In this dissertation, three studies investigate how a person's beliefs about the cues that indicate deception are related to actual accuracy in detecting deception. Based on social cognition research, it was hypothesized that people with accurate beliefs about the cues that predict deception are better at detecting deception only when those beliefs are cognitively available and activated. In contrast, without activation of appropriate beliefs, detection will be no better than for those with inaccurate beliefs. Study I tested this hypothesis in a laboratory study, where participants viewed video fragments of people who are either being honest or dishonest. A questionnaire measured participants' beliefs and the activation of these beliefs was accomplished by manipulating suspicion. Study I provided clear evidence for the main hypothesis, where suspicious participants who had accurate beliefs were better at detecting deception compared to other participants. In Study II, a modified belief questionnaire was administered to 669 undergraduate participants in order to have a better understanding of the attributes of a scale that attempts to measure people's beliefs about the cues that predict deception. Study III attempted to conceptually replicate Study I in a field study. Undergraduate participants watched a video of actual passengers who either were or were not attempting to pass contraband past an experimenter. This study did not show the same pattern of results as Study I, but did show that suspicious participants were better at detecting deception. Study IV attempted to teach and activate the beliefs about cues that predict deception. Either correct or incorrect beliefs were taught to the participants and participants, involvement was manipulated. The main test of the hypothesis in this study did not show an increase in accuracy for participants who were highly involved and given the correct cues, but indirect evidence suggest that belief accuracy may be related to participant's detection accuracy.

Each year, corporate America spends millions of dollars on leadership training programs in an attempt to create more effective managers, but many specialists in this field have speculated that much of this effort is wasted. In the past ten years, a small group of researchers have been approaching this issue from a different perspective; they are looking at how leaders think and create meaning in their roles. The purpose of this study is to contribute to that growing body of research by: (a) exploring the connections between concepts of transformational and transactional leadership models as defined by James MacGregor Burns and Bernard Bass, double-loop learning, a managerial model, as defined by Chris Argyris, and social cognitive development as defined and measured by Robert Kegan and Lawrence Kohlberg; (b) investigating how workers experience a range of leadership models. Eight leaders in a mid-sized, natural food distribution company comprised the primary research sample; eighteen employees also participated in the study via informal interviews. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was used to determine the range of transformational abilities and in addition, each leader was assessed using two social cognitive tools: Robert Kegan's subject-object interview and the Defining Issues Test created by James Rest to assess moral reasoning abilities. Workers were interviewed to see how they experienced their environment and themes were culled from their responses. The results of the study suggested a relationship between the cognitive developmental level of the leaders as measured by Robert Kegan's stages and their transformational leadership abilities. Four out of five leaders used transformational skills with a fairly high degree of frequency. Worker interviews seemed to reflect a substantial degree of satisfaction with the organization. Four themes were extrapolated from the employee interviews: company as community/family, lack of hierarchy, informal atmosphere, and freedom to voice opposition. The implication of the study suggests that the ability to practice transformational leadership is strongly connected to an individual's social cognitive complexity and when this kind of leadership is practiced, the employees reported positive effects.

Research suggests that during consultation several factors may influence the successful implementation of interventions. This study specifically addresses the problem of low treatment outcome expectancies and the possible mediation of this variable. The primary question is whether it is possible to achieve greater expectancy for successful outcomes using practical methods. In this study, data were collected in two stages. The first stage incorporated an analogue condition designed to exam the possible influence of numerous factors related to the consultation process. The second set of data were collected in an applied setting while providing case consultation for students identified by their teachers as having significant problems with academic functioning. In this condition, a single variable (priming) was manipulated and then followed by a written measure of outcome expectancies. A comparison of group means between treatment and nontreatment groups indicated a significance difference (t = 2.08, one-tailed test p = .025). Priming the consultee with documentation of intervention effectiveness significantly increased positive outcome expectancies with a large magnitude of effect (g = 1.90; t = 4.23, p < .01). Although an attempt was made to test the relationship between actual outcomes and high expectancy versus low expectancy conditions, follow-up data were too sparse for thorough analysis. Unfortunately, less than a third of the teachers, targeted for follow-up, implemented the intervention. Due to the large amount of research data already supporting the Pygmalion effect, this study was not designed to establish a causal relationship between teacher expectancies and student performance. Instead, this investigation provides empirical support for the use of priming as a mediator of expectancies within the context of the school consultation model for classroom interventions.