investigated how subliminally primed thoughts of an |
| | |Aarts, H. (2008). Effects of subliminal priming|& Aarts, 2008 |agent prior to action can affect ascriptions of authorship for that action. Participants competed against a |
| | |of self and God on self-attribution of | |computer program to remove words from a computer screen. Participants reported greater feelings of authorship |
| | |authorship for events. Journal of Experimental | |when primed with first person singular pronouns, and lower feelings of authorship when primed with "computer." |
| | |Social Psychology, 44, 2-9. | |We also investigated whether authorship feelings could be affected by priming subjects with a supernatural |
| | | | |agent (i.e., God). Feelings of authorship decreased when participants were primed with God, but only among |
| | | | |believers. [Comment: is “God” a name prime or concept prime?] |
|90 |Method (priming) |Carnelley, K.B., & Rowe, A.C. (2007). Repeated | |[Not printed; article has no subscription; not sure if useful] Research shows that priming attachment security |
| | |priming of attachment security influences later| |results in positive relationship expectations and affect (Rowe & Carnelley, 2003). We examined whether |
| | |views of self and relationships. Personal | |repetitive priming of attachment security (e.g., experimentally activating cognitive representations of |
| | |Relationships, 14, 307-320. | |attachment security) would have more lasting effects on relationship- and self-views. Participants provided |
| | | | |baseline measures at Time 1. On 3 occasions (across 3 days), we primed participants with attachment security or|
| | | | |a neutral prime (Times 2-4). Two days later (Time 5), participants completed trait-level measures not preceded |
| | | | |by a prime. As expected, those repeatedly primed with attachment security reported more positive relationship |
| | | | |expectations, more positive self-views, and less attachment anxiety at Time 5 than at Time 1; those primed with|
| | | | |neutral primes showed no change with time. These priming effects last longer than those typically found. |
| | | | |[Comment: attachment security can be primed!] |
|91 |Method (priming) |Bargh, J.A. (2006). Agenda 2006: What have we | |Saved. Not priminted. Read the whole article. Not very relevant though useful. Priming or nonconscious |
| | |been priming all these years? On the | |activation of social knowledge structures has produced a plethora of rather amazing findings over the past 25 |
| | |development, mechanisms, and ecology of | |years: priming a single social concept such as aggressive can have multiple effects across a wide array of |
| | |nonconscious social behavior. European Journal | |psychological systems, such as perception, motivation, behavior, and evaluation. But we may have reached |
| | |of Social Psychology, 36, 147-168. | |childhood's end, so to speak, and need now to move on to research questions such as how these multiple effects |
| | | | |of single primes occur (the generation problem); next, how these multiple simultaneous priming influences in |
| | | | |the environment get distilled into nonconscious social action that has to happen serially, in real time (the |
| | | | |reduction problem). It is suggested that models of complex conceptual structures (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980), |
| | | | |language use in real-life conversational settings (Clark, 1996), and speech production (Dell, 1986) might hold |
| | | | |the key for solving these two important 'second-generation' research problems. |
|92 |Method (priming) and |Baldwin, M.W., Carrell, S.E., & Lopez, D.F. |Baldwin, Carrell, & Lopez |This is the famous “Zajonc” study where grad students are flashed with Zojonc’s face and then subsequently |
| |relationship schemas |(1990). Priming relationship schemas: My |(1990) |rated Chinese ideographs as less likable. (Not read yet) |
| | |advisor and the Pope are watching me from the | | |
| | |back of my mind. Journal of Experimental Social|(Baldwin, Carrell, & Lopez, | |
| | |Psychology, 26, 435-454. |1990) | |
|93 |Method (priming) |Wyer, R.S. (2007). Principles of mental | |Photocopied. |
| | |representation. In Arie W. Kruglanski & E. Tory| | |
| | |Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of | | |
| | |basic principles (pp. 285 – 307), 2nd Ed. New | | |
| | |York: Guilford Press. | | |
|94 | |Blair Beadnell, Shauna K. Carlisle, Marilyn J. | | |
| | |Hoppe, Kristin A. Mariano, Anthony Wilsdon, | | |
| | |Diane M. Morrison, Elizabeth A. Wells, Mary | | |
| | |Rogers Gillmore and Darrel Higa (2007). The | | |
| | |Reliability and Validity of a Group-Based | | |
| | |Measure of Adolescents' Friendship Closeness. | | |
| | |Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 707 – | | |
| | |720. | | |
| | | | | |
|95 |Risk and friendship |Steinberg, L. (2004). Risk taking in | |Steinberg writes in a anecdotal manner but is a good read nonetheless. It mentions extensively that risk taking|
| | |adolescence: what changes, and why? New York | |occurs usually in the presence of friends, something that he and Gardner (2005) proved. (See citation above). |
| | |Academy of Sciences, 1021, 51 – 58. | |However the mediators are not known. Her main argument is also that adolescence is a period where adolescents |
| | | | |have increased sensitivity to reward but decreased self-regulation abilities, when in combination, leads to |
| | | | |heightened risk taking. |
|96 |Method (Priming) |Bargh, J.A., & Chartrand, T.L. (2000). The mind|Bargh & Chartrand, 2000 |Parafoveal presentations can be longer (e.g. more than 50 ms). Authors argued that there are no fixed timings |
| | |in the middle: A practical guide to priming and| |to give for presentation times and no. of repeats. Funneled debriefing was mentioned as a systematic approach |
| | |automaticity research. In Harry T. Reis, | |to probe for suspicion. |
| | |Charles M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research | | |
| | |methods in social and personality psychology | | |
| | |(pp. 253 – 285), New York: Cambridge University| | |
| | |Press. | | |
|97 |Friendships |Dishion, T.J., Poulin, F., & Burraston, B. | |The impact of friendship is not always positive and can lead to unintended iatrogenic consequences in group |
| | |(2001). Peer group dynamics associated with | |treatments targeting youth. |
| | |iatrogenic effects in group interventions with | | |
| | |high-risk young adolescents. In Douglas W. | | |
| | |Nangle & Cynthia A. Erdley (Eds.), The role of | | |
| | |friendships in psychological adjustment (pp. 79| | |
| | |– 92). San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass. | | |
|98 |Frendships (relational |Baldwin, M.W. (1992). Relational schemas and | |Read partly. The first article to integrate all the concepts (working models, relationship schemas, relational |
| |schemas)/Method |the processing of social information. | |models, etc.) into one. |
| | |Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461 – 484. | | |
|99 |Psychometrics and method |Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate Friendship | |Printed, but not read in detail because the sample were children and preadolescents, so the items may reflect |
| | |Scale: Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric | |naivety of children’s friendships. Even though the items may not be useful, the lit review may be. |
| | |properties and construct validity. Journal of | | |
| | |Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 449 – | | |
| | |469. | | |
|100 |Priming (friendships) |Baldwin, M.W. (1994). Primed relational schemas| |Photocopied |
| | |as a source of self-evaluative reactions. | | |
| | |Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 13, | | |
| | |380 – 403. | | |
|101 | |Baldwin, M.W. (1995). Relational schemas and | |Photocopied, read. It has very nice summary of Baldwin (1992). |
| | |cognition in close relationships. Journal of | | |
| | |Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 547 – | | |
| | |552. | | |
|102 |SPSS guidebook |Hinton et al., 2004. SPSS Explained. BF39 Sps | |A simple guidebook enough for my current needs. |
| | |2004 | | |
|103 |Risk questionnaire |Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioural expressions | |The standard measure here is Zuckerman's (1994) Sensation Seeking Scale V (SSSV) although the Boredom |
| | |and biosocial bases of Sensation Seeking. | |Susceptibility (BS) scale is of dubious reliability and validity. Consider using the other three subscales only|
| | |Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. | |(Thrill and Adventure Seeking [TAS], Experience Seeking [ES], and Disinhibition [Dis]) which would give you a |
| | | | |30 item total scale and three 10 item subscales. |
|104 |Risk questionnaire |Franken, R.E., Gibson, K.J., & Rowland, G.L. | |The 'Attitudes Towards Risk Questionnaire' is a 20 item scale, and the short version is 10 items. There are |
| | |(1992). Sensation Seeking and the tendency to | |'Physical' and 'Psychological' risk taking subscales. I used the short version in the second stage of my own |
| | |view the world as threatening. Personality and | |research and found it to be highly reliable and valid (factorial and concurrent validity). |
| | |Individual Differences, 13, 31-38. | | |
|105 |Risk, emotion and evolution |Badcock, P. B., & Allen, N. B. (2007). | |Haven’t photocopied. BF323 Soc. Ev 2007. |
| | |Evolution, social cognition, and depressed | | |
| | |mood: Exploring the relationship between | | |
| | |depression and social risk taking. In J. P. | | |
| | |Forgas, M. G. Haselton, W. von Hippel (Eds.), | | |
| | |Evolution and the social mind (125 – 142). New | | |
| | |York: Psychology Press. | | |
|106 |Risk, friend and evolution |Chen, L. H., Baker, S. P., Braver, E. R., & Li,|Chen, Baker, Braver and Li |Compared with drivers of the same age without passengers, the relative risk |
| | |G. (2000). |(2000) |of death per 10 million trips was 1.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-1.55) for 16- year-old drivers with |
| | |Carrying Passengers as a Risk Factor for | |1 passenger, 1.86 (95% CI, 1.56-2.20) for those with 2 passengers, and 2.82 (95% CI, 2.27-3.50) for those with |
| | |Crashes Fatal to 16- and 17-Year-Old Drivers. |(Chen, Baker, Braver & Li, |3 or more passengers. The relative risk of death was 1.48 (95% CI, 1.35-1.62) for 17-year-old drivers with 1 |
| | |Journal of American Medical Association, 283, |2000) |passenger, 2.58 (95% CI, 2.24-2.95) for those with 2 passengers, and 3.07 (95% CI, 2.50-3.77) for those with 3 |
| | |1578 – 1582. | |or more passengers. |
| | | | |KQ: Data from US/Canada (check). May be helpful if statistics are available for other countries. There seems to|
| | | | |be many journals about risk taking in medical and risk prevention journals. |
|107 |Friendship measurement |Bercheid, E., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A.M. (2004).|Bercheid, Snyder, & Omoto |The RCI may be useful, and it’s published in a good book. |
| | |Measuring closeness: The Relationship Closeness|(2004) | |
| | |Inventory (RCI) revisited. In D.J. Mashek & A. | |See also next chapter (p. 102) for the IOS scale review of cognitive closeness. |
| | |Aron (Eds.), Handbook of intimacy and closeness|(Bercheid, Snyder, & Omoto, | |
| | |(pp. 81 – 102). Mahwah, N.J.: L. E. Associates,|2004) | |
| | |Publishers | | |
|108 |Risk and evolution |Ermer, E., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2008). | |Relative social status strongly regulates human behavior, yet this factor has been largely ignored in research |
| | |Relative status regulates risky decision making| |on risky decision making. Humans, like other animals, incur risks as they compete to defend or improve their |
| | |about resources in men: | |standing in a social group. Among men, access to culturally important resources is a locus of intrasexual |
| | |Evidence for the co-evolution of motivation and| |competition and a determinant of status. Thus, relative status should affect men's motivations for risk in |
| | |cognition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, | |relevant domains. Contrasting predictions about such effects were derived from dominance theory and |
| | |106–118. | |risk-sensitive foraging theory. Experiments varied whether subjects thought they were being observed and |
| | | | |evaluated by others of lower, equal or higher status, and whether decisions involved resources (status |
| | | | |relevant) or medical treatments (status irrelevant). Across two experiments, men who thought others of equal |
| | | | |status were viewing and evaluating their decisions were more likely to favor a high-risk/high-gain means of |
| | | | |recouping a monetary loss over a no-risk/low-gain means with equal expected value. Supporting predictions from |
| | | | |dominance theory, this motivation for risk taking appeared only in the equal status condition, only for men, |
| | | | |and only for resource loss problems. Taken together, the results support the idea that motivational systems |
| | | | |designed to negotiate a status-saturated social world regulate the cognitive processes that generate risky |
| | | | |decision making in men. |
|109 |Risk and friendship |Preusser, D. F, Ferguson, S. A, Williams, A. F.|Preusser, Ferguson and |Fatal crash-involved drivers of passenger vehicles were identified in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System |
| | |(1998). The effect of teenage passengers on the|Williams (1998) |for the period 1990 through 1995. Each driver was categorized as being alone in the vehicle at the time of the |
| | |fatal crash risk of teenage drivers. Accident | |crash or with one or more passengers. Drivers at fault or responsible for crash occurrence were defined as all |
| | |Analysis and Prevention, 30, 17-22. |(Preusser, Ferguson, & |drivers involved in a single-vehicle crash, or drivers in multiple-vehicle crashes who were coded in the |
| | | |Williams, 1998) |Fatality Analysis Reporting System as committing one or more driver errors. The results indicated that |
| | | | |passenger presence was associated with proportionately more at-fault fatal crashes for drivers aged 24 and |
| | | | |younger, were a neutral factor for drivers aged 25-29, and were associated with fewer at-fault involvements for|
| | | | |drivers aged 30 and older. Relative risk of fatal crash involvement was particularly high for teenage drivers |
| | | | |traveling, day or night, with two or more teenage passengers. Additional research is needed to determine how |
| | | | |the added risk associated with teenage passengers riding with teenage drivers can be reduced or eliminated. |
| | | | | |
| | | | |KQ: Chen et al. (2000) documented her findings using teenagers. It appears that the trend can be found in young|
| | | | |adults too. Whether we can cross domains and say that traffic risk = financial/gambling risk is another thing. |
| | | | |Risk may have different domains. |
|110 |Attachment |Finkel, E. J. Burnette, J. L., & Scissors, L. | |Contains manipulation of attachment. |
| | |E. (2007). Vengefully ever after: Destiny | | |
| | |beliefs, state attachment anxiety. Journal of | | |
| | |Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 871–886.| | |
| | | | | |
|111 |Risk, and probably evolution |Winterhalder, B. (2007). Risk and | |Read. Very heavy focus on behavioral ecology and anthropolog. The initial paragraphs provides some good |
| | |decision-making. In R.I.M Dunbar and L. Barret | |conceptualizations on the nature of risk. Seems mathematical. The non-mathematical part starts from Section |
| | |(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary | |29.4, but is largely not useful. Section 29.5 opens with some good ideas though. |
| | |Psychology (pp. 433 – 445). Oxford University | | |
| | |Press. | | |
|112 |Risk and gender difference |Eckel, C. C., & Grossman, P J. (2002). Sex | |Haven’t read yet. Seems relevant. |
| | |differences and statistical stereotyping in | | |
| | |attitudes toward financial risk. Evolution and | | |
| | |Human Behavior, 4, 281-295. | | |
|113 | |Close relationships : the study of love and | | |
| | |friendship / Duncan Cramer. BF575 Lov.Cr | | |
|114 | |Readings in social psychology : general, | | |
| | |classic and contemporary selections. Wayne A. | | |
| | |Lesko. HM1033 Rea | | |
|115 | |Blieszner, R., & Roberto, K. A. (2004). | |HM1106 Gro 2004. Not borrowed yet. |
| | |Friendship across the life span: Reciprocity in| | |
| | |individual and relationship development. In | | |
| | |Frieder R. Lang and Karen L. Fingerman. (Eds.),| | |
| | |Growing together: Personal relationships across| | |
| | |the lifespan (pp. 159 – x). Cambridge, UK ; New| | |
| | |York, USA : Cambridge University Press. | | |
|116 | |Hays, R. B. (1988). Friendship. In S. W. Duck | |HM132 Han |
| | |(Ed.), Handbook of personal | | |
| | |relationships (pp. 391-408). New York: John | | |
| | |Wiley. | | |
|117 | |Bradford, B. B., & Klute, C. (2003). | |BF724 Bla 2003 |
| | |Friendships, cliques, and crowds. In Gerald R. | | |
| | |Adams and Michael D. Berzonsky (Eds.), | | |
| | |Blackwell handbook of adolescence. Malden, MA: | | |
| | |Blackwell Pub. | | |
|118 |Relationships |Goodwin, R., & Tang, C.S. (1996). Chinese | |DS721 Han. Read. Not relevant. It focused more on romantic relationship and briefly on friendship. |
| | |Personal Relationships. In Michael Harris Bond | | |
| | |(Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. | | |
| | |294 – x). New York: Oxford University Press. | | |
|119 | |Brown, B. B. (2004). Adolescents’ | |See Brown’s lab: |
| | |relationships with peers. In R. M. Lerner & L.| |He studies peer relationships in adolescents. |
| | |Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of Adolescent | | |
| | |Psychology, 2nd edition (pp. 363-394). New | | |
| | |York: Wiley. | | |
|120 | |Hamm, J.V. (2000). Do birds of a feather flock | | |
| | |together?: Individual, contextual, and | | |
| | |relationship bases for African American, Asian | | |
| | |American, and European American adolescents' | | |
| | |selection of similar friends. Developmental | | |
| | |Psychology, 36, 209-219. | | |
|121 | |Allen, J. P., & Brown, B. B. (2008). Teens, |Allen and Brown (2008) |Saved; From abstract(Motor-vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death among teenagers and in many instances |
| | |peers, and automobiles: The perfect storm? | |appear linked to negative peer influences on adolescent driving behavior. This article examines a range of |
| | |American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, |(Allen & Brown, 2008) |developmental and structural factors that potentially increase the risks associated with adolescent driving. |
| | |S289-S293. | |Developmental risk factors for adolescents include a propensity toward engaging in deviant and risky behavior, |
| | | | |a desire to please peers, and the potential cost to an adolescent of alienating peers with his or her behavior |
| | | | |while driving. Structural features of the driving situation that create risks for negative peer influences on |
| | | | |driving behavior include the inability of adolescents to look at peers who may be pressuring them, divided |
| | | | |attention, the need to behave in a conventional manner among peers who may not value conventional behavior, and|
| | | | |the lack of accountability by peers for the effects of any risky driving they promote. A range of potential |
| | | | |peer influences are considered, |
| | | | |including passive and active distraction and direct disruption of driving, as well as more positive influences,|
| | | | |such as peer modeling of good driving behavior and positive reinforcement of good driving. Although the range |
| | | | |of risk factors created by peers is large, this range presents a number of promising targets for intervention |
| | | | |to improve teen driving |
| | | | |safety. |
|122 | |Morrongiello, B. A., & Lasenby-Lessard, J. | |Very relevant. See section on social influence (p. 4). This article targets children, a sample with I need to. |
| | |(2005). Psychological determinants of risk | | |
| | |taking by children: An Integrative model and | | |
| | |implications for intervention. Injury | | |
| | |Prevention, 13, 20 – 25. | | |
|123 |Emotion and relational |Fitness, J. (2006). Emotion and cognition in |Fitness, 2006 |Read, somewhat. |
| |schemas |close relationships. In P. Noller & J. A. | | |
| | |Feeney (Eds.), Close relationships: Functions, |Fitness (2006) | |
| | |forms and processes. New York: Psychology | | |
| | |Press. | | |
|124 | |Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The | |A lot on the issue of transference. Not so relevant |
| | |relational self: An interpersonal | | |
| | |social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, | | |
| | |109, 619 – 645. | | |
|125 | |Andersen, S. M., & Saribay, S. A. (2005). The | |A lot on the issue of transference. Not so relevant. |
| | |relational self and transference: Evoking | | |
| | |motives, self-regulation, and emotions through | | |
| | |activation of mental representations of | | |
| | |significant others. In M. Baldwin (Ed.), | | |
| | |Interpersonal cognition (pp. 1 – 32). New York:| | |
| | |Guilford Press. | | |
|126 | |Identifying Factors that Relate to Children's | | |
| | |Risk-Taking Decisions | | |
|127 | |DiClemente, R. J., Hansen, W. B., & Ponton, L. | | |
| | |E., (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of adolescent | | |
| | |health risk behavior. New York: Plenum. | | |
|128 | |Skeel, R. L., Pilarski, C., Pytlak, K., & |Skeel, Pilarski, Pytlak, & |Research has demonstrated a variable relationship between alcohol consumption and self-report personality |
| | |Neudecker, J. (2008). Personality and |Neudecker, 2008 |measures of novelty seeking and harm avoidance. Research has also demonstrated a relationship between |
| | |performance-based measures in the prediction of| |performance-based measures of risk taking and substance use. The current study compared the utility of |
| | |alcohol Use. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors,| |personality measures and performance-based measures in the prediction of alcohol use. The authors hypothesized |
| | |22, 402 – 409. | |that the domains would contribute uniquely and would also interact in the prediction of alcohol consumption. |
| | | | |Data on alcohol consumption were collected on a daily basis for 2 weeks. Performance-based measures included |
| | | | |the Bechara Gambling Task and the Balloon Analogue Risk Task. The Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire was |
| | | | |the primary personality measure. Results partially supported hypotheses, in that personality measures showed |
| | | | |strong relationships with alcohol use and interacted with performance-based measures in predicting alcohol |
| | | | |consumption. Thus, both behavioral and personality measures contributed to prediction of alcohol consumption, |
| | | | |and performance-based measures played a moderating role. Results suggest that a combination of behavioral and |
| | | | |self-report personality measures may be useful for those screening groups for risk factors for excessive |
| | | | |alcohol consumption. |
|129 | |Lejuez, C. W., Simmons, B., Aklin, W. M., | | |
| | |Daughters, S. B., & Dvir, S. (2004). | | |
| | |Risk-taking propensity and risky sexual | | |
| | |behavior of individuals in residential | | |
| | |substance use treatment. Addictive Behaviors, | | |
| | |29, 1643–1647. | | |
|130 | |Crowley, T. J., Raymond, K. M., |Crowley, Raymond, |“BART may assess initial risk-taking propensities rather than risk-related learning since behavior is stable |
| | |Mikulich-Gilbertson, S. K., Thompson, L. L., & |Mikulich-Gilbertson, Thompson,|across trials in BART.” |
| | |Lejuez, C. W. (2006). A risk-taking "set" in a |& Lejuez, 2006 | |
| | |novel task among adolescents with serious | | |
| | |conduct and substance problems. Journal of the | | |
| | |American Academy of Child & Adolescent | | |
| | |Psychiatry, 45, 175-183. | | |
|131 | |Benjamin, A. M., & Robbins, S. J. (2007). The |Benjamin & Robbins, 2007 |GBART (gain frame) performance was significantly correlated with scores on the Zuckerman Sensation Seeking |
| | |role of framing effects in performance on the | |Scale while LBART (loss frame) scores were not. A very simple and elegant study. |
| | |Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Personaliy | |Some studies have found positive correlations between the BART |
| | |and Individual Differences, 43, 221 – 230. | |and SSS scores but others have failed to find such relationships. Such results may indicate that the BART and |
| | | | |self-report measures of personality capture different dimensions of the risktaking construct (e.g. Reynolds et |
| | | | |al., 2006), but they could also be the product of small sample sizes. BART scores are more consistently |
| | | | |associated with self-reports of risk behaviors such as drug use, gambling, and risky sexual behavior |
|132 | |Skeel, R. L., Neudecker, J., Pilarski, C., & |Skeel, Neudecker, Pilarski, & |The interaction between personality and behavioral measurements. |
| | |Pytlak, K. (2007). The utility of personality |Pytlak, 2007 | |
| | |variables and behaviorally-based measures in | | |
| | |the prediction of risk-taking behavior. | | |
| | |Personality and Individual Differences, 43, | | |
| | |203-214. | | |
|133 | |Reilly, M. P., Greenwald, M. K., & Johanson, C.|Reilly, Greenwald, & Johanson,|Another behavioral task. |
| | |E. (2006). The stoplight task : A procedure for|2006 | |
| | |assessing risk taking in humans. Psychological | | |
| | |Records, 56, 191 – 203. | | |
|134 |Gambling |Daughters, S. B., Lejuez, C. W., Lesieur, H. | |Good short summary. Useful for NCPG. Although less frequently examined as compared to impulsivity and sensation|
| | |R., | |seeking, there is reason to suspect that risk taking is related to gambling. For example, Lejuez et al. 2002) |
| | |Strong, D. R., & Zvolensky, M. J. (2003). | |have utilized a laboratory risk-taking task and shown that riskiness on the task was related to increased |
| | |Towards a better understanding of gambling | |positive gambling attitudes and beliefs on the GABS for a sample of 86 young adults with a range of gambling |
| | |treatment failure: Implications of | |activity. |
| | |translational research. Clinical Psychology | | |
| | |Review, 23, 573 – 586. | | |
|135 | |Harrison, J. D. Young, J. M., Butow, P., |Harrison, Young, Butow, |A very comprehensive review of risk measurement instruments, with particular attention to 14 instruments (a |
| | |Salkeld, G., & Solomon, M. J. (2005). Is it |Salkeld, & Solomon (2005) |mixture of self-reports and behavioral measures). Authors remarked that older adults have not been sufficiently|
| | |worth the risk? A systematic review of | |tested if these measurements can be used on them. |
| | |instruments that measure risk propensity for | | |
| | |use in the health setting. Social Science & | | |
| | |Medicine, | | |
| | |60, 1385-1396. | | |
|136 | |Cynthia M. Lakon, Susan T. Ennett, Edward C. | |Studies indicate that injection drug users are more |
| | |Norton. (2006). Mechanisms through which drug, | |likely to share needles with those with whom they |
| | |sex partner, and friendship network | |are closest, (i.e., friends or sexual partners) (Friedman, |
| | |characteristics relate to risky needle use | |Curtis, Neaigus, Jose, & DesJarlais, 1999; |
| | |among high risk youth and young adults. Social | |Valente & Vlahov, 2001). Close ties are presumed to |
| | |Science & Medicine, | |increase access to emotional and instrumental |
| | |63, 2489-2499. | |support resources (Hall & Wellman, 1985). As |
| | | | |noted earlier, injectors may engage in risky needle |
| | | | |use behavior with people they are close to as a sign |
| | | | |of trust, intimacy, or exclusivity and may fear losing |
| | | | |a valued, supportive relationship if they do not |
| | | | |engage in such behaviors. The relationship between |
| | | | |closeness and risky needle use may in part be due to |
| | | | |stronger ties being able to regulate behavior more |
| | | | |than weaker ties, as tie strength is positively |
| | | | |associated with regulation (Flache & Macy, 1996). |
|137 | |Valente, T. W., & Vlahov, D. (2001). Selective |Valente & Vlahov, 2001 | |
| | |risk taking among needle exchange participants:| | |
| | |Implications for supplemental interventions. | | |
| | |American Journal of Public Health, 91, 406–411.| | |
|138 | |Williams, A. F., Ferguson, S. A., McCartt, A. |Williams, Ferguson, & McCartt,| |
| | |T. (2007). Passenger effects on teenage driving|2007 | |
| | |and opportunities for reducing the risks of | | |
| | |such travel. Journal of Safety Research, 38, | | |
| | |381-390. | | |
|139 | |Baxter, J. S., Mansted, A. S. R., Stradling, |Baxter, Mansted, Stradling, | |
| | |S.G., Campbell, K.A., Reason, J. T., |Campbell, Reason, & Parker | |
| | |& Parker, D. (1990). Social facilitation and |(1990) | |
| | |driver behaviour. British Journal of | | |
| | |Psychology, 81, 351−360. | | |
|140 | |McKenna, A. P., Waylen, A. E., & Burkes, M. E. |McKenna, Waylen, & Burkes | |
| | |(1998). Male and female drivers: How different |(1998) | |
| | |are they? Berkshire, UK: Foundation for Road | | |
| | |Safety Research, University of Reading. | | |
|141 | |Simons-Morton, B. G., Lerner, N., & Singer, J. |Simons-Morton, Lerner, & | |
| | |(2005). The observed effects of teenage |Singer, 2005 | |
| | |passengers on the risky driving behavior of | | |
| | |teenage drivers. | | |
| | |Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37, 973−982. | | |
|142 |Method |Kallinen, K., & Ravaja, N. (2007). Comparing |Kallinen & Ravaja, 2007 |Wearing headphones creates feelings of isolation. |
| | |speakers versus headphones in listening to news| | |
| | |from a computer--individual differences and | | |
| | |psychophysiological responses. Computers in | | |
| | |Human Behavior, 23, 303-317. | | |
|143 | |Weber, E.U., & Johnson, E. J. (2009). Mindful |Weber & Johnson, 2009 |Many methods of measuring risk are reviewed; some of which I’ve never come across. |
| | |judgment and decision making. Annual Reviews of| | |
| | |Psychology, 60, 53 – 85. | | |
|144 | |de Klerk, V., & Bosch, B. (1996). Nicknames as |de Klerk & Bosch, 1996 |male nicknames more typically related to personal attributes of the bearer while female nicknames served a |
| | |sex-role stereotypes. Sex Roles, 35, 525-541. | |friendly function or as a term of endearment |
|145 | |Andersen, S. M., & Glassman, N. S. (1996). | |Haven’t got the article yet. |
| | |Responding to significant others when they are | | |
| | |not there: Effects on interpersonal inference, | | |
| | |motivation, and affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & | | |
| | |E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation | | |
| | |and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. | | |
| | |3, pp. 262–321). New York: Guilford Press. | | |
|146 |Closeness and relationships |Andersen, S. M., & Cole, S. W. (1990). “Do I | |Not read. Together, Studies 1 and 2 showed that significant-other representations are richer, more distinctive,|
| | |know you?”: The role of significant others in | |and more cognitively accessible than the other categories. |
| | |general social perception. Journal of | | |
| | |Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 384–399.| | |
|147 |Closeness and relationships |Berscheid, E. (1994). Interpersonal | |(p. 82) Author says that “assessing relationships based on their type is an uncertain and unreliable method…” |
| | |relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 45,| |This can be a reason why her RCI measures general closeness. |
| | |79 – 129. | |It has a huge review of relationship cognition. A good review of the notion of scripts (p. 87), chronic |
| | | | |accessibility (p. 89 - 90); security and trust (p. 100). P. 103 explains a study by Kojetin (1993) that showed |
| | | | |that 98% of people were securely attached to friends, suggesting situation-specific schemas for friendships. |
| | | | |She also wrote “it is tempting to put the causes of social interaction behavior and outcomes in some mysterious|
| | | | |cognitive structure and leave it at that” (p. 120) |
|148 |Risk |Zimbardo, P. G., Keough, K. A., & Boyd, J. N. |Zimbardo, Keough, & Boyd, 1997|Main findings is that using the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI), the present-hedonistic personality |
| | |(1997). Present time perspective as a predictor| |people take more risk than other typology. The studies are purely correlational—correlation between Health Risk|
| | |of risky driving. Personality and Individual | |Questionnaire (measures past driving styles) and ZTPI |
| | |Differences, 23, 1007-1023. | |My main point of including this reference is that it emphasizes risk taking as a decision made “in the moment”,|
| | | | |only caring about the present and not future consequences. It would be interesting to do ZTPI with BART. |
|149 |Relational schemas |Fletcher, G. J. O. & Thomas, G. (1996). Close | | |
| | |relationship lay theories: Their structure and | | |
| | |function. In G. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), | | |
| | |Knowledge structures in close relationships: A | | |
| | |social psychological approach (pp. 3 – 24). | | |
| | |Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum | | |
| | |Associates. | | |
|150 | |Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction| | |
| | |and close relationships. In D. T. Gilbert, S. | | |
| | |T. Fiske, G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social| | |
| | |psychology (pp. 193 - …. | | |
|151 | |Nummenmaa, L., Peets, K., & Salmivalli, C. |Nummenmaa, Peets, & |Affect as an integral part of friendship priming. |
| | |(2008). Automatic activation of adolescents' |Salmivalli, 2008 | |
| | |peer-relational schemas: Evidence from priming | | |
| | |with facial identity. Child Development, 79, | | |
| | |1659 – 1675. | | |
|152 | |Andersen et al. (1996) | |Her works on transference suggests that significant others have distinct representations in our lives. |
|153 | |Holmes, J. G. (2000). Social relationships: The| |Read from p.29. Not sure if useful. |
| | |nature and function of relational schemas. | | |
| | |European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 447 | | |
|154 | |Burks, V., Dodge, K., Price, J., & Laird, R. | |[From abstract; saved] The authors investigated the relation between children's knowledge structures for peers |
| | |(1999). Internal representational models of | |and externalizing behavior problems. Initial levels of aggression were evaluated in 135 boys and 124 girls |
| | |peers: Implications for the development of | |(Grades 1–3; 40% African American, 60% Caucasian) in Year 1 and again in Years 6 and 9. In Year 6, 3 aspects of|
| | |problematic behavior. Developmental Psychology,| |their social knowledge structures were assessed: quality, density, and appropriateness. Results indicate that |
| | |35, 802–810. | |knowledge structures are related to children's concurrent levels of externalizing behaviors and that knowledge |
| | | | |structures are related to children's concurrent levels of externalizing behaviors and predict externalizing |
| | | | |behaviors 3 years later even after controlling for current levels of behavior. In addition, knowledge |
| | | | |structures in Year 6 mediate the relation between aggression in Year 1 and externalizing behaviors in Year 9. |
| | | | |The role of knowledge structures in the maintenance and growth of children's antisocial behavior is discussed. |
|155 | |Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P., Gillath, O., & | |To heighten the accessibility of mental representations of attachment |
| | |Nitzberg, R. A. (2005). Attachment, | |security, we used a subliminal priming technique developed by |
| | |caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment | |Mikulincer et al. (2001). Study 1: Participants were exposed for 20 ms to |
| | |security increases compassion and helping. | |names of people they had previously nominated as security enhancing |
| | |Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, | |attachment figures. E.g. In the security-priming condition, the prime was the name of the person most |
| | |89, 817–839. | |frequently mentioned as an attachment figure. Study 2: supraliminal priming. |
| | | | | |
|156 | |Green, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2000). | |[Abstract] It was predicted that attachment is associated with exploration in adults. An exploration scale that|
| | |Attachment and exploration in adults: Chronic | |measures willingness to explore the physical, social, and intellectual environments was constructed. Study 1 |
| | |and contextual accessibility. Personality and | |measured chronic attachment patterns and found that both anxiety and avoidance correlated negatively with the |
| | |Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 452–461. | |desire to explore. Study 2 primed attachment styles by exposing participants to attachment-related sentences in|
| | | | |an ostensible sentence memorization task. Participants primed with a secure style were more open to exploration|
| | | | |than were participants primed with the insecure styles. |
| | | | |They primed attachment style by synthesizing 7 sentences from Hazen and Shaver’s (1987) attachment |
| | | | |questionnaire e.g. “Tom felt comfortable sharing his feelings with his wife”. And then, they recalled as many |
| | | | |of these sentences as they could. |
|157 | |Baldwin, M. W., Keelan, J. P. R., Fehr, B., | |Read. Good summary of accessibility and availability (p. 96, p. 103). They manipulated attachment styles by |
| | |Enns, V., & Koh-Rangarajoo, E. (1996). | |(very simply) asking Ss to imagine a partner corresponding to that attachment style (Study 3). The authors |
| | |Social-cognitive conceptualization of | |provide a compelling argument that attachment style is not a globalized personality trait because people have |
| | |attachment working models: Availability and | |different attachment orientations depending on the partner. That is, it’s schematic and person-dependent. |
| | |accessibility effects. Journal of Personality | | |
| | |and Social Psychology, 71, 94–109. | | |
|158 | |Cook, T. D., Deng, Y., & Morgano, E. (2007). | |A simple summary of the good and bad influence of friends (p. 326)—friends matter! |
| | |Friendship influences during early adolescence:| | |
| | |The special role of friends' grade point | | |
| | |average. Journal of Research on Adolescence, | | |
| | |17, 325 – 356. | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|159 | |Urberg, K. A., Degirmencioglu, S., & Pilgrim, | |The basic research question was this: do close friends or friendship groups exert more influence on smoking and|
| | |C. (1997). Close friend and group influence on | |drinking? In other words, are you more likely to smoke or drink because of the influence of one friend or |
| | |adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. | |because of the influence of the group? That is, examining the independence effects of each condition. Some |
| | |Developmental Psychology, 33, 384 – 844. | |experimental manipulation (in the friendship group condition but not the close friend condition) was involved, |
| | | | |which is a plus point as most studies of this sort tend to be correlational. |
| | | | |[Abstract] The relative influence of adolescents' closest friends and their friendship group on their cigarette|
| | | | |smoking and alcohol use was investigated in a short-term, longitudinal study of 1, 028 students in the 6th, |
| | | | |8th, and 10th grades in 2 school systems. The amount of influence over the school year was modest in magnitude |
| | | | |and came from the closest friend for initiation of cigarette and alcohol use. Only the friendship group use |
| | | | |predicted transition into current cigarette use, whereas only the close friend use predicted transition into |
| | | | |current alcohol use. Both group and close friends independently contributed to the prediction of adolescents' |
| | | | |drinking to intoxication. No difference in the amount of influence, was found between stable and unstable close|
| | | | |friendships or friendship groups; neither grade nor gender of the adolescents related to the amount of |
| | | | |influence. |
|160 | |Baldwin, M. W. (2007). On priming security and | |The whole issue of 18(3) has many articles on ‘sense of felt security’, including: Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P.|
| | |insecurity. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 157 – | |R. (2007). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and inter-group tolerance, |
| | |162. | |Psychological Inquiry, 18, 139 – 156. |
| | | | | |
| | | | |On p. 183, Baldwin says that security is often undermined by evaluation and criticism, due to an implicit |
| | | | |anticipation that disproval may lead to rejection. ( so can we experimentally manipulate insecurity? |
| | | | | |
| | | | |In Baldwin (1994), security/insecurity was manipulated by asking participants to provide a name of a one who |
| | | | |“accepts you for who you are” or one who is critical and rejecting. Method: subliminal or supraliminal. |
| | | | | |
| | | | |This article also urges researches to consider the mediators of attachment security effects, e.g. secure base, |
| | | | |merger, reflective function, unconditional acceptance, etc (p. 159). |
|161 | |Baldwin, M. W. & Holmes, J. G. (1987). Salient | |Perhaps the first article to discuss the concept of private audience. |
| | |private audiences and awareness of the self. | | |
| | |Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, | | |
| | |52, 1087-1098. | | |
|162 | |Lightfoot, Cynthia (1989). Taking Risks and | |This study examines the normalcy of adolescent risk-taking and proposes that the social adventures of |
| | |Making Friends: A Narrative Perspective on | |adolescents have significance for the development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships and |
| | |Adolescents' Adventures. Paper presented at the| |self-identity. To evaluate the narrative role of shared risks in transforming different types of relationships,|
| | |Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in| |an interview procedure was developed in which 30 adolescents between the ages of 16 and 18 years were presented|
| | |Child Development (Kansas City, MO, April | |with hypothetical adventures. The subjects were asked to speculate about the interpersonal consequences of |
| | |27-30, 1989). | |adventures shared with close friends versus acquaintances, and about the consequences of experiences that |
| | | | |varied in terms of relative risks. A major theme to emerge in the course of this study concerns the importance |
| | | | |that adolescents attach to secrecy and privacy. Th data indicate that adolescents perceive risk-taking as a |
| | | | |mechanism for creating private experiences, or shared knowledge significant for group relations. Thus |
| | | | |risk-taking functions to maintain and facilitate ingroup-outgroup boundaries. In addition, adolescents' |
| | | | |tolerance for non-conforming expressions of selfhood may be limited to stable, close-friend relationships. |
| | | | |Finally, conformity to group pressure may be a transient phenomenon, mediated by the developmental status of |
| | | | |the group. (RJC) |
|163 | |Morgan, M. & Grube, J. W. (1991). Closeness and| |Not in e-journals; in bound journals. Must read. |
| | |peer group influence. British Journal of Social| | |
| | |Psychology, 30, 159 – 169. | | |
|164 | |Berndt, T. J. (1996). Transitions in friendship| |Available on Google Books. “Adolescents are influenced most by the few peers they consider best friends” (p. |
| | |and friends’ influence. In J. Gradner, J. | |59) |
| | |Brooks-Grum & A. Patterson (Eds.), Transitions | |See also: |
| | |through adolescence: Interpersonal dimensions | |Berndt, T. J. (2002). Friendship quality and social development. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences,|
| | |and context (pp. 57 – 84). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.| |11, 7-10. |
| | | | |Berndt, T. J., & Murphy, L. M. (2002). Influences of friends and friendships: Myths, truths, and research |
| | | | |recommendations. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 30, 275-310. |
|165 | |Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). | |Read. The inclusion of other in self (IOS) scale is a new pictorial scale focusing on cognitive closeness as |
| | |Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the | |opposed to behavioral closeness in the RCI. Good review of RCI. It also criticizes the RCI for its cultural |
| | |structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal | |biases, length (10-15 mins). A major advantage is that it is a one-item scale. However, Berscheid et al (2004) |
| | |of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596 –| |have criticized it in favor of their own RCI. Note that the when the areas of the overlapping circles |
| | |612. | |increases, the diameter of the circles increase too. |
|166 | |Rockloff, M. J. & Dyer, V. (2007). An |Rockloff & Dyer, 2007 |[Abstract] Research and theory regarding the social facilitation effect generates the expectation that the |
| | |experiment on the social facilitation of | |presence of other gamblers (or co-actors) in a gaming venue is likely to intensify individual gambling behavior|
| | |gambling behavior. Journal of Gambling Studies,| |and magnify losses. Fifty male and 66 female participants (116 total) played a computer-simulated electronic |
| | |23, 1-12. | |gaming machine with a fixed winning sequence, followed by an indefinite losing sequence. Measures of the |
| | | | |intensity of gambling behavior included the final payout (a direct measure of losses), average bet-size, number|
| | | | |of trials played, and the speed of play. Some participants received false feedback from the computer designed |
| | | | |to suggest that other gamers in adjacent rooms were playing and sometimes winning at the same game. Persons who|
| | | | |received both sight and sound information, including winning bells and instant messages regarding the wins of |
| | | | |other (fake) players, placed more bets and lost more money. |
| | | | | |
| | | | |KQ: I’ve thought long and hard about it. The effects they observed were due to sight-and-sound feedback, which |
| | | | |SS inferred the presence of people. They did not really tested the idea that the presence of people led to more|
| | | | |risk taking, did they? Or can the inferred presence of people be conceptualized as the mediator between sensory|
| | | | |feedback and heightened risk taking? |
|167 | |Boyer, T. W. (2006). The development of | |He reviewed an interesting switch-pulling measurement of risk taking by Slovic that is similar in principle to |
| | |risk-taking: A multi-perspective review. | |the BART. The social developmental perspective (p. 319) is given an excellent coverage, though peer influence |
| | |Developmental Review, 26, 291 – 345. | |is given less emphasis then I’d have hoped for. |
|168 | |Ditto, P. H., Pizarro, D. A., Epstein, E. B., | |[Abstract] Visceral cues indicating proximity to objects of desire can lead people to be disproportionately |
| | |Jacobson, J. A., & MacDonald, T. K. (2006). | |influenced by the anticipated rewards of immediate gratification rather than the risks of consummatory |
| | |Visceral influences on risk-taking behavior. | |behavior. Two studies examined this hypothesis. In Study 1, participants were given the choice of playing a |
| | |Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19, | |game in which they risked time in the lab to win chocolate chip cookies. Participants who could see and smell |
| | |99-113. | |the cookies while they made their decision were less sensitive to risk information than were participants for |
| | | | |whom the cookies were merely described. In Study 2, male condom users either saw a video or read a description |
| | | | |depicting a young couple deciding whether to have sex without a condom. Participants seeing the video expressed|
| | | | |a greater likelihood of having unprotected sex in the situation than did participants reading the description. |
| | | | |The underappreciated role of visceral factors in social cognition theory and research is discussed. |
| | | | |KQ: effects of dangling the carrot? Or maybe even dangling the ‘invisible’ carrot. |
|169 | |Rolison, M.R. & Scherman, A. (2003). College | |This study addressed college student risk-taking from three perspectives: dispositional trait, decision-making,|
| | |student risk-taking from three perspectives. | |and environmental. Results showed that sensation-seeking, perceived peer participation, and perceived benefits |
| | |Adolescence, 38, 689 – 704. | |were associated with risk involvement. The study is purely correlational and involves self-report data from |
| | | | |questionnaires. Perhaps it does suggest a risk taking as an interpersonal script embedded within the social |
| | | | |interactions within self and others. |
|170 |Norms and cultural influence |Potard, C., Courtois, R., & Rusch, E. (2008). | |[Abstract] Data were collected through structured and confidential individual interviews with 100 adolescents, |
| | |The influence of peers on risky sexual behavior| |selected randomly from among 1467 students attending one French high school. Conclusions: The sexual norms of |
| | |during adolescence. European Journal of | |peers influence youths' individual attitudes and behaviours. This is a good paper to cite about the influence |
| | |Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, 13,| |of social norms, esp. peer attitudes. |
| | |264-270. | | |
|171 |Priming motivation |Young, M. M., Wohl, M. J. A., Matheson, K., | |[Abstract] The influence of gambling outcomes on the efficacy of a short gambling episode to prime motivation |
| | |Baumann, S., & Anisman, H. (2008). The desire | |to continue gambling was determined in two experiments in which desire to gamble was evaluated while |
| | |to gamble: The influence of outcomes on the | |participants played a slot machine located in a virtual reality casino. In experiment 1, 38 high-risk [>3 |
| | |priming effects of a gambling episode. Journal | |Problem Gambling Severity Index (PGSI)] [Ferris and Wynne (The Canadian problem gambling index: final report, |
| | |of Gambling Studies, 24, 275-293 | |2001)] and 36 non-problem gamblers (0 PGSI) either won or lost a modest amount. Among high-risk gamblers, |
| | | | |winning resulted in a greater increase in the desire to continue gambling than did losing. In experiment 2, 39 |
| | | | |high-risk, 33 low-risk (0 < PGSI < 3), and 31 non-problem gamblers experienced either a single large win or a |
| | | | |series of small wins (equivalent monetary gain). Participants were permitted to continue playing as long as |
| | | | |they wanted (all subsequent spins being losses) thus permitting evaluation of persistence (resistance to |
| | | | |extinction). Throughout, desire to gamble was assessed using a single item measure. High-risk gamblers who |
| | | | |experienced a large win reported significantly greater desire to gamble upon voluntary cessation than those who|
| | | | |experienced a series of small wins. It seems that the priming effects of a short gambling episode are |
| | | | |contingent on the pattern of outcomes experienced by the gambler. The data were related to motivational factors|
| | | | |associated with gambling, gambling persistence, and chasing losses. |
| | |Guerin, B. (1986). Mere presence effects in |Guerin, 1986 |See reference of Rockloff & Dyer, 2007 |
| | |humans: A review. Journal of Experimental | | |
| | |Social Psychology, 22, 38 – 77. | | |
|172 | |Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Adolescent risk-taking |Sunstein, 2008 |A good review of Rivers et al (2008) fuzzy trace theory. Emphasize a System I and System II approach to risk |
| | |and social meaning: A commentary. Developmental| |taking. Not very useful. |
| | |Review, 28, 145-152. | | |
|173 | |Baldwin, M. W. & Dandeneau, S. D. (2005). |Baldwin & Dandeneau, 2005 |Apart from being a wonderful source of relational schema literature review, it makes an important point about |
| | |Understanding and modifying the relational | |why insecure attachment working models are so difficult (but still possible) to change. If such chronically |
| | |schemas underlying insecurity. In M. Baldwin | |accessible schemas are so available, then is risk taking with friends inevitable? |
| | |(Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 33 – 61). | | |
| | |New York: Guilford Press. | | |
|174 | |White, T. L., Lejuez, C.W., & de Wit, H. |White, Lejuez, & de Wit (2008)|Lejuez’s latest paper! there are currently no published data about the test-retest characteristics of the task |
| | |(2008). Test-Retest Characteristics of the | |when it is administered on separate days. The current paper addresses this gap. Risky behavior on the BART |
| | |Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART) | |(adjusted average pumps) showed acceptable test-retest reliability across days (r = +.77, p < .001). The data |
| | |Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, | |indicate that risk behavior on the BART has adequate test-retest stability and therefore performance on the |
| | |16, 565 – 570. | |task on a single occasion is likely to be representative of an individual's performance on other occasions. |
|175 | |McAlvanah, P. (2008). Are people more |McAlvanah, 2008 |Very interesting finding!!! However, the explanations are sorely lacking. Three explanations are proposed: |
| | |risk-taking in the presence of the opposite | |illusion, mating mindsets, and EU theories. An evolutionary argument is lacking, though hinted. |
| | |sex? | |Experimental subjects evaluated a series of hypothetical monetary gambles before and after viewing pictures of |
| | |Journal of Economic Psychology, In Press, | |opposite sex faces; control subjects viewed pictures of cars. Both males and females viewing opposite sex |
| | |Corrected Proof, Available online 19 November | |photos displayed a significant increase in risk tolerance, whereas the control subjects exhibited no |
| | |2008 | |significant change. Surprisingly, the attractiveness of the photo had no effect; subjects viewing photographs |
| | | | |of attractive opposite sex persons displayed similar results as those viewing photographs of unattractive |
| | | | |people. |
| | | | |Can be used in thesis cos SS who viewed opposite sex persons showed greater risking (p. 9). A major drawback is|
| | | | |whether this effect was due to the confounding mating mindsets, or merely seeing ppl vs. cars. |
|176 | |Waters, H.S., & Waters, E. (2006). The | |The whole journal is about attachment! Impact factor 1.7. This issue deals with “Script-like Attachment |
| | |attachment working models concept: Among other | |Representations and Behavior in Families and Across Cultures”. |
| | |things, we build script-like representations of| | |
| | |secure base experiences. | |The idea of a primary caregiver as a secure base can be extended to that of a friend. |
| | |Attachment & Human Development, 8, 185 – 197 | | |
| | | | |Good ideas on script-based attachment. |
|177 | |Trimpop, R. M. (1994). The psychology of risk | |See p. 225 for risk taking as a script. |
| | |taking behaviour. Amsterdam: North-Holland. | | |
|178 |Security |Mikulincer, M., Florian, V., Birnbaum, G., & |Mikulincer, Florian, Birnbaum,|If close relationships can be anxiety-buffering, then can it be safety-reassuring? |
| | |Malishkevich, S. (2002). The death-anxiety |& Malishkevich, 2002) | |
| | |buffering function of close relationships: | | |
| | |Exploring the effects of separation reminders |Mikulincer, Florian, Birnbaum | |
| | |on death-thought accessibility. Personality and|and Malishkevich (2002) | |
| | |Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 287 – 299. | | |
|179 |Script |Fehr, B., Baldwin, M., Collins, L., Patterson, |Fehr, Baldwin, Collins, |There was evidence of an interpersonal script for anger. |
| | |S., & Benditt, R. (1999). Anger in close |Patterson, & Benditt, 1999 | |
| | |relationships: An interpersonal script | |“The interpersonal script is a cognitive structure representing a sequence of events and actions that is |
| | |analysis. | |usually derived from repeated similar experiences.” (p. 301) |
| | |Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25,| | |
| | |299 – 312. | | |
|180 | |Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). |Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007 |A good review of priming security and its positive effects, including reducing hostility, emotional buffer of |
| | |Boosting attachment security to promote mental | |PTSD, altruism |
| | |health, prosocial values, and inter-group | |p. 141: attachment can also be conceptualised as relationship-specific instead of a global orientation. |
| | |tolerance, Psychological Inquiry, 18, 139 – | |Evidence: attachment style can change depending on contexts. |
| | |156. | |p. 142: attachment security fosters broaden and build model |
| | | | |p. 143. “security priming” defined as temporary activating mental representations of attachment figures…(p. |
| | | | |144) appears to have a calming, soothing effect similar to the effect of actual interactions with available |
| | | | |and responsive relationship partners. |
|181 | |Cooper, M. L., Wood, P. K., Orcutt, H. K., & | |the present study uses longitudinal data from a representative community sample of Black and White adolescents |
| | |Albino, A. (2003). Personality and the | |to explore whether core features of personality (i.e., impulsivity, sensation seeking, negative emotionality, |
| | |predisposition to engage in risky or problem | |and avoidant forms of coping with negative emotions) serve as common causes of involvement in a range of risky |
| | |behaviors during adolescence. Journal of | |or problem behaviors. Results suggest that dysfunctional styles of regulating emotions and emotionally driven |
| | |Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 390-410.| |behaviors are core features of risky or problem behaviors during adolescence. |
|182 | |Ryan, R. M, Brown, K. W., Creswell, J. D. | |p. 178. When ‘positive attachments’ are primed, they would be associated with broaden and build feelings and |
| | |(2007). How integrative is attachment theory? | |many positive attributes and representations. |
| | |Unpacking the meaning and significance of felt | | |
| | |security. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 177-182. | | |
|183 | |Peterson, C., & Park, N. Attachment security | |p. 173. Security primes apparently do not interact with pre-existing attachment styles. This may be the reason |
| | |and its Benefits in context. Psychological | |why FN and FI are the same, and different from YN and YI. This has two interpretations. First, security primes |
| | |Inquiry, 18, 172-176. | |fail to manipulate attachment although they are supposed to. Second, security primes cannot manipulate |
| | | | |attachment. |
|184 | |Communication and Social Cognition | | |
| | | By National Communication Association (U.S.). | | |
| | |Meeting, David R. Roskos-Ewoldsen, Jennifer L. | | |
| | |Monahan | | |
|185 | |Floyd, K., & Voloudakis, M. (1999). | |on attributions in friendship dyads |
| | |Affectionate behavior in adult platonic | | |
| | |friendships interpreting and evaluating | | |
| | |expectancy violations. Human Communications | | |
| | |Research, 25, 341 – 369. | | |
|186 | |Morrongiello, B. A., & Lasenby-Lessard , J. | |Objectives: To draw on empirical findings of the psychological factors that cause elementary-school children to|
| | |(2007). Psychological determinants of risk | |engage in risky play behaviors that can lead to injury, with the aim of developing an integrative model that |
| | |taking by children: an integrative model and | |can support intervention-program planning. |
| | |implications for interventions. Injury | |Methods: An extensive review of literature on this topic was conducted, determinants of risk taking for which |
| | |Prevention, 13, 20 – 25. | |there was empirical support were identified, and results were synthesized to create an integrative model of |
| | | | |children’s risk taking. |
| | | | |Results: Research on risk taking in children is limited, but the findings support the importance of examining |
| | | | |child, family and socio-environmental factors to understand children’s risk-taking behaviors. |
| | | | |Conclusions: Development of a model outlining the determinants of risk behaviors can provide a foundation for |
| | | | |initiatives that aim to reduce such behaviors and prevent childhood injuries. |
| | | | | |
| | | | |Haven’t read nor download. |
|187 | |Margolese, S. K., Markiewicz, D., Doyle, A. B. | |Support for different attachment styles? |
| | |(2005). Attachment to parents, best friend, and| |Research indicates that insecurely-attached adolescents are at risk for depression, but little is known about |
| | |romantic partner: Predicting different pathways| |factors that may influence or explain this vulnerability. The present study focuses on close relationships |
| | |to depression in adolescence. Journal of Youth | |during adolescence and their association with depression. Specifically, the objectives were to investigate (1) |
| | |and Adolescence, 34, 637-650. | |the role of working models of specific attachment figures (i.e., mother, father, best friend, and romantic |
| | | | |partner) in the prediction of depression; and (2) the existence of target-specific pathways to depression |
| | | | |following relational stress. It was expected that the paths to depression would differ depending on the |
| | | | |attachment figure under consideration. A total of 134 adolescents (n = 88 girls; M age = 16.95 years; SD = .74)|
| | | | |completed attachment questionnaires, a depression inventory, and a computer task consisting of hypothetical |
| | | | |interpersonal vignettes and questions. Insecure attachment relationships with romantic partner, and for girls |
| | | | |only, with mother, were uniquely predictive of depression. Insecurely-attached adolescents' tendency to make |
| | | | |negative attributions in response to stresses fully mediated the attachment-depression association. These |
| | | | |adolescents were found to ruminate when confronted with stresses involving romantic partner, which was also |
| | | | |associated with depression. Results underscore the link between attachment, negative attributions, and |
| | | | |depression. |
|188 | |Stephan, C., Kennedy, J. C., & Aronson, E. |Stephan, Kennedy, and Aronson |Research in attribution theory has shown that egotistical attributions occur in situations involving |
| | |(1977). The effects of friendship and outcome |(1977) |interdependent interaction. Other research on interpersonal attraction suggests that friendship between the |
| | |on task attribution. Social Psychology | |actor and the observer might alter this attribution process. This idea was tested in the context of |
| | |Quarterly, 40, 107-112. | |cooperative, competitive, and independent interaction between 100 6th graders who were either friends or not. |
| | | | |Ss made egotistical attributions except when competing with a friend and cooperating with a nonfriend. Results |
| | | | |suggest that the interaction between the interpersonal relationship of the participants and the type of task |
| | | | |involved is an important determinant of the resulting attributions. |
|189 | |Green, J. D., Burnette, J. L., & Davis, J. L. | |Not useful. Building on attribution and interdependence theories, two experiments tested the hypothesis that |
| | |(2008). Third-party forgiveness: (Not) | |close friends of victims (third parties) are less forgiving than the victims themselves (first parties). In |
| | |forgiving your close other's betrayer. | |Experiment 1, individuals imagined a scenario in which either their romantic partner or the romantic partner of|
| | |Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34,| |a close friend committed the identical relationship offense. Third parties were less forgiving than first |
| | |407-418. | |parties, a phenomenon we termed the third-party forgiveness effect. This effect was mediated by attributions |
| | | | |about the perpetrator's intentions and responsibility for the offense. In Experiment 2, first and third parties|
| | | | |reported an actual offense and their subsequent unforgiving motivations. The third-party forgiveness effect was|
| | | | |replicated and was mediated by commitment to the perpetrator. Perpetrator apology or amends to the victim |
| | | | |increased third-party forgiveness. Future third-party research can expand interpersonal forgiveness research |
| | | | |beyond the victim-perpetrator dyad. |
|190 | |Sabini, John; Siepmann, Michael; Stein, Julia. | | |
| | |"The really fundamental attribution error in | | |
| | |social psychological research": Commentary | | |
| | |Reply. [References]. [Journal; Peer Reviewed | | |
| | |Journal] Psychological Inquiry. Vol 12(1) 2001,| | |
| | |41-48. | | |
|191 | |Gawronski, Bertram. Theory-based bias | | |
| | |correction in dispositional inference: The | | |
| | |fundamental attribution error is dead, long | | |
| | |live the correspondence bias. European Review | | |
| | |of Social Psychology. Vol 15 2004 2005, 83-217.| | |
|192 | |Burnette, Jeni L; Davis, Don E; Green, Jeffrey | |The authors investigated the associations between attachment, empathy, rumination, forgiveness, and depressive |
| | |D; Worthington, Everett L Jr.; Bradfield, Erin.| |symptoms via the framework of attachment theory. Participants (N = 221; 141 F and 80 M) completed a battery of |
| | |Insecure attachment and depressive symptoms: | |questionnaires. We hypothesized that (a) anxious and avoidant attachment would be negatively linked to |
| | |The mediating role of rumination, empathy, and | |dispositional forgiveness; (b) the anxious attachment-forgiveness link would be mediated through excessive |
| | |forgiveness. [References]. [Journal; Peer | |rumination; (c) the avoidance attachment-forgiveness link would be mediated through lack of empathy; and (d) |
| | |Reviewed Journal] Personality and Individual | |the insecure attachment-depression relation would, in turn, be partially mediated by the forgiveness process. |
| | |Differences. Vol 46(3) Feb 2009, 276-280. | |SEM modeling confirmed these propositions, revealing the potential deleterious outcomes associated with |
| | | | |insecure attachment and unforgiving responses to offenses. |
|193 | |Sedikides, C., Campbell, W. K., Reeder, G. D., |Sedikides, Campbell, Reeder, &| |
| | |& Elliot, A. J. (1998). The self-serving bias |Elliot, 1998 | |
| | |in relational context. Journal of Personality | | |
| | |and Social Psychology, 74, 378 –386. | | |
|194 | |Laurenceau, J., Barrett, L. F., & Pietromonaco,|Laurenceau, Barrett, & | |
| | |P. R. (1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal |Pietromonaco, 1998 | |
| | |process: The importance of self-disclosure, | | |
| | |partner disclosure, and perceived partner | | |
| | |responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. | | |
| | |Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, | | |
| | |74, 1238-1251. | | |
|195 | |Holmberg, D., & MacKenzie, S. (2002). So far so| |Not useful. But check out the reference: Ginsburg, G. P. (1988). Rules, scripts and prototypes in personal |
| | |good: Scripts for romantic relationship | |relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 23 – 39). Chichester: Wiley. |
| | |development as predictors of relational | | |
| | |well-being. Journal of Social and Personal | | |
| | |Relationships, 19, 777-796. | | |
|196 | |Wang, X., Kruger, D., & Wilke, A. (2009). Life |Wang, Kruger, & Wilke, 2009 |We examined the effects of life-history variables on risk-taking propensity, measured by subjective likelihoods|
| | |history variables and risk-taking propensity. | |of engaging in risky behaviors in five evolutionarily valid domains of risk, including between-group |
| | |Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 77-84. | |competition, within-group competition, environmental challenge, mating and resource allocation, and fertility |
| | | | |and reproduction. The effects of life-history variables on risk-taking propensity were domain specific, except |
| | | | |for the expected sex difference, where men predicted greater risk-taking than women in all domains. Males also |
| | | | |perceived less inherent risk in actions than females across the five domains. Although the age range in the |
| | | | |sample was limited, older respondents showed lower risk propensity in both between- and within-group |
| | | | |competition. Parenthood reduced risk-taking propensity in within- and between-group competitions. Higher |
| | | | |reproductive goal setting (desiring more offspring) was associated with lower risk-taking propensity. This |
| | | | |effect was strongest in the risk domains of mating and reproduction. Having more siblings reduced risk-taking |
| | | | |propensity (contrary to our initial prediction) in the domains of environmental challenge, reproduction, and |
| | | | |between-group competition. Later-born children showed a higher propensity to engage in environmental and mating|
| | | | |risks. Last, shorter subjective life expectancy was associated with increased willingness to take mating and |
| | | | |reproductive risks. These results suggest that life-history variables regulate human risk-taking propensity in |
| | | | |specific risk domains. |
| | | | |KQ: it’s correlational, but it would be interesting to see if mate-seeking primes would lead to more risk |
| | | | |taking. |
|197 | |Ackerman, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., & Schaller, M.|Ackerman, Kenrick, & Schaller,|Although unrelated friends are genetically equivalent to strangers, several lines of reasoning suggest that |
| | |(2007). Is friendship akin to kinship? |2007 |close friendship may sometimes activate processes more relevant to kinship and that this may be especially true|
| | |Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 365 – 374. | |for women. We compared responses to strangers, friends, and kin in two studies designed to address distinct |
| | | | |domains for which kinship is known to have functional significance: incest avoidance and nepotism. Study 1 |
| | | | |examined emotional responses to imagined sexual contact with kin, friends, and strangers. Results revealed that|
| | | | |women, compared to men, treated friends more like kin. Study 2 examined benevolent attributions to actual kin, |
| | | | |friends, and strangers. Results revealed that women treated friends very much like kin, whereas men treated |
| | | | |friends very much like strangers. The current findings support a domain-specific over a domain-general approach|
| | | | |to understanding intimate relationships and raise a number of interesting questions about the modular structure|
| | | | |of cognitive and affective processes involved in these relationships. |
|198 | |Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. (1998). Priming |Pierce & Lydon, 1998 |The authors used a relational schemas approach to test the effects of interpersonal expectations on responses |
| | |relational schemas: Effects of contextually | |to a stressful event. In Study 1, a subliminal priming technique was used to demonstrate the causal influence |
| | |activated and chronically accessible | |of experimentally activated interpersonal expectations on affect, support seeking, and coping responses to a |
| | |interpersonal expectations on responses to a | |hypothetical unplanned pregnancy. Activation of positive interpersonal expectations increased reports of |
| | |stressful event. Journal of Personality & | |seeking emotional support and decreased the use of self-denigrating coping. Activation of negative |
| | |Social Psychology, 75, 1441-1448. | |interpersonal expectations decreased reports of positive affect and tended to impede growth-oriented coping. |
| | | | |Chronically accessible interpersonal expectations, assessed by an attachment questionnaire, were also |
| | | | |associated with affect, seeking of support, and coping. Study 2 undermined the possibility that the |
| | | | |experimental findings obtained with this priming procedure resulted from a mood manipulation. |
|199 | |Abbott-Chapman, J., Denholm, C., Wyld, C. |Abbott-Chapman, Denholm & |Haven’t read, but must read. |
| | |(2008). Social support as a factor inhibiting |Wyld, 2008 |A large-scale study conducted in Tasmania, Australia, of teenage risk-taking across 26 potentially harmful risk|
| | |teenage risk-taking: Views of students, parents| |activities has examined a range of factors that encourage or inhibit risk-taking. Among these factors, the |
| | |and professionals. Journal of Youth Studies, | |degree of social and professional support the teenage students say they would access for personal, study or |
| | |11, 611 – 627. | |health problems has been examined and correlated with the respondents' risk-taking profiles. Findings reveal |
| | | | |that the wider the range of social support, including parents, family and friends, the less likely are |
| | | | |teenagers to participate in risk-taking activities, as measured by the Personal Risk Score Category Index |
| | | | |developed for the research. Respondents who relied only on friends' support or had no-one to access for support|
| | | | |had higher risk-taking profiles. Comparative analysis of parents' and pre-service professionals' expectations |
| | | | |differed from those of the students in overestimating the extent to which students would access professionals |
| | | | |for advice and help with personal, study and health problems, and their degree of trust in professional help. |
| | | | |Parents also overestimated the extent to which the students would rely on their parents for support and advice |
| | | | |compared with the students' views. The implications of this intergenerational mismatch for risk prevention and |
| | | | |intervention programmes are discussed. |
|200 | |Taylor, S. E., Welch, W. T., Kim, H. S., & |Taylor, Welch, Kim, & Sherman,|Two important points: |
| | |Sherman, D. K. (2007). Cultural differences in |2007 |There’s this construct called implicit social support, defined in p 832., and its related construct ‘perceived |
| | |the impact of social support on psychological | |support’; |
| | |and biological stress responses. Psychological | |Implicit social support is particularly present in Asian context. |
| | |Science, 18, 831 – 837. | |The article has a good section on implicit vs. explicit social support. |
| | | | | |
| | | | |[Abstract] Social support is believed to be a universally valuable resource for combating stress, yet Asians |
| | | | |and Asian Americans report that social support is not helpful to them, resist seeking it, and are |
| | | | |underrepresented among recipients of supportive services. We distinguish between explicit social support |
| | | | |(seeking and using advice and emotional solace) and implicit social support (focusing on valued social groups) |
| | | | |and show that Asians and Asian Americans are psychologically and biologically benefited more by implicit social|
| | | | |support than by explicit social support; the reverse is true for European Americans. Our discussion focuses on |
| | | | |cultural differences in the construal of relationships and their implications for social support and delivery |
| | | | |of support services. |
|201 | |Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1986). |Wethington & Kessler, 1986 |Perceived support is in general more important than received support in predicting adjustment to stressful life|
| | |Perceived support, received support, and | |events. |
| | |adjustment to stressful life events. Journal of| | |
| | |Health and Social Behavior, 27, 78 – 89. | | |
|202 | |Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., Kessler, R. C. |Bolger, Zuckerman & Kessler, |Although there is abundant evidence that perceived availability of support buffers the effects of stressors on |
| | |(2000). Invisible support and adjustment to |2000 |mental health, the relatively meager research on support transactions has failed to show an association between|
| | |stress. Journal of Personality and Social | |actual receipt of support and adjustment to stressors. The authors examined a possible explanation for this |
| | |Psychology, 79, 953 – 961. | |inconsistency, that awareness of receiving support entails an emotional cost and that the most effective |
| | | | |support is unnoticed by the recipient. Using data from a daily diary study of support provision and receipt in |
| | | | |couples, the authors show that many transactions reported by supporters are not reported by recipients. They |
| | | | |also show that these invisible support transactions promote adjustment to a major stressor. |
| | | | |Comment: In Taylor’s Health Psychology, p200, she says that merely perceiving social support has its effects. |
| | | | |She also confuses this term with implicit and invisible social support. |
|203 |Friendship and forgiveness |Newcomb, A. F., & Bagwell, C. L. (1995). |Newcomb & Bagwell, 1995 |Children's friendships represent mutual dyadic relationships that differ from peer relations, which have lesser| | |
| |(conflict resolution) |Children's friendship relations: A | |affective ties. This meta-analytic review fit categorical models ( L. V. Hedges, 1982)to examine the behavioral| | |
| | |meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, | |and affective manifestations of children's friendships as evinced by comparisons of friends and nonfriends. | | |
| | |117, 306 – 347. | |Analysis of our broadband categories revealed that friendships, compared with nonfriend relations, are | | |
| | | | |characterized by more intense social activity, more frequent conflict resolution, and more effective task | | |
| | | | |performance. Also, relationships between friends are marked by reciprocal and intimate properties of | | |
| | | | |affiliation. At the level of narrowband categories, friendship relations afford a context for social and | | |
| | | | |emotional growth. These behavioral and affective manifestations of friendship are moderated by the age level of| | |
| | | | |participants, the strength of the relationship, and the methodology of the study. | | |
|204 | |Thayer, Shawna M.; Updegraff, Kimberly A.; | |This study was designed to describe the conflict resolution practices used in Mexican American adolescents' | | |
| | |Delgado, Melissa Y. Conflict Resolution in | |friendships, to explore the role of cultural orientations and values and gender-typed personality qualities in | | |
| | |Mexican American Adolescents' Friendships: | |conflict resolution use, and to assess the connections between conflict resolution and friendship quality. | | |
| | |Links with Culture, Gender and Friendship | |Participants were 246 Mexican American adolescents (M = 12.77 years of age) and their older siblings (M = 15.70| | |
| | |Quality. Journal of Youth & Adolescence. | |years of age). Results indicated that adolescents used solution-oriented strategies most frequently, followed | | |
| | |37(7):783-797, August 2008. | |by nonconfrontation and control strategies. Girls were more likely than boys to use solution-oriented | | |
| | | | |strategies and less likely to use control strategies. Familistic values and gender-typed personality qualities | | |
| | | | |were associated with solution-oriented conflict resolution strategies. Finally, conflict resolution strategies | | |
| | | | |were related to overall friendship quality: solution-oriented strategies were positively linked to intimacy and| | |
| | | | |negatively associated with friendship negativity, whereas nonconfrontation and control strategies were | | |
| | | | |associated with greater relationship negativity. | | |
|205 | |Shariff, Azim F; Norenzayan, Ara. God is | |We present two studies aimed at resolving experimentally whether religion increases prosocial behavior in the | | |
| | |watching you: Priming God concepts increases | |anonymous dictator game. Subjects allocated more money to anonymous strangers when God concepts were implicitly| | |
| | |prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic | |activated than when neutral or no concepts were activated. This effect was at least as large as that obtained | | |
| | |game. [References]. [Journal; Peer Reviewed | |when concepts associated with secular moral institutions were primed. A trait measure of self-reported | | |
| | |Journal] Psychological Science. Vol 18(9) Sep | |religiosity did not seem to be associated with prosocial behavior. We discuss different possible mechanisms | | |
| | |2007, 803-809. | |that may underlie this effect, focusing on the hypotheses that the religious prime had an ideomotor effect on | | |
| | | | |generosity or that it activated a felt presence of supernatural watchers. We then discuss implications for | | |
| | | | |theories positing religion as a facilitator of the emergence of early large-scale societies of cooperators. | | |
|206 | |Berndt, T. J. (1992). | |Not available in e journals | | |
| | |Friendship and friends' influence in | | | | |
| | |adolescence. Current Directions in | | | | |
| | |Psychological Science, 1, 156 – 159. | | | | |
|207 | |Tse, Man Chui; Cheng, Sheung-Tak. Depression | |We examined if depression predicts forgiveness beyond the effects of transgression and relationship closeness, | | |
| | |reduces forgiveness selectively as a function | |and whether its effect on forgiveness is strongest in specific transgression-closeness situations. Hundred and | | |
| | |of relationship closeness and transgression. | |nineteen university students were randomly assigned into one of two experimental conditions in which they were | | |
| | |[References]. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] | |presented with hypothetical scenarios depicting a mild as well as a serious offense by either an acquaintance | | |
| | |Personality and Individual Differences. Vol | |or a best friend. They also filled out a depression inventory. Results confirmed a depression x transgression x| | |
| | |40(6) Apr 2006, 1133-1141. | |closeness interaction effect, in addition to a main effect of depression, on forgiveness. Whereas for | | |
| | | | |nondepressed persons, closeness with the perpetrator enhances forgiveness given to a serious offense, it was | | |
| | | | |not the case for depressed persons. Furthermore, depressed persons were less ready to forgive a mild offense by| | |
| | | | |an acquaintance when compared with nondepressed ones. However, depressed and nondepressed persons were | | |
| | | | |similarly forgiving when they were severely offended by an acquaintance, or when they were mildly offended by a| | |
| | | | |best friend. These findings were explained in terms of how the cognitive biases of depressed people operate in | | |
| | | | |different relationship contexts and under different emotional intensities following the offense. | | |
|208 | |Powers, Abigail; Ressler, Kerry J; Bradley, | |Background: This study explored the relationships between childhood maltreatment (sexual, physical, and | | |
| | |Rebekah G. The protective role of friendship on| |emotional abuse, as well as neglect), adult depression, and perceived social support from family and friends. | | |
| | |the effects of childhood abuse and depression. | |Methods: As part of an NIH-funded study of risk and resilience at a public urban hospital in Atlanta, 318 men | | |
| | |[References]. [Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] | |and women recruited from the primary care and obstetrics gynecology clinic waiting areas answered questions | | |
| | |Depression and Anxiety. Vol 26(1) 2009, 46-53. | |about developmental history, traumatic experiences, current relationship support, and depressive symptoms. | | |
| | | | |Results: Childhood emotional abuse and neglect proved more predictive of adult depression than childhood sexual| | |
| | | | |or physical abuse. In females only, perceived friend social support protected against adult depression even | | |
| | | | |after accounting for the contributions of both emotional abuse and neglect. Conclusions: These findings may | | |
| | | | |elucidate the particular importance of understanding the effects that emotional abuse and neglect have on adult| | |
| | | | |depression, and how perceived friendship support may provide a buffer far women with a history of early life | | |
| | | | |stress who are at risk to develop adult | | |
|209 | |Shackelford, Todd K; Buss, David M. Betrayal in| |Mateships, friendships, and coalitions are predicted to share some of the same benefits but also to differ in | | |
| | |mateships, friendships, and coalitions. | |some of the resources conferred. Accordingly, the psychological mechanisms sensitive to betrayal are predicted | | |
| | |[Journal; Peer Reviewed Journal] Personality | |to operate in the same manner in those domains in which benefits are common across relationships and to operate| | |
| | |and Social Psychology Bulletin. Vol 22(11) Nov | |differently in those domains in which benefits are unique to relationship type. In a study involving 204 | | |
| | |1996, 1151-1164. | |undergraduates, 3 interpersonal domains were investigated with regard to perceived betrayal: extrarelationship | | |
| | | | |intimate involvement, intrarelationship reciprocity, and relationship commitment. Eight hypotheses were tested | | |
| | | | |across the 3 relationship domains via perceived betrayal judgments. Results support a model of betrayal | | |
| | | | |entailing some degree of domain specificity but also some generality across domains. | | |
|210 | |Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O; Halevy, V., Avihou,|Mikulincer, Gillath, Halevy, |Neutral security words here | | |
| | |N., Avidan, S., & Eshkoli, N. (2001). |Avihou & Eshkoli, 2001 | | | |
| | |Attachment theory and reactions to others' | | | | |
| | |needs: Evidence that activation of the sense of| | | | |
| | |attachment security promotes empathic | | | | |
| | |responses. Journal of Personality and Social | | | | |
| | |Psychology, 81, 1205 – 1224. | | | | |
|211 | |Fazio, R. H., Eiser, J. R., & Shook, N. J. |Fazio, Eiser, & Shook (2004) |Bean game | | |
| | |(2004). Attitude formation through exploration:| | | | |
| | |Valence asymmetries. Journal of Personality and| | | | |
| | |Social Psychology, 87, 293-311. | | | | |
|212 | |Baldwin, M. W. (1997). Relational schemas as a | | | | |
| | |source of if-then self-inference procedures. | | | | |
| | |Review of General Psychology, 1, 326 – 335. | | | | |
|213 | |Sitkin, S. B., & Weingart, L. R. (1995). | |This model puts emphasis on Outcome History (i.e. whether one was successful in the past), problem framing |
| | |Determinants of risky decision-making behavior:| |(following Kahneman & Tversky’s 1979 Prospect theory) on risk perception + risk propensity, and ultimately |
| | |A test of the mediating role of risk | |risky behaviour. |
| | |perceptions and propensity. Academy of | |Where’s social influence? Completely devoid of social influence. |
| | |Management Journal, 38, 1573 – 1592. | | |
|214 | |Lõhmus, M., & Sundström, L. F. (2004). Leptin |Lõhmus & Sundström, 2004 |Interesting! Authors show that birds (the quail) take more risk when other birds do so, and so the emphasis was|
| | |and social environment influence the | |on social influences. Risk was operationalized as the time taken to emerge out of cover to feed (it risks |
| | |risk-taking and feeding behaviour of Asian blue| |predation). It could be due to (1) safety in numbers; or (2) afraid to lose out, although (2) is less likely. |
| | |quail. | | |
| | |Animal Behaviour, 68, 607 – 612. | | |
|215 |Implicit social influence |Vorauer, Jacquie D. 1,3; Miller, Dale T. 2 | |seems questionable whether individuals will recognize how they have been affected by social forces, |
| | |(1997). Failure to recognize the effect of | |particularly if those forces are not of an explicit nature. |
| | |implicit social influence on the presentation | | |
| | |of self. Journal of Personality and Social | | |
| | |Psychology, 73, 281– 295. | | |
|216 |Implicit social influence? |Mason, W. A., Conrey, F. R., & Smith, E. R. | | |
| | |(2007). | | |
| | |Situating social influence processes: Dynamic, | | |
| | |multidirectional flows of influence within | | |
| | |social networks. Personality and Social | | |
| | |Psychology Review, 11, 279-300. | | |
|217 | |Jens Förster, Nira Liberman, and Ronald S. | | |
| | |Friedman | | |
| | |Seven Principles of Goal Activation: A | | |
| | |Systematic Approach to Distinguishing Goal | | |
| | |Priming From Priming of Non-Goal Constructs | | |
| | |Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2007 11: 211-233 | | |
|218 | |S. Christian Wheeler, Kenneth G. DeMarree, and | | |
| | |Richard E. Petty | | |
| | |Understanding the Role of the Self in | | |
| | |Prime-to-Behavior Effects: The Active-Self | | |
| | |Account | | |
| | |Pers Soc Psychol Rev 2007 11: 234-261. | | |
|219 | |Aerial flocking patterns of wintering | |To test the hypothesis that variation in aerial flocking behaviour is adaptively related to predation risk, we |
| | |starlings, Sturnus vulgaris, under different | |described and quantified the flocking patterns of starlings, approaching two urban roosts, which differed in |
| | |predation risk | |predation pressure (by peregrine falcons, Falco peregrinus). We predicted that the higher predation pressure in|
| | |Animal Behaviour, Volume 77, Issue 1, January | |one of the roosts would be reflected in larger and more compact flocks, thought to be less vulnerable to |
| | |2009, Pages 101-107 | |predation than small flocks. Incoming flocks, not under direct attack, were observed during winter for 53 days.|
| | |Claudio Carere, Simona Montanino, Flavia | |We identified 12 flocking shapes. Significantly higher frequencies of compact and large flocks were observed in|
| | |Moreschini, Francesca Zoratto, Flavia | |the roost with high predation pressure, while small flocks and singletons were more frequent at the roost with |
| | |Chiarotti, Daniela Santucci, Enrico Alleva | |low predation pressure. Similar patterns were observed in both roosts when other flocks displayed antipredator |
| | | | |behaviour, even when far away and in the absence of the predator at the focal roost. This may indicate that |
| | | | |social information passed between flocks affects flocking decisions. Predation success was higher at the roost |
| | | | |with low predation. These results suggest that aerial flocking patterns are affected by predation risk and |
| | | | |possibly by the behaviour of other flocks in response to direct attacks. |
|220 | |Arnett, J. (1992). Reckless behavior in | |Arnett equates risk taking with recklessness. |
| | |adolescence: A developmental perspective. | | |
| | |Developmental Review, 12, 339 – 373. | | |
|221 | |Farthing, G. W. (2007). | |Farthing (2005) tested a prediction derived from costly-signaling theory, that women would prefer physical risk|
| | |Neither daredevils nor wimps: Attitudes toward | |takers (brave, athletic, fit) over risk-avoiders as long-term mates. Using scenarios involving high-risk acts, |
| | |physical risk takers as mates. Evolutionary | |the prediction was confirmed for heroic (brave, altruistic) but not for non-heroic (brave, non-altruistic) |
| | |Psychology, 5, 754 – 777. | |acts. Apparently, women's concerns over risks to their mates overrode any positive signal value of men's risk |
| | | | |taking, when the acts were highly risky and had no redeeming practical value. The present studies revisited the|
| | | | |costly-signaling hypothesis using both medium-- and high-risk scenarios, and it was predicted that for |
| | | | |non-heroic acts women would prefer risk takers over risk avoiders for medium-level risks but not for highly |
| | | | |risky acts. The prediction was supported in two studies. In Study 1, risk takers were preferred for non-heroic |
| | | | |medium-risk acts, but risk avoiders were preferred for high-risk acts. For heroic acts, risk takers were |
| | | | |preferred for both high-- and medium--risk acts. Study 2 crossed two act risk levels with two actor skill |
| | | | |levels, with non-heroic risks. Risk takers were preferred for the least risky combination (medium-risk act, |
| | | | |high-skill actor) and also for the two moderately risky combinations, but risk avoiders were preferred for the |
| | | | |riskiest combination (high-risk act, medium-skill actor). In Study 1, participants compared high-level risk |
| | | | |takers versus risk avoiders on several person adjectives. Both heroic and non-heroic risk takers were perceived|
| | | | |as more brave, athletic, physically fit, impulsive, attention-seeking, and foolish, and less emotionally stable|
| | | | |and self-controlled, compared to risk avoiders. But only heroic risk takers were perceived as more altruistic, |
| | | | |agreeable, conscientious, and sexy than risk avoiders. |
|222 | |Murray, S. L. (2005). | |To feel secure in romantic relationships, people need to believe that their partners see qualities in them that|
| | |Regulating the risks of closeness: A | |merit attention, nurturance, and care. This article examines how finding (or failing to find) this sense of |
| | |relationship-specific sense of felt security. | |security affects three facets of romantic life: (a) the inferences people draw about their partners' regard for|
| | |Current Directions in Psychological Science, | |them in threatening situations, (b) the inferences people draw about their own value in situations in which |
| | |14, 74 – 78. | |they feel rejected, and (c) the kinds of behavioral strategies (whether protective of the self or promotive of |
| | | | |the relationship) that people adopt to minimize the likelihood of feeling hurt or rejected again. |
|223 |Method |Hoshino-Browne, E., Zanna, A. S., Spencer, S. |Hoshino-Browne, Zanna, |The two studies results are not important for risk taking. What is important is that when asked to select food |
| | |J., Zanna, M. P., & Kitayama, S. (2005). On the|Spencer, Zanna, & Kitayama |for a friend, 28% selected their romantic partners. This means that in my study, we should specifically require|
| | |cultural guises of cognitive dissonance: The |(2005) |SS not to select their romantic partners as people have the general tendency to do so as the concept of |
| | |case of Easterners and Westerners. Journal of | |‘friend’ is vague. |
| | |Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 294 – | | |
| | |310. | | |
|224 | |Kamalanabhan, T.J., D.L. Sunder, and M. | | |
| | |Vasanthi, “An Evaluation of the Choice | | |
| | |Dilemma Questionnaire as a Measure of | | |
| | |Risk-Taking Propensity,” | | |
| | |Social Behavior and Personality, Vol. 28, No. | | |
| | |2, pp. 149-156. | | |
|225 | |Harrison, J. D., Young, J. M., Butow, P., |Harrison, Young, Butow, |Important paper that reviews risk measures |
| | |Salkeld, G., & Solomon, M. J. (2005) Is it |Salkeld, & Solomon | |
| | |worth the risk? A systematic review of | | |
| | |instruments that measure risk propensity for | | |
| | |use in the health setting. Social Science & | | |
| | |Medicine, 60, 1385 – 1396. | | |
|226 | |Kogan, N., & Wallach, M. A. (1964/1983). Risk | |HSSML Books |
| | |taking: A study in cognition and personality. | | BF637 Ris.Ko |
| | |Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. | | |
| | | | |Original CDQ |
|227 | |Utilising the Risky Shift Phenomenon in | |Saved in hard disk. Has a good, concrete example of CDQ. |
| | |Construction Project Management | | |
|228 | |Mikulincer, M., Hirschberger, G., Nachmias, O.,| | |
| | |& Gillath, O. (2001). Affective component of | | |
| | |the secure base schema: Affective priming with | | |
| | |representations of attachment security. Journal| | |
| | |of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 305 –| | |
| | |321. | | |
|229 | |Platt, M. L., & Huettel, S. A. (2008). Risky |Platt & Huettel, 2008 |Very persuasive writing on what risk and uncertainty entails. Expected value of good is compared to expected |
| | |business: The neuroeconomics of decision making| |utility. |
| | |under uncertainty. | |“many real-world decisions have a more complex form of uncertainty because the distribution of outcomes is |
| | |Nature Neuroscience, 11, 398 – 403. | |itself unknown” ( a good criticism about longshot paradigm |
| | | | |The rest of the paper about neural correlates is irrelevant. |
|230 | |Schroth, W. S., Riegelman, R. K., & Blacklow, |Schroth, Riegelman, & |Used longshot paradigm in Scenario 5. |
| | |B. G. (1994). |Blacklow, 1994 | |
| | |Medical students' risk-taking behavior in | |Impact factor 2.5 |
| | |"patient" versus "physician" decision frames: | | |
| | |Implications for medical education. Academic | | |
| | |Medicine, 69, 54 – 56. | | |
|231 | |Slovic, P. (1972). Information processing, |Slovic, 1972 |Used longshot paradigm |
| | |situation specificity, and the generality of | | |
| | |risk-taking behavior. | |May be the developer of the paradigm. |
| | |Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, | | |
| | |22, 128 –134. | | |
|232 | |Ronay, R., & Kim, D.-Y. (2006). Gender |Ronay & Kim, 2006 |Important point on BART: This generates a situation in which rational deliberative decision making becomes |
| | |differences in explicit and implicit risk | |increasingly difficult and allows for the tapping of less controlled responses. |
| | |attitudes: A socially facilitated phenomenon. | |Risk has a social value, that’s why males take more risk cos it’s part of an ingroup norm. Similar concepts: |
| | |British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 397 –| |social identity theory, self-esteem gained from membership in groups, risk taking as a means of self-esteem |
| | |419. | |gain |
| | | | |He aimed to show that there are gender differences in risk taking following social facilitation (or not). |
| | | | |Social facilitation = group discussion, but the discussants were fellow same-sex SS, not friends. |
|233 | |Wilson, M., Daly, M., & Pound, N. (2002). An | | |
| | |Evolutionary Psychological Perspective on the | | |
| | |Modulation of Competitive Confrontation and | | |
| | |Risk-Taking. In D. W. Pfaff, A. P. Arnold, A. | | |
| | |M. Etgen, S. E. Fahrbach, & R. T. Rubin (Eds.),| | |
| | |Hormones, brain and behavior (Vol. 5, pp. | | |
| | |381-408) San Diego, CA: Academic Press. | | |
|234 | |Kruger, D. J., Wang, X. T., & Wilke, A. (2007).| |From an evolutionary perspective, human risk-taking behaviors should be viewed in relation to evolutionarily |
| | |Towards the development of an evolutionarily | |recurrent survival and reproductive problems. In response to recent calls for domain-specific measures of |
| | |valid domain-specific risk-taking scale. | |risk-taking, we emphasize the need of evolutionarily valid domains. We report on two studies designed to |
| | |Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 555-568. | |validate a scale of risky behaviors in domains selected from research and theory in evolutionary psychology and|
| | | | |biology, corresponding to reoccurring challenges in the ancestral environment. Behaviors were framed in |
| | | | |situations which people would have some chance of encountering in modern times. We identify five domains of |
| | | | |risk-taking: between-group competition, within-group competition, mating and resource allocation for mate |
| | | | |attraction, environmental risks, and fertility risks. |
|235 | |Baker, M. D., & Maner, J. K. (2008). | |Evolutionary theorists suggest that men engage in risk-taking more than women do in part because, throughout |
| | |Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male | |human evolutionary history, men have faced greater sexual selection pressures. We build on this idea by testing|
| | |mating strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior, | |the hypothesis that risk-taking reflects a male mating strategy that is sensitive to characteristics of a |
| | |29, 391-395. | |potential mate. Consistent with this hypothesis, the current experiment demonstrated a positive relationship |
| | | | |between mating motivation and risk-taking, but only in men who had been exposed to images of highly attractive |
| | | | |females. Moreover, risk-taking in men was associated with enhanced memory for attractive female faces, |
| | | | |indicating enhanced processing of their attractive facial characteristics. No relationship between mating |
| | | | |motivation and risk-taking was observed in men exposed to images of unattractive women, nor was any such |
| | | | |relationship observed in women. This experiment provides evidence that psychological states associated with |
| | | | |mating may promote risk-taking, and that these effects are sex specific and are sensitive to situational |
| | | | |context. |
| | | | |KQ: Another of my idea stolen =( though the experiment was not particularly well done |
|236 | |Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Butz, D. A., & | |Two experiments suggest that the experience of power can interact with a person's level of power motivation to |
| | |Peruche, B. M. (2007). Power, Risk, and the | |produce effects on risky decision making. In Study 1, assignment to a position of power increased risk taking |
| | |Status Quo: Does Power Promote Riskier or More | |among participants with low levels of power motivation but reduced risk taking among participants with high |
| | |Conservative Decision Making? Personality and | |levels of power motivation. In Study 2, participants high in power motivation again made more conservative |
| | |Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 451-462. | |decisions, but only under circumstances in which the dominance hierarchy was unstable and there was potential |
| | | | |for losing their power. When power was irrevocable and participants' choices had no bearing on their ability to|
| | | | |retain power, both high and low power-motivated participants responded by making riskier decisions. Findings |
| | | | |suggest that although power may generally lead to riskier decisions, power may lead to more conservative |
| | | | |decisions among power-motivated individuals, especially when the status quo is perceived to be in jeopardy. |
|237 | |Showers, C. J., & Kevlyn, S. B. (1999). | |In close relationships, the association between negative beliefs about a partner and loving was found to be |
| | |Organization of knowledge about a relationship | |moderated by how that negative knowledge was organized. In general, evaluatively integrative organization |
| | |partner: Implications for liking and loving. | |(i.e., categorizing positive and negative beliefs together) was associated with more positive thoughts, |
| | |Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, | |feelings, and behaviors toward the partner when the negative content of beliefs was high and relationships were|
| | |76, 958-971. | |relatively long. Additional evidence suggests that compartmentalization (i.e., organizing positive and negative|
| | | | |beliefs in separate categories) may be an effective strategy for handling negative beliefs about a partner in a|
| | | | |new relationship. Findings for behavioral closeness raise the possibility that the nature of shared activities,|
| | | | |as well as an individual's cognitive processes, may influence how knowledge about a relationship partner is |
| | | | |organized. |
|238 | |Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006). Risk and |Reyna & Farley (2006) |Crime, smoking, drug use, alcoholism, reckless driving, and many other unhealthy patterns of behavior that play|
| | |rationality in adolescent decision making: | |out over a lifetime often debut during adolescence. Avoiding risks or buying time can set a different lifetime |
| | |Implications for theory, practice, and public | |pattern. Changing unhealthy behaviors in adolescence would have a broad impact on society, reducing the burdens|
| | |policy. Psychological Science in the Public | |of disease, injury, human suffering, and associated economic costs. Any program designed to prevent or change |
| | |Interest, 7, 1-44. | |such risky behaviors should be founded on a clear idea of what is normative (what behaviors, ideally, should |
| | | | |the program foster?), descriptive (how are adolescents making decisions in the absence of the program?), and |
| | | | |prescriptive (which practices can realistically move adolescent decisions closer to the normative ideal?). |
| | | | |Normatively, decision processes should be evaluated for coherence (is the thinking process nonsensical, |
| | | | |illogical, or self-contradictory?) and correspondence (are the outcomes of the decisions positive?). Behaviors |
| | | | |that promote positive physical and mental health outcomes in modern society can be at odds with those selected |
| | | | |for by evolution (e.g., early procreation). Healthy behaviors may also conflict with a decision maker's goals. |
| | | | |Adolescents' goals are more likely to maximize immediate pleasure, and strict decision analysis implies that |
| | | | |many kinds of unhealthy behavior, such as drinking and drug use, could be deemed rational. However, based on |
| | | | |data showing developmental changes in goals, it is important for policy to promote positive long-term outcomes |
| | | | |rather than adolescents' short-term goals. Developmental data also suggest that greater risk aversion is |
| | | | |generally adaptive, and that decision processes that support this aversion are more advanced than those that |
| | | | |support risk taking. A key question is whether adolescents are developmentally competent to make decisions |
| | | | |about risks. In principle, barring temptations with high rewards and individual differences that reduce |
| | | | |self-control (i.e., under ideal conditions), adolescents are capable of rational decision making to achieve |
| | | | |their goals. In practice, much depends on the particular situation in which a decision is made. In the heat of |
| | | | |passion, in the presence of peers, on the spur of the moment, in unfamiliar situations, when trading off risks |
| | | | |and benefits favors bad long-term outcomes, and when behavioral inhibition is required for good outcomes, |
| | | | |adolescents are likely to reason more poorly than adults do. Brain maturation in adolescence is incomplete. |
| | | | |Impulsivity, sensation seeking, thrill seeking, depression, and other individual differences also contribute to|
| | | | |risk taking that resists standard risk-reduction interventions, although some conditions such as depression can|
| | | | |be effectively treated with other approaches. Major explanatory models of risky decision making can be roughly |
| | | | |divided into (a) those, including health-belief models and the theory of planned behavior, that adhere to a |
| | | | |'rational' behavioral decision-making framework that stresses deliberate, quantitative trading off of risks and|
| | | | |benefits; and (b) those that emphasize nondeliberative reaction to the perceived gists or prototypes in the |
| | | | |immediate decision environment. Although perceived risks and especially benefits predict behavioral intentions |
| | | | |and risk-taking behavior, behavioral willingness is an even better predictor of susceptibility to risk |
| | | | |taking-and has unique explanatory power-because adolescents are willing to do riskier things than they either |
| | | | |intend or expect to do. Dual-process models, such as the prototype/willingness model and fuzzy-trace theory, |
| | | | |identify two divergent paths to risk taking: a reasoned and a reactive route. Such models explain apparent |
| | | | |contradictions in the literature, including different causes of risk taking for different individuals. |
| | | | |Interventions to reduce risk taking must take into account the different causes of such behavior if they are to|
| | | | |be effective. |
|239 |Miller, A. S., & Hoffmann, J.| | |Gender differences in religiosity are well known. Past studies have consistently shown that females tend to be |
| |P. (1995). | | |more religious than males. We propose that gender differences in risk preferences are related to differences in|
| |Risk and religion: An | | |religiosity. Building on the classic concept of "Pascal's wager," we conceive of religious behav- ior as risk |
| |explanation of gender | | |averse and nonreligious behavior as risk taking. Analysis of data from the Monitoring the Future data set shows|
| |differences in | | |that the addition of risk preference strongly attenuates gender differences in religiosity. Risk preference |
| |religiosity. Journal for the | | |also is a significant predictor of religiosity within each gender. Implications of this study are discussed. |
| |Scientific Study of Religion,| | | |
| |34, 63-75. | | | |
|240 | |Davidson, J. K. Sr., Moore, N. B., Earle, J. | | |
| | |R., & Davis, R. (2008). Sexual attitudes and | | |
| | |behavior at four universities: Do region, race,| | |
| | |and/or religion matter? | | |
| | |Adolescence, 43, 189-220. | | |
|241 | |Roth, L. M., & Kroll, J. C. (2007). Risky | | |
| | |business: Assessing risk preference | | |
| | |explanations for gender differences in | | |
| | |religiosity. American Sociological Review, 72, | | |
| | |205-220. | | |
|242 | |Boettcher, W. A. (2004). Military Intervention | |Factors that may affect public support or opposition to U.S. military intervention in humanitarian crises |
| | |Decisions Regarding Humanitarian Crises: | |around the world are examined to determine the impact of foreign policy frames on individual risk propensity. |
| | |Framing Induced Risk Behavior. Journal of | |The source of the foreign policy frames, type of humanitarian crisis, location of the crisis and |
| | |Conflict Resolution, 48, 331-355. | |race/ethnicity/religion of the endangered population, tolerable ratios of U.S. lives saved/lost to foreign |
| | | | |citizens saved/lost, and probability of casualty-free success are also investigated. |
| | | | |Basically, SS were exposed to messages about humanitarian crises involved in other countries. These messages |
| | | | |had content manipulation of race, religion, etc. |
|243 | |Nonnemaker, J. M., McNeely, C. A., & Blum, R. | | |
| | |W. M. (2003). Public and private domains of | | |
| | |religiosity and adolescent health risk | | |
| | |behaviors: Evidence from the National | | |
| | |Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. | | |
| | |Social Science & Medicine, 57, 2049-2054. | | |
|244 | |Abbott-Chapman, J., & Denholm, C. (2001). | |Discusses findings from a focus group and questionnaire survey of 954 Australian students (aged 15-19 yrs), |
| | |Adolescents' risk activities, risk hierarchies | |which identifies 26 activities assessed by respondents as of varying degrees of riskiness or dangerousness. |
| | |and the influence of religiosity. | |Analysis associating personal risk assessment and risk activity across the sample reveals clusters of 5 groups |
| | |Journal of Youth Studies, 4, 279-297. | |of activity and associated risk behaviors by perceived degrees of risk (in the Risk Activity by Personal Risk |
| | | | |Assessment [RAPRA] index). The RAPRA index reflects the generally held hierarchies of risk and taps into |
| | | | |adolescent sociocultural constructs of risk and of risky behavior. The investigation of internal group meanings|
| | | | |of risk helps explain the adolescent "logic" of risk taking, and its association with values, beliefs and |
| | | | |normative frameworks. Findings indicate high levels of participation in a range of risky activities across the |
| | | | |sample as a whole. These findings are striking because the sample was weighted to include churchgoing youth, |
| | | | |and to investigate the impact of religiousity on risk taking. Comparison of the risk hierarchies of young |
| | | | |people characterized as having a high level of religosity with the rest of the sample demonstrate very clearly |
| | | | |the inhibition which religious beliefs and commitment have on risk taking. |
| | | | |Note 1: The Index of Religiosity has shown that high levels of religiosity are signi.cantly correlated with the|
| | | | |inhibition of risk-taking behaviour with regard to all activities studied except those which appear to have no |
| | | | |‘moral’ connotations—eating disorders and sunbaking without a sunscreen. |
| | | | |Note 2: Reference may be useful |
|245 | |Fehr, B., & Harasymchuk, C. (2005).The |Fehr & Harasymchuk, 2005 |We propose that the study of emotion in close relationships may be advanced through an integration of the |
| | |experience of emotion in close relationships: | |emotion-in-relationships model (ERM) with interpersonal script models. In two studies, we tested the hypothesis|
| | |Toward an integration of the | |that people experience emotion when expected patterns of relating are disrupted. We also predicted that the |
| | |emotion-in-relationships and interpersonal | |kinds of events that are perceived as disruptive, and the concomitant emotional response, would depend on the |
| | |script models. | |relationship context. The results indicated that emotional reactions do vary, depending on the type of |
| | |Personal Relationships, 12, 181-196. | |relationship in which emotion is experienced. A key finding was that when an individual expresses |
| | | | |dissatisfaction, a neglect response from a romantic partner is associated with more negative emotion than a |
| | | | |neglect response from a friend. Implications of this finding are discussed. We conclude that interpersonal |
| | | | |script models can be fruitfully incorporated into the ERM. |
|246 | |Barsky, R. B., Juster, F. T., Kimball, M. S., &| |Supposedly on religion and risk |
| | |Shapiro, M. D. (1997). | | |
| | |Preference parameters and behavioral | | |
| | |heterogeneity: An experimental | | |
| | |approach in the Health and Retirement Study. | | |
| | |Quarterly Journal of | | |
| | |Economics, 112, 537−579. | | |
|247 | |Morrongiello, B. A., Lasenby-Lessard, J., & | |This study explored whether elementary-school children show consistency in risk taking across two tasks that |
| | |Corbett, M. (2009). Children’s risk taking in a| |tap different domains, a balance beam task and an Iowa gambling task. Children 7–12 years of age completed |
| | |gambling task and injury-risk situation: | |these tasks, along with a measure of sensation seeking. Exploring relations across measures revealed |
| | |Evidence for domain specificity in risk | |independence in children’s performance on each task, suggesting domain specificity in children’s risk taking |
| | |decisions. Personality and Individual | |decision making. Sensation seeking scores positively correlated with physical risk taking on the beam task but |
| | |Differences, 46, 298-302. | |did not relate to risk taking on the gambling task. The pattern of these results suggests that children’s risk |
| | | | |taking is domain specific, with sensation seeking relating to some aspects of risk taking but not others. |
| | | | |Implications for future research are discussed. |
|248 | |Caffray, C. M., & Schneider, S. L. (2000). Why | |Examined the role of several affective motivators across low and high experience groups to determine their |
| | |do they do it? Affective motivators in | |perceived influence on the desire to participate in each of 5 risky behaviors (drinking alcohol, using drugs, |
| | |adolescents' decisions to participate in risk | |having sex, smoking cigarettes, and skipping school). The affective motivators included those that: promote |
| | |behaviours. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 543-576.| |risky behaviors by enhancing pleasant affective states, promote risky behaviors by reducing or avoiding |
| | | | |negative affective states, and deter risky behaviors by avoiding anticipated regret. 55 adolescents comprised |
| | | | |the high experience group (mean age 16.59 yrs), and 59 were in the low experience group (mean age 16 yrs). |
| | | | |Results show that the perceived motivational strength of the affective goals differed substantially between low|
| | | | |and high experience groups and across the different risky behaviors. Adolescents with less experience were much|
| | | | |more focused on avoiding the negative affective consequences associated with regretting unfavorable future |
| | | | |outcomes. In contrast, adolescents with more experience participating in a risky behavior held stronger beliefs|
| | | | |that participation in the behavior could both enhance positive and reduce negative affective states. The |
| | | | |authors describe how the perceived importance of these motives varies across the risky behaviors. |
| | |Bourne, A. H., & Robson, M. A. (2009). | |Couples in emotionally safe hetero- and homosexual relationships engage in more unprotected sex. |
|249 | |Perceiving risk and (re)constructing safety: | | |
| | |The lived experience of having ‘safe' sex. | | |
| | |Health, Risk & Society, 11, 283-295. | | |
|250 | |Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1996). Friendship | |The banker's paradox is a metaphor for a common life situation among hunter-gatherers. When you desperately | | |
| | |and the banker’s paradox: Other pathways to the| |need a loan, the bank doesn't want to give you one because you are a bad credit risk. But when you are in good | | |
| | |evolution of adaptations for altruism. In W. G.| |shape and don't really need a loan, the bank is happy to give you one. It is not a paradox for the banker of | | |
| | |Runciman, J. Maynard Smith, & R. I. M. Dunbar | |course, but for the person who is in need. In a world governed by reciprocation alone, how can one get help | | |
| | |(Eds.), Evolution of social behaviour patterns | |when one is in desperate ned and is therefore a bad "credit risk"? In Friendship and the Banker's Paradox, we | | |
| | |in primates and Man. Proceedings of the British| |propose that there was selection for deep engagement relationships, with specific properties, as a form of | | |
| | |Academy, 88, 119-143. | |insurance against times of desperate need. | | |
|251 | |DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009). The | | | | |
| | |alliance hypothesis for human friendship. PLoS | | | | |
| | |ONE, 4, e5802. | | | | |
|252 | |Wrangham, R. (1999). Is military incompetence | |Military engagements are categorized as raids or battles, according to whether one or both sides has the | | |
| | |adaptive? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, | |opportunity to assess the other. In raids, assessment appears to be accurate. This means that aggressors | | |
| | |3-17. | |experience low costs, which allows violence to be adaptive. A commonly reported reason for battles, by | | |
| | | | |contrast, is a failure of assessment: both opponents hold positive illusions and believe they will win. This | | |
| | | | |article asks why this form of battle incompetence occurs. Explanations in terms of individual anomaly or | | |
| | | | |cognitive constraints appear unsatisfactory. Here, I propose two mechanisms by which positive illusions tend to| | |
| | | | |promote victory. First, according to the Performance Enhancement Hypothesis, they suppress negative thoughts or| | |
| | | | |feelings. This applies to both raids and battles. Second, the Opponent-Deception Hypothesis suggests that | | |
| | | | |positive illusions increase the probability of a successful bluff. This applies only to battles. Military | | |
| | | | |incompetence is proposed to be the result of adaptive strategies of self-deception, which unfortunately promote| | |
| | | | |an increased intensity of violence. | | |
| | | | |KQ: Might this have reference to how smaller armies win bigger armies through coalitions? Not really, sadly. | | |
| | |Fitzhugh, E.L., & Fjelline, D. P. (1997). Puma | | |
| | |behaviors during encounters with humans and | | |
| | |appropriate human responses. In W. D. Padley | | |
| | |(Ed.), Proceedings of the fifth mountain lion | | |
| | |workshop (pp. 26-28). San Diego, CA: The | | |
| | |Wildlife Society. | | |
| | |Aklin, W. M., Lejuez, C. W., Zvolensky, M. J., | | |
| | |Kahlerc, C. W., & Gwadzd, M. (2005). Evaluation| | |
| | |of behavioural measures of risk taking | | |
| | |propensity with inner city adolescents. | | |
| | |Behaviour Research and Therapy, 43, 215-228. | | |
| | |doi:10.1016/j.brat.2003.12.007 | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- sample character reference letter
- why is reference important
- free excel quick reference sheet
- reference cited page example
- wells fargo application reference number
- dietary reference intakes
- apa reference example
- personal character reference letter template
- character reference letter for a friend
- examples of character reference letters
- hospice eligibility quick reference guide
- reference sheet 6th grade