by Sam Sommers
Finally, dozens of other people have encouraged and guided me throughout the writing process and in the years leading up to it, sometimes without knowing that they were doing so. Far too many, in fact, to list them all here, from the colleagues and blog readers who said, “Hey, you should write a book someday,” to the friends who suggested that I use as my subtitle “A Thinly Veiled Effort to Get on The Daily Show.” But I owe particularly notable thank-yous to the following individuals: Saul Kassin, Steve Fein, Phoebe Ellsworth, Dan Ariely, Susan Pioli, Cameron Hughes, Pat Shin, Robbi Behr, and Mike Howard. And, because all great things are closed out by these two words: Mariano Rivera.
February 2011
Medford, Massachusetts
NOTES
PROLOGUE
1 Alexander and Bruning (2008).
CHAPTER I. WYSIWYG
1 This is not a textbook. If you were hoping for an exhaustive compendium of author names, methodological details, and statistical analyses, you’re going to be disappointed. However, you can expect several of the studies discussed herein to be described in the same depth as the Stanford quiz show study in this chapter. Still other empirical results are summarized more succinctly in the effort to maintain the momentum of the narrative, but in all cases, the chapter end notes and bibliographies provide sufficient detail to allow you to look up and explore any research study further should you want to. For starters, regarding the Stanford quiz show study: Ross, Amabile, and Steinmetz (1977).
2 Castro Study: Jones and Harris (1967).
3 For news coverage of Marty Tankleff’s arrest, trial, and eventual release: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/t/martin_tankleff/index.html.
4 See Leo and Ofshe (1998) for more details.
5 Mock juror study with coerced confession: Kassin and Sukel (1997).
6 For a detailed review of our tendency to overestimate the correspondence of behavior and personality, its causes, and its effects: Gilbert and Malone (1995).
7 Texas videotape study: Gilbert, Pelham, and Krull (1988).
8 On evaluating friends versus strangers: Prager and Cutler (1990).
9 For more on this actor/observer difference: Jones and Nisbett (1972).
10 Fundamental Attribution Error: Ross (1977).
11 Fish study: Masuda and Nisbett (2001).
12 For much more on holistic and analytic thought across cultures: Nisbett et al. (2001).
13 Exploration of cross-cultural differences in the development of the WYSIWYG mentality: Miller (1984).
14 For more details, including translated text from the letters in question: http://www.jfklibrary.org.
15 Khrushchev letter: State Department Publication 10338.
16 On relationship-enhancing attributions: Bradbury and Fincham (1992).
17 For a detailed and engaging read on several of these specific strategies: Cialdini’s Influence (2008).
CHAPTER 2. HELP WANTED
1 Coverage of the Bulger murder and subsequent trial available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/bulger; see also Morrison (1998).
2 Good Samaritan study: Darley and Batson (1973).
3 Mall helping study: Baron (1997).
4 Restaurant gratuity study: Strohmetz et al. (2002).
5 Imaginary groups study: Garcia et al. (2002).
6 Intercom study: Darley and Latané (1968).
7 Death of Ignacio Mendez: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/18/nyregion/dead-man-found-on-train-was-visitor-from-delaware.html.
8 Smoke study: Latané and Darley (1968).
9 For review of Ringlemann and the general literature on social loafing: Karau and Williams (1993).
10 For review of research on urban locations and helping: Levine et al. (1994).
11 Michigan study of nature and cognitive functioning: Berman et al. (2008).
12 Milgram (1970), p. 1463.
13 Analysis of the Times article and other coverage of the Genovese murder: Manning, Levine, and Collins (2007).
14 As used in public discourse, this phrase is actually a misnomer. “Good Samaritan” laws refer to legal protections that shield from liability those individuals who make reasonable efforts to rescue another person in need. A requirement to assist others in need is actually referred to as the “duty to rescue” in legal circles.
15 Cialdini (2008), pp. 116–17.
16 Bra-size and hitchhiking study: Guéguen (2007).
17 AIDS perception study: Dooley (1995).
CHAPTER 3. GO WITH THE FLOW
1 For more on the murder of Christa Worthington, subsequent investigation, and trial: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/w/christa_worthington/index.html.
2 For much, much more on conversational norms: Grice (1975).
3 On research findings related to ostracism (and the link to pain): Williams (2007).
4 Line judging study: Asch (1955).
5 At least, when the group in question meets certain criteria, such as including a diversity of opinions and individuals making independent judgments: Surowiecki (2004).
6 Visual perception and conformity study: Sherif (1935).
7 Cross-cultural examination of Asch conformity effects: Bond and Smith (1996).
8 NYU chameleon effect studies: Chartrand and Bargh (1999).
9 Soda favor study: Regan (1971).
10 Extra credit and lowballing study: Cialdini et al. (1978).
11 Copy machine study: Langer et al. (1978).
12 For more on Lynndie England: http://www.marieclaire.com/world-reports/news/latest/lynndie-england-1.
13 Gibson (1992), p. 79.
14 From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/03/abu-ghraib-lynndie-england-interview.
15 For more on the obedience studies: Milgram (1974); Blass (2004).
16 Milgram (1963).
17 Updated version of Milgram study: Burger (2009).
18 For more on this “banality of evil”: Arendt (1963); Zimbardo (2007).
19 Milgram (1963), p. 371.
20 http://www.blimpyburger.com/ordering.htm.
21 For much more on groupthink and the Bay of Pigs: Janis (1972).
22 Janis (1972), p. 40.
23 Trick-or-treating study: Diener et al. (1976).
24 “Team of Rivals” cabinet: Goodwin (2005).
25 For review of research on minority influence: Wood et al. (1994).
CHAPTER 4. YOU’RE NOT THE PERSON YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE
1 Twenty Statements Test: Kuhn and McPartland (1954).
2 On distinctiveness and identity: McGuire, McGuire, Child, and Fujioka (1978).
3 McGraw (2001).
4 University of Michigan nylon stocking and construction noise studies: Nisbett and Wilson (1977).
5 Nisbett and Wilson (1977), p. 244.
6 Ansolabehere and Iyengar (1995).
7 Kassin and Sommers (1997).
8 Lieberman, Thomas, Finerman, and Dorey (2003).
9 Malleability of life satisfaction studies: Schwarz, Strack, Kommer, and Wagner (1987); Schwarz and Clore (1983).
10 Gilbert (2005).
11 Republicans study: Stapel and Schwarz (1998).
12 Charlie’s Angels study: Kenrick and Gutierres (1980).
13 On social comparison, including the circumstances under which we’re most likely to engage in it: Festinger (1954).
14 Adrenaline and emotion study: Schachter and Singer (1962).
15 For this comparison of sayings across cultures, and for a thorough review of cultural differences in self-concept: Markus and Kitayama (1991).
16 Japanese and American Twenty Statements Test comparison: Kanagawa, Cross, and Markus (1991).
17 On the reduced fixation on others’ personalities in Asian cultures: Miller (1984).
18 “Asshole” study and culture of honor: Cohen et al. (1996).
19 Regional homicide rates: Cohen et al. (1996).
20 For much more on the “better-than-average-effect”: Dunning (2005); Kruger and Du
nning (1999).
21 Name letter studies: Pelham, Mirenberg, and Jones (2002).
22 Sports fan studies and basking in reflected glory: Cialdini et al. (1976).
23 For a review of downward social comparison, see Wood (1989).
24 For review of self-serving thought processes like this one: Mezulis et al. (2004).
25 On the adaptive nature of positive illusions: Taylor and Brown (1988).
26 Penn study of depression and perceived control: Alloy and Abramson (1979).
27 Hong Kong study: Hong et al. (1999).
28 Stanford pen pal study: Aronson et al. (2002).
CHAPTER 5. MARS AND VENUS HERE ON EARTH
1 For more on gender and aggression: Archer (2004).
2 For one such study of gender difference in personal ads: Davis (1990).
3 For more on parents evaluating their newborn sons and daughters: Karraker et al. (1995).
4 Transcript of Summers’s remarks: www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/summers_2005/nber.php.
5 On Harvard’s job offer record under Summers’s leadership: www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/17/summers_remarks_on_women_draw_fire/.
6 Michigan gender and math study: Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (1999).
7 Math test performance in gender-mixed versus all-female settings: Inzlicht and Ben-Zeev (2003).
8 Commercials and math performance study: Davies et al. (2002).
9 Swimsuit and math test study: Fredrickson et al. (1998).
10 On the effects of hearing genetic explanations for the math gender gap: Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2006).
11 The impact of teachers’ math anxieties on student performance: Beilock et al. (2010).
12 On gender and different forms of aggression: Crick and Grotpeter (1995).
13 For review of gender, provocation, and aggression: Bettencourt and Miller (1996).
14 Princeton study of gender anonymity and aggression: Lightdale and Prentice (1994).
15 For review of gender difference in spatial skills: Voyer et al. (1995).
16 Infant shape rotation study: Moore and Johnson (2008).
17 Menstruation and spatial skill study: Hausmann et al. (2000).
18 German study of empathy and mental rotation: Ortner and Sieverding (2008).
19 Canadian video game study: Feng et al. (2007).
20 European testosterone study: Eisenegger et al. (2010).
21 For more on the role of context in boys’ underperformance in academic domains such as reading and writing: Kleinfeld (2009); Tyre (2008).
22 On “Good morning, boys and girls”: Bigler (2005).
CHAPTER 6. LOVE
1 On Westgate: Festinger et al. (1950).
2 Condo study: Ebbeson et al. (1976).
3 Marriage licenses in Columbus, Ohio: Clarke (1952).
4 Mere exposure to words and Chinese character studies: Zajonc (1968).
5 Mere exposure in the classroom: Moreland and Beach (1992).
6 On average features and beauty: Langlois et al. (1994).
7 “Can I buy you a drink?” study: Hendrickson and Goei (2009).
8 “Get to know you” study: Curtis and Miller (1986).
9 Virginia studies of secret relationships (and footsie): Wegner et al. (1994).
10 Shared experiences and attraction studies: Pinel et al. (2006).
11 On couples and attractiveness matching: Murstein (1972).
12 Capilano Bridge studies: Dutton and Aron (1974).
13 Florida State solicitation studies: Clark and Hatfield (1989).
14 Updated solicitation study: Schützwohl et al. (2009).
15 Northwestern speed-dating study: Finkel and Eastwick (2009).
16 On gender differences in sexual jealousy: DeSteno and Salovey (1996).
17 For much more on the emotional, cognitive, and mental effects of loneliness: Cacioppo and Patrick (2008).
18 For much more on the psychology of our need for social affiliation: Schachter (1959).
CHAPTER 7. HATE
1 Race and death penalty in Georgia: Baldus et al. (1990).
2 Race and death penalty in Philadelphia: Baldus et al. (1998).
3 Prototypicality and death penalty: Eberhardt et al. (2006).
4 Dot estimation and financial allocation study: Tajfel et al. (1971).
5 Dot estimation and social memory study: Howard and Rothbart (1980).
6 Colorado study of race, gender, and brain activity: Ito and Urland (2003).
7 For review of the “own-race bias”: Meissner and Brigham (2001).
8 University of Texas at El Paso study: MacLin and Malpass (2001).
9 On the IAT: Greenwald et al. (1998); Nosek et al. (2007); http://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/.
10 For more on these statistics and the general influence of race on media depictions: Entman and Rojecki (2001).
11 Race and media coverage of crime: Dixon and Linz (2000); Entman and Rojecki (2001).
12 Tufts nonverbal behavior and television characters study: Weisbuch et al. (2009).
13 Résumé study: Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004).
14 Princeton interviewing studies: Word et al. (1974).
15 Police simulation study: Correll et al. (2002).
16 Physicians and IAT study: Green et al. (2007).
17 Nonverbal behavior in interracial conversations: Dovidio et al. (2002).
18 For more on this example and color blindness in schools: Schofield (2007).
19 Strategic color blindness studies: Apfelbaum et al. (2008); Norton et al. (2006).
20 On these goals of prevention and promotion, as well as interracial interaction more generally: Shelton and Richeson (2006).
21 Stereotyping and circadian rhythm: Bodenhausen (1990).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PROLOGUE
Alexander, M., and J. R. Bruning. How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq. New York: Free Press, 2008.
CHAPTER I. WYSIWYG
Bradbury, T. N., and F. D. Fincham (1992). Attributions and behavior in marital interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63: 613–28.
Cialdini, R. B. Influence: Science and Practice, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2008.
Gilbert, D. T., and P. S. Malone (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin 117: 21–38.
Gilbert, D. T., B. W. Pelham, and D. S. Krull (1988). On cognitive busyness: When person perceivers meet persons perceived. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54: 733–40.
Jones, E. E., and V. A. Harris (1967). The attribution of attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3: 1–24.
Jones, E. E., and R. E. Nisbett. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of the behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, and B. Weiner, eds., Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press, 1972.
Kassin, S. M., and H. Sukel (1997). Coerced confessions and the jury: An experimental test of the “harmless error” rule. Law and Human Behavior 21: 27–46.
Leo, R. A., and R. J. Ofshe (1998). The consequences of false confessions: Deprivations of liberty and miscarriages of justice in the age of psychological interrogation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88: 429–96.
Masuda, T., and R. E. Nisbett (2001). Attending holistically vs. analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81: 922–34.
Miller, J. G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 961–78.
Nisbett, R. E., K. Peng, I. Choi, and A. Norenzayan (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review 108: 291–310.
Prager, I. G., and B. L. Cutler (1990). Attributing traits to oneself and to others: The role of acquaintance level. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle
tin 16: 309–19.
Ross, L. The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10 (pp. 173–220). New York: Academic Press, 1977.
Ross, L., T. M. Amabile, and J. L. Steinmetz (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35: 485–94.
http://www.jfklibrary.org
http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/t/martin_tankleff/index.html
CHAPTER 2. HELP WANTED
Baron, R. A. (1997). The sweet smell of . . . helping: Effects of pleasant ambient fragrance on prosocial behavior in shopping malls. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23: 498–503.
Berman, M. G., J. Jonides, and S. Kaplan (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science 19: 1207–12.
Cialdini, R. B. Influence: Science and Practice, 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2008.
Darley, J. M., and C. D. Batson (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27: 100–108.
Darley, J. M., and B. Latané (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8: 377–83.
Dooley, P. A. (1995). Perceptions of the onset controllability of AIDS and helping judgments. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 10: 858–69.
