Heavy episodic drinking is linked with poorer academic performance, injury, and risk behaviors among college students. Understanding the cognitive and motivational factors that influence self-control of alcohol use is critical to identifying students' risk factors and developing interventions. Dual process models characterize alcohol use patterns as a function of automatic appetitive responses to alcohol-related stimuli and executive control functions. These processes may be influenced by contextual cues such as mood. The present research sought to better understand the cognitive-motivational mechanisms through which an established contextual cue for drinking - positive mood - influences alcohol use. Two studies examined the influence of positive mood induction on undergraduate drinkers' approach biases for alcohol cues and executive functioning using established and modified Stimulus Response Compatibility Tasks (SRC). Undergraduates who used alcohol at least once in the past month were recruited from the introductory psychology subject pool and randomized to positive or neutral mood induction conditions to determine whether positive mood: (1) increased approach bias or (2) impaired efforts to control alcohol cue responses. Prior to mood induction, participants completed individual difference measures related to alcohol use to evaluate potential moderators. Experiment 1 (N=93) examined post-induction alcohol approach bias and approach response inhibition using a stop-signal task within SRCs. Those in the positive mood condition did not exhibit greater approach bias or less inhibition, and mood effects were not moderated by individual differences as hypothesized. Experiment 2 (N=141) examined the influence of mood on approach bias and the ability to reverse established SRC responses to alcohol cues, with a pre-induction SRC to control for baseline approach biases. Again, positive mood did not significantly influence alcohol approach bias or executive control. Discussion: Results did not support positive mood influences on cognitive-motivational processes associated with drinking. The absence of mood effects may be a function of the type of positive mood induced or sensitivity of the SRC to detect alcohol-specific approach bias in this population. Future studies should explore these processes using alternate measures of alcohol-specific approach bias, response inhibition, and mood states that may be more specific to drinking.

Abstract This research investigated the extent to which taking notes influenced the quality of mock jurors’ decisions. High quality decisions were defined in this research as those which did not reflect the influence of the offender stereotype. The impact of note taking on the quality of jurors’ decisions is central to the judicial community’s concerns about note taking as a jury aid and their willingness to offer it in trial contexts. Previous research has argued that note takers make better quality decisions than non-note takers because note takers recall more trial content and make judgements that better reflect the evidence presented. However, according to dual process models of persuasion, high quality decisions should show evidence of both effortful processing of information and no influence of peripheral cues, such as stereotypes. To date, the existing literature has neglected to consider the extent to which note takers, as compared to non-note takers, are influenced by peripheral cues. The current research sought to address this by investigating the extent to which note taking and non-note taking mock jurors were influenced by stereotypes when making decisions in a mock criminal trial. In particular, note taking and non-note taking mock jurors were presented with a criminal trial in which either a male or female defendant had been charged with a stereotypically masculine crime (e.g., aggravated robbery or murder). The extent to which mock jurors were more likely to convict the male defendant and acquit the female defendant was used as a marker of the extent that stereotypes about offenders influenced participants in these studies. Across studies, note takers’ perceptions of guilt, evaluation of the defendant, and, in some instances, recall of trial content, reflected stereotype-based processing while the corresponding measures for non-note takers did not. This research then went on to investigate why note takers were more vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than non-note takers. It was proposed that one reason might be the requirement that note takers simultaneously record and evaluate trial content. Previous research has shown that persons engaged in dual tasks rely on stereotypes to increase information processing efficiency and are therefore able to re-direct cognitive resources to the additional task. Consistent with previous studies, the current research found that both note takers and mock jurors engaged in an additional task during the trial were more vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than non-note takers. Furthermore, whilst investigating interventions designed to reduce the influence of stereotypes on note takers’ decisions, results revealed that such interventions were less successful in improving decision quality than interventions that removed the requirement to engage in dual tasks. In particular, the influence of stereotypes was reduced when note takers were encouraged to elaborate on the content of their notes during designated review periods. Whilst methodological features of this research program--namely a reliance on student samples and the relative brevity of mock trials used--may have led to an underestimation of the reliance on stereotypes for note takers, the research has implications for the instructions given to jurors about note taking in judicial contexts. Specifically, the central conclusion of the thesis is that it would seem prudent to amend instructions to direct note takers to engage in the effortful review of their notes prior to coming together to reach a verdict.

Abstract This research investigated the extent to which taking notes influenced the quality of mock jurors’ decisions. High quality decisions were defined in this research as those which did not reflect the influence of the offender stereotype. The impact of note taking on the quality of jurors’ decisions is central to the judicial community’s concerns about note taking as a jury aid and their willingness to offer it in trial contexts. Previous research has argued that note takers make better quality decisions than non-note takers because note takers recall more trial content and make judgements that better reflect the evidence presented. However, according to dual process models of persuasion, high quality decisions should show evidence of both effortful processing of information and no influence of peripheral cues, such as stereotypes. To date, the existing literature has neglected to consider the extent to which note takers, as compared to non-note takers, are influenced by peripheral cues. The current research sought to address this by investigating the extent to which note taking and non-note taking mock jurors were influenced by stereotypes when making decisions in a mock criminal trial. In particular, note taking and non-note taking mock jurors were presented with a criminal trial in which either a male or female defendant had been charged with a stereotypically masculine crime (e.g., aggravated robbery or murder). The extent to which mock jurors were more likely to convict the male defendant and acquit the female defendant was used as a marker of the extent that stereotypes about offenders influenced participants in these studies. Across studies, note takers’ perceptions of guilt, evaluation of the defendant, and, in some instances, recall of trial content, reflected stereotype-based processing while the corresponding measures for non-note takers did not. This research then went on to investigate why note takers were more vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than non-note takers. It was proposed that one reason might be the requirement that note takers simultaneously record and evaluate trial content. Previous research has shown that persons engaged in dual tasks rely on stereotypes to increase information processing efficiency and are therefore able to re-direct cognitive resources to the additional task. Consistent with previous studies, the current research found that both note takers and mock jurors engaged in an additional task during the trial were more vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes than non-note takers. Furthermore, whilst investigating interventions designed to reduce the influence of stereotypes on note takers’ decisions, results revealed that such interventions were less successful in improving decision quality than interventions that removed the requirement to engage in dual tasks. In particular, the influence of stereotypes was reduced when note takers were encouraged to elaborate on the content of their notes during designated review periods. Whilst methodological features of this research program--namely a reliance on student samples and the relative brevity of mock trials used--may have led to an underestimation of the reliance on stereotypes for note takers, the research has implications for the instructions given to jurors about note taking in judicial contexts. Specifically, the central conclusion of the thesis is that it would seem prudent to amend instructions to direct note takers to engage in the effortful review of their notes prior to coming together to reach a verdict.

Persuasive appeals posted to United States presidential candidates’ YouTube videos were coded using a grounded theory mixed-methods design. 37,562 comments about education, energy, Iraq, health care, the economy, and the presidential debates were randomly collected by date and time for three studies using coding analysis: pilot, presidential primaries, and the presidential election. Seven argument types were identified and theoretically refined according to dual process models of persuasion: reason-based, candidate-based, emotion-based, endorsements, enthusiasmheuristic, other-interest and self-interest. Theoretical comparisons and hypothesis testing of argument types were conducted by issue and election event. Consistent with impression involvement, reason-based appeals were more frequent during the primaries, whereas consistent with value and outcome involvement, emotion- and candidate-based appeals were more frequent during the election.