This study investigated the influence of chronological age and stimuli on the explanations of "same" and "different" by young children. Seventy children, between by young children. the ages of three-years, six-months and nine-years, six-months, selected on the basis of chronological age, normal speech and language development, and normal verbal maturity, were involved as subjects. A test consisting of a series of verbal tasks was administered to each child. The experimenter recorded and later analyzed and classified all responses for each child, following specific guidelines for judging appropriateness of response and assigning each appropriate response to one of three classifications.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The present investigation tested the prediction that effortless control processing, the deliberate activation of innate automatic encoding mechanisms, will enable nondepressed persons to accurately judge degree of control. Subjective judgment of control in nondepressed students was examined by a modification of the method developed by Jenkins and Ward (1965). The modification was based on Hasher and Zacks' (1979) version of the method. Several measures were used to assess students' representations of control. Students were asked to judge the degree of control their responses had over outcomes rather than the degree of contingency between responses and outcomes. To facilitate comparison of prior studies on the judgment of contingency with the present study, Jenkins and Ward's (1965) index of the actual degree of control was used. Their index used the magnitude of the difference between the conditional probability of an outcome given the occurrence of one response versus the conditional probability of the outcome given the occurrence of another response as representing degree of control or contingency. In this experiment, students instructed in effortful control processing and effortless control processing were presented with a series of problems in which there was no contingency between their responses and outcomes. The problems differed in the degree of favorable outcome frequency. Students' abilities to detect noncontingency between responses and outcomes under different conditions of outcome frequency was examined.

Passions flare up around the use and “misuse” of prescriptive rules. Where there is variation in language use, language judgment usually follows—attaching value judgment to linguistic variants forms the foundation of prescriptive ideology in English. Prescriptive attitudes prevail among speakers and writers of English, who feel some pressure to use these forms to avoid a negative judgment. This study surveyed American English speakers using Mechanical Turk to determine which types of rules—spelling, syntactic, morphological, and lexical—bother people the most and inspire the harshest judgments when violated. The surveys asked participants to identify a violated prescriptive rule in a sentence, found using the magazine and newspaper registers of the Corpus of Contemporary American English, and then to indicate how much they were bothered by the violation. Results indicated that lexical rules separating subtle semantic differences—i.e. farther vs. further, comprise vs. compose—tend to be less bothersome and less recognizable than other types of rules. However, the type of category that a prescriptive rules falls under does not seem to explain why some rules are more bothersome or recognizable than others. It may be possible to generalize by assuming that lexical prescriptive rules will be less important to a general educated American audience than spelling or grammar rules, and that nonstandard dialectal forms will be even more bothersome. However, the ability to generalize these results is limited: there is some evidence for a “pet-peeve” effect. Individuals seem to simply be bothered by different rules, without strong patterns showing some types of rules sharply more important than others. Additionally other prescriptive rules, including those regarding nauseous and dove as the past tense of dive, were more recognizable and bothersome in their prescribed form than their proscribed, providing evidence for semantic shifts.

Unexpected events, particularly those creating surprise, interrupt ongoing mental and behavioral processes, creating an increased potential for unwanted outcomes to the situation. Human reactions to unexpected events vary. One can hypothesize a number of reasons for this variation, including level of domain expertise, previous experience with similar events, emotional connotation, and the contextual surround of the event. Whereas interrupting ongoing activities and focusing attention temporarily on a surprising event may be a useful evolutionary response to a threatening situation, the same process may be maladaptive in today's highly dynamic world. The purpose of this study was to investigate how different aspects of expertise affected one's ability to detect and react to an unexpected event. It was hypothesized that there were two general types of expertise, domain expertise and judgment (Hammond, 2000), which influenced one's performance on dealing with an unexpected event. The goal of the research was to parse out the relative contribution of domain expertise, so the role of judgment could be revealed. The research questions for this study were: (a) Can we identify specific knowledges and skills which enhance one's ability to deal with unexpected events? (b) Are these skills "automatically" included in domain expertise? (c) How does domain expertise improve or deter one's reaction and response to unexpected events? (d) What role does judgment play in responding to surprise? The general hypothesis was that good judgment would influence the process of surprise at different stages and in different ways than would domain expertise. The conclusions from this research indicated that good judgment had a significant positive effect in helping pilots deal with unexpected events. This was most pronounced when domain expertise was low.

A Predictor Response Process model (see Ployhart, 2006) and research findings were leveraged to formulate research questions about, and generate construct validity evidence for, a new situational judgment test (SJT) designed to measure declarative and strategic knowledge. The first question asked if SJT response instructions (i.e., 'Should Do', 'Would Do') moderated the validity of an SJT in a maximum performance context. The second question asked what the upper-bound criterion-related validity coefficient is for SJTs in talent selection contexts in which typical performance is the criterion of interest. The third question asked whether the SJT used in the present study was fair for gender and ethnic-based subgroups according to Cleary's (1968) definition of test fairness. Participants were randomly assigned to complete an SJT with either 'Should Do' or 'Would Do' response instructions and their maximum decision making performance outcomes were captured during a moderate fidelity poker simulation. The findings of this study suggested knowledge, as measured by the SJT, interacted with response instructions when predicting aggregate and average performance outcomes such that the 'Should Do' SJT had stronger criterion-related validity coefficients than the 'Would Do' version. The findings also suggested the uncorrected upper-bound criterion-related validity coefficient for SJTs in selection contexts is at least moderate to strong ([beta] = .478). Moreover, the SJT was fair according to Cleary's definition of test fairness. The implications of these findings are discussed.

This study replicated and extended an earlier study by Banki and Latham (2010) and developed an equivalent SJT and SI in order to examine whether the two methods correlated differently with cognitive ability, personality, job experience, and job performance. The results of this study showed that the SJT and SI only correlated .20 and that the correlations for the SI with Extraversion, customer service experience, and overall work experience were significantly different from the correlations for the SJT. Participants felt that the SJT and SI provided the same opportunity to perform one’s skills and level of scoring consistency. However, participants felt significantly more anxiety during the SI than the SJT. The practical and theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

With the onset of COVID-19 and the anti-Asian bias that has followed, there is growing importance in creating empirically valid measures of racial prejudice. In general, there has been limited research on workplace experiences for Asian Americans, despite this group being one of the fastest-growing racial minorities in the United States. Existing measures of prejudice can be susceptible to social desirability response biases, as they tend to focus on more cognitive and affective components of attitudes, rather than behavioral expectations. The goal of this study was to develop and provide initial validation for a behavior-based measure of racial prejudice called the East Asian American Situational Judgment Test (EAA-SJT). SJTs are designed to test behavioral judgments through context-based, realistic scenarios and close-ended plausible response options (Weekley & Ployhart, 2013; Whetzel et al., 2020). There has been some evidence that SJTs measuring latent constructs may produce stronger predictive accuracy of criteria compared to traditionally used, context-independent Likert scale measures (Peus et al., 2013; Teng et al., 2020). These traditional measures, often in the form of cognitive/affective survey questions around racial attitudes, can often lead to higher instances of social desirability response bias (Huddy & Feldman, 2009; Weber et al., 2014), in which participants may not answer questions truthfully due to social concerns. The themes for the EAA-SJT scenarios and response options were based on microaggression research on Asian Americans from Sue et al., (2007a), and the proposed factor structure was predicated on research from Hauenstein et al., (2014), who were the first to develop SJTs measuring latent prejudicial attitudes toward African Americans and women. To provide initial evidence for the validity of the EAA-SJT, 400 participants from a Qualtrics survey panel completed a 20-minute online survey consisting of demographics, the initial 35-item EAA-SJT, the Asian American Stereotypes scale to test for convergent validity, the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scale to test for discriminant validity, and two locally developed criterion measures to test for criterion-related validity. Results from the exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) provided evidence for a three-factor solution of Challenging, Ambivalence, and Reinforcing microaggressions. There was promising initial validity evidence for the EAA-SJT and evidence towards the incremental validity of the EAA-SJT over existing cognitive/affective measures. Next steps include building off the EFA results from this study and conducting a confirmatory factor analysis to finalize the EAA-SJT. Overall, microaggressions and other forms of racial biases in the workplace can have implications on employee well-being, as well as mental and physical health outcomes. The availability of different types of measurement tools such as the EAA-SJT may allow researchers to better understand prejudicial attitudes towards Asian Americans. / M.S. / Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, there was a noted rise in anti-Asian hate crimes and instances of discrimination against Asian Americans (Jeung et al., 2021, Levin, 2021, Ruiz et al., 2020). This study aims to develop and provide initial validation for a measure of racial prejudice against East Asian Americans. This measure, the East Asian American Situational Judgement Test (EAA-SJT), provided scenarios of microaggressions against East Asian Americans along with four response options of behavioral expectations in reaction to those scenarios. The EAA-SJT can be taken by a member of any racial group and reframes the focus on the attitudes of those who potentially engage in microaggressions rather than only those who are affected by it. Preliminary evidence was found in support of the validity of the EAA-SJT.