|
| Contingencies |
| Monday, May 31, 2004 |
| 2:30 PM–3:20 PM |
| Beacon D |
| Area: EAB |
| Chair: Philip K. Lehman (Virginia Tech) |
| |
| Jury Studies in Social Psychology: Guess What, Consequences Matter |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| JEFFREY N. WEATHERLY (University of North Dakota), Karyn Plumm (University of North Dakota), Cheryl Terrance (University of North Dakota) |
| |
| Abstract: Mock-jury studies are common in the field of social psychology. Those studies, however, tend to focus on the evidence or instructions that are provided to the "jurors" and ignore the natural consequences that real jurors face. Ignoring such consequences may be a critical mistake if they play a role in determining the jurors' behavior (i.e., their decisions). The present study had participants read a contrived trial transcript of a sexual harassment trial and then render a verdict as to whether or not (and to what degree) the defendant was guilty. Prior to making their decision, participants were informed that they would have to subsequently discuss their verdicts with each other, with an individual previously accused of sexual harassment, with a prior victim of sexual harassment, or with no one (i.e., a no-consequence control group). Results showed that participants' verdicts varied significantly as a function of consequence. These results indicate that the field of social psychology is largely ignoring important variables relevant to its topic matter. The results also call into question the validity of jury simulations that have ignored consequences. |
| |
| Reciprocity vs. the Three-term Contingency: Two Tests of the Impact of Reward Timing on Behavior |
| Domain: Applied Research |
| PHILIP K. LEHMAN (Virginia Tech), E. Scott Geller (Virginia Tech), Nathan Elstein (Virginia Tech), Takashi Hirota (Virginia Tech) |
| |
| Abstract: Social psychologists have noted that compliance strategies based on the social norm of reciprocity can be an effective tool for changing behavior. While behavior change strategies based on the three-term contingency offer a reward after a behavior is completed, a strategy based on reciprocity presents the reward first in the form of a gift. Although there are no explicit contingencies attached to the gift, a sense of obligation to reciprocate may be a powerful motivator to comply with the request. Two experiments were conducted to compare the effect of a pre vs. post-behavior reward on pro-social target behaviors. Experiment 1 examined the effects of the timing and magnitude of a cash reward on compliance with a request to use a specially designed thank-you card. Experiment 2 studied the effect of reward timing on participation in a river clean-up event. In Experiment 1, compliance with the request to complete five cards was significantly higher in post-behavior reward conditions x^2 (1, N = 128) = 6.45, p < .05. In Experiment 2, a post-behavior reward resulted in higher participation in the river clean up x^2 (1, N = 31) = 5.23, p < .05. The lack of evidence for the effectiveness of pre-behavior rewards is discussed and contrasted with existing reciprocity literature. |
| |
|
| |