Search

A low response rate in surveys makes the research more expensive and time consuming, but it also, or even more importantly, constitutes a major methodological problem. Therefore, researchers use all kinds of measures in order to increase the response rate. This article describes four experiments (three field studies and one on-line experiment) designed to test a specific technique intended for this purpose. The technique consists in suggesting, to a respondent, that the study requires individuals with a certain rare quality that they have. In the case of the first study, which was conducted during the pandemic, respondents were told that it required people wearing exactly the type of face mask as theirs (or people without a face mask). In the second study, tall people were asked to complete a survey. Some of them were told right away that only tall individuals were considered suitable candidates for the study. In both cases, this technique significantly improved the response rate. However, the employed technique proved ineffective in both Study 3 and Study 4. In these instances, participants likely perceived that their refusal wouldn’t pose any inconvenience to the researchers. Consequently, we can posit that the efficacy of the ’we are looking for people like you’ social influence technique hinges on respondents feeling compelled to respond affirmatively to the research invitation. The assumption is that declining may potentially create challenges for the researchers, prompting a sense of obligation among participants.

Two experiments tested the effectiveness of an egotistic trap, a social influence technique based on the premise that people agree to requests that align with their desirable qualities. In the first experiment, people were asked to participate in a survey-based study. In the control conditions (standard request), approx. 32.7% said yes. Yet, when it was mentioned that intelligent individuals were sought after and the subject appeared intelligent, the percentage became 52.4%. The second experiment aimed to persuade car owners to have their cars inspected at an official service station. Of the participants, 56.7% agreed in the standard conditions. However, when the phrase ‘studies show that sensible customers have their cars inspected at official service stations’ was included, it became 71.7%.

Unrealistic optimism bias appears when a person perceives oneself – in comparison to peers – as less at risk from threats. This bias has been widely reported and the consequences are clear: it puts one’s health in danger. The existing body of literature proposes egocentrism as a mechanism leading to a reduction in this bias. The present paper tests a novel mechanism orienting a person toward others – thus linked with egocentrism – i.e., mimicry. Results showed directly opposing effects: mimicry induced a stronger tendency to perceive oneself as less threatened. This result is not only surprising but especially alarming since mimicry may be used in patient-doctor dialogue which may backfire, leading to resistance to medical recommendations provided by the doctor.

Background To date, there is a lack of measures for capturing a broad spectrum of psychophysiological stress reactions that can be administered on a daily basis and in different contexts. A need for such a measure is especially salient in settings where stress processes can unfold momentarily and substantially fluctuate daily. Therefore, the main aim of the current study was to develop and validate the Daily Stress Response Scale (DSRS), an instrument capturing a broad spectrum of psycho-physiological stress reactions that can be administered in real time and in different contexts. Participants and procedure The study was conducted in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Participants were 7228 (81% female) Polish university students. The data were collected anonymously through self-completion questionnaires. The DSRS was subject to confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Results The DSRS is a 30-item, easy-to-use stress response measure with excellent psychometric properties. Based on CFA results, the scale consists of two subscales, psychological and physiological stress response, which form associations with related external criteria. Conclusions The DSRS is a reliable and valid measure of psychological and physiological stress reactions that can be used to assess the stress response to daily stressors, including those of an acute nature, such as a crisis, trauma, or surgery.

Experiments on obedience to authority conducted under the paradigm developed by Milgram have demonstrated that empathy plays either no or a very limited role in determining participants' behaviors. This study proposes that this occurs due to participants empathizing with both “learners” and experimenters. Empathy with learners makes participants withdraw from the experiment, while empathy with experimenters makes them continue. Therefore, the more that participants are characterized by dispositional empathy, the more they are reluctant to hurt learners but, at the same time, the more they try not to disappoint experimenters. This study investigates the effects of empathy being situationally directed toward learners. After manipulating the alleged similarities between “teachers” and “learners” in terms of crucial attitudes and values, the degree to which teachers obeyed experimenters and were willing to electrocute learners was measured. The results confirm that situationally directed empathy reduces participants' obedience to experimenters.

Numerous experiments have proven that mimicry is highly beneficial (mainly to the mimicker but also to the mimickee). Some studies have shown initial data suggesting the potential of applying this knowledge to business settings. In the present paper we unpack this issue in two ways. First, by presenting potential benefits stemming from mimicry for the mimicking dyad, and second for the business environment represented by the mimicker. Two consecutive studies: a Pretest and a Main Experiment run in natural settings showed great potential in improving the assessments of quality of service provided by verbally mimicking (or not). The results of both studies showed that mimicry offers benefits for the mimicker (increased employee kindness and employee evaluation), and also spillover to the organization/company represented by the mimicking employee (increased opinion of and willingness to return to the shop/hotel). Future research directions and limitations are discussed.

Within different populations and at various stages of the pandemic, it has been demonstrated that individuals believe they are less likely to become infected than their average peer. This is known as comparative optimism and it has been one of the reproducible effects in social psychology. However, in previous and even the most recent studies, researchers often neglected to consider unbiased individuals and inspect the differences between biased and unbiased individuals. In a mini meta-analysis of six studies (Study 1), we discovered that unbiased individuals have lower vaccine intention than biased ones. In two pre-registered, follow-up studies, we aimed at testing the reproducibility of this phenomenon and its explanations. In Study 2 we replicated the main effect and found no evidence for differences in psychological control between biased and unbiased groups. In Study 3 we also replicated the effect and found that realists hold more centric views on the trade-offs between threats from getting vaccinated and getting ill. We discuss the interpretation and implication of our results in the context of the academic and lay-persons' views on rationality. We also put forward empirical and theoretical arguments for considering unbiased individuals as a separate phenomenon in the domain of self–others comparisons.

Unrealistic Optimism (UO) appears when comparing participants’ risk estimates for themselves with an average peer, which typically results in lower risk estimates for the self. This article reports nuanced effects when comparison varies in terms of the gender of the peer. In three studies (total N = 2,468, representative sample), we assessed people’s risk estimates for COVID-19 infections for peers with the same or other gender. If a peer’s gender is not taken into account, previous studies were replicated: Compared with others, participants perceived themselves as less likely to get infected with COVID-19. Interestingly, this effect was qualified by gender: Respondents perceived women as less threatened than men because women are perceived as more cautious and compliant with medical guidelines.

This paper joins an effort to build a relational approach to law practice by testing mimicry as a vehicle for building trust in a legal context. Mimicry research indicates that this phenomenon leads to benefits, like greater trust, willingness to help, and satisfaction from interactions, which shows a potential for practical applications in, for example, a legal context. In two experiments conducted in the natural setting of a legal company, the tendency to trust the mimicker on a yet unresearched and deep level, namely putting one's legal future and security in the hands of an attorney, was measured. Both experiments consistently showed a greater tendency to give legal representation to an attorney when she verbally (Experiment #1) as well as both verbally and nonverbally (Experiment #2) mimicked the client. This paper explores the potential of applying mimicry in a legal service environment, focusing on fostering cooperation in professional conversations. Furthermore, the study contributes to the existing literature on mimicry by examining its effect on trust. Possible dangers, future studies and limitations are also discussed.

Using a network approach, we addressed in two studies interrelations among potential antecedents of vaccine intentions, related to both COVID-19 risk perception and epistemic beliefs (i.e., trust in scientists and conspiracy beliefs). In Study 1 and 2, we assessed a US (N = 994) and an international sample (N = 902) during spring and summer 2020. The network analysis reveals a complex interplay of factors where trust in scientists, the closest predictor of vaccine intention, is associated with conspiracy beliefs and danger perception. Furthermore, we found evidence for unrealistic optimism, with participants perceiving the risk of getting infected with COVID-19 as lower compared to the risk they attributed to other people. However, this bias was not associated with vaccine intention. Study 2 corroborated these results. The results call for a global change in the narrative which should highlight the epistemic authority of science in order to build a stronger trust in the scientific community. However, tackling trust in scientists needs a wider field of persuasion that includes conspiracy beliefs and risk perception factors.

In this article, we focus on how people resolve the dilemma between honest feedback and a prosocial lie depending on the context. In a pre-registered study (N = 455), we asked participants to choose between telling the blatant truth or lying prosocially regarding a dish made poorly by a stranger. The results showed that participants were most eager to pass on overly positive feedback when the stranger cared about cooking and was very sensitive to negative feedback. Perceived harm in truth telling mediated the relationship between desire to excel in a task with high ability to handle failure and choosing a prosocial lie.

Numerous studies on unrealistic optimism (UO) have shown that people claim they are less exposed to COVID-19 infection than others. Yet, it has not been assessed if this bias evolves; does it escalate or diminish when the information about the threat changes? The present paper fills this gap. For 12 months 120 participants estimated their own and their peers’ risk of COVID-19 infection. Results show that UO regarding COVID-19 infection is an enduring phenomenon–It was the dominant tendency throughout almost the entire study and was never substituted by Unrealistic Pessimism. While the presence of UO-bias was constant, its magnitude changed. We tested possible predictors of these changes: the daily new cases/deaths, the changes in governmental restrictions and the mobility of participants’ community. Out of these predictors, only changes in governmental restrictions proved to be significant- when the restrictions tightened, UO increased.

Background: The research focused on the relationships between attitudes towards vaccination and the trust placed in different sources of information (science, experts and the information available on the Internet) before and during COVID-19. Method: A longitudinal design was applied with the first measurement in February 2018 (N = 1039). The second measurement (N = 400) was carried out in December 2020 to test if the pandemic influenced the trust in different sources of information. Results: The final analyses carried out on final sample of 400 participants showed that there has been no change in trust in the Internet as a source of knowledge about health during the pandemic. However, the trust in science, physicians, subjective health knowledge, as well as the attitude towards the vaccination has declined. Regression analysis also showed that changes in the level of trust in physicians and science were associated with analogous (in the same direction) changes in attitudes toward vaccination. The study was also focused on the trust in different sources of health knowledge as possible predictors of willingness to be vaccinated against SARS-nCoV-2. However, it appeared that the selected predictors explained a small part of the variance. This suggests that attitudes toward the new COVID vaccines may have different sources than attitudes toward vaccines that have been known to the public for a long time.

Considering the large number of adverts inundating the average consumer every day, the marketing industry is seeking methods to reach clients in a more subtle manner than traditional marketing messages. One such tool is product placement. The article addresses issues of effectiveness of product placement in comparison to a traditional commercial. The objective of the study was to check how participants would recall the content of persuasive messages in conditions of artificially inducted cognitive load (in conditions of traditional advertisement and product placement). Two studies were conducted – a pre-study intended to assess the usefulness of the selected stimuli, and the main experiment. The experiment devoted to this question was planned using an ANOVA scheme 2 (Type of advert: traditional vs. product placement) × 2 (neutral conditions vs. cognitive load). It turned out that the commercial was better retained in neutral conditions than in conditions of cognitive load. The traditional commercial was remembered better than product placement. From the perspective of the study’s ecological validity, of importance is also comparison of retention of brands viewed in a traditional commercial in conditions of cognitive load with retention of brands in conditions of product placement without load. These comparisons indicate the superiority of product placement – brands presented in this manner were more frequently recalled by viewers.

The article presents studies examining whether the better than average (BTA) effect appears in opinions regarding obedience of individuals participating in an experiment conducted in the Milgram paradigm. Participants are presented with a detailed description of the experiment, asked to declare at what moment an average participant would cease their participation in the study, and then asked to declare at what moment they themselves would quit the experiment. It turned out that the participants demonstrated a strong BTA effect. This effect also concerned those who had known the results of the Milgram experiment prior to the study. Interestingly, those individuals—in contrast to naive participants—judged that the average person would remain obedient for longer, but at the same time prior familiarity with the Milgram experiment did not impact convictions as to own obedience. By the same token, the BTA effect size was larger among those who had previously heard of the Milgram experiment than those who had not. Additionally, study participants were asked to estimate the behavior of the average resident of their country (Poland), as well as of average residents of several other European countries. It turned out that in participants’ judgment the average Pole would withdraw from the experiment quicker than the average Russian and average German, but later than average residents of France and England.

AbstractCutting the message into smaller portions is a common practice in the media. Typically such messages consist of a headline followed by a story elaboration. In a series of studies Dolinski and Kofta (2001) have shown that such a break in the message increases the effect of the information provided in the headline over that of a story which actually contained information inconsistent with that headline. A possible explanation of this effect, based on the concept of the need for cognitive closure, is presented in the article. The experiment shows the break-in-the-message effect is found mainly for participants with high need for closure but not for those with low such need.