Knowledge that Transforms

This DOI is not currently attached to any metadata records. DOIs can’t actually ever be deleted (they’re persistent), but sometimes our members create DOIs in error. We do have a process to approximate deletion which we follow only in rare cases where the DOI has been genuinely created in error, and most crucially, if the DOI has never been published anywhere online or in print and never otherwise distributed to or communicated with anyone (authors, readers, reviewers, etc.

This DOI is not currently attached to any metadata records. DOIs can’t actually ever be deleted (they’re persistent), but sometimes our members create DOIs in error. We do have a process to approximate deletion which we follow only in rare cases where the DOI has been genuinely created in error, and most crucially, if the DOI has never been published anywhere online or in print and never otherwise distributed to or communicated with anyone (authors, readers, reviewers, etc.

This DOI is not currently attached to any metadata records. DOIs can’t actually ever be deleted (they’re persistent), but sometimes our members create DOIs in error. We do have a process to approximate deletion which we follow only in rare cases where the DOI has been genuinely created in error, and most crucially, if the DOI has never been published anywhere online or in print and never otherwise distributed to or communicated with anyone (authors, readers, reviewers, etc.

This DOI is not currently attached to any metadata records. DOIs can’t actually ever be deleted (they’re persistent), but sometimes our members create DOIs in error. We do have a process to approximate deletion which we follow only in rare cases where the DOI has been genuinely created in error, and most crucially, if the DOI has never been published anywhere online or in print and never otherwise distributed to or communicated with anyone (authors, readers, reviewers, etc.

Although relational demographers have based their arguments on self-categorization theory, they have paid little attention to the underlying processes associated with this theory. The authors examined whether demographic dissimilarity affects individuals' identification with groups by affecting the group's prototype valence and clarity and the individual's perceptions of self-prototypicality. The data showed that the proportion of women and non-Australians in 34 work groups negatively influenced prototype valence, prototype clarity, and self-prototypicality for all members of the group. These results provide support for the continued use of self-categorization theory by relational demographers.

There has been little research examining customer reactions to brokered ultimatum game (BUG) contexts (i.e. exchanges in which 1 party offers an ultimatum price for a resource through an intermediary, and the ultimatum offer is accepted or rejected by the other party). In this study, the authors incorporated rational decision-making theory and justice theory to examine how customers' bids, recommendations, and repatronage behavior are affected by characteristics of BUG contexts (changing from an ultimatum to negotiation transaction, response timeliness, and offer acceptance or rejection). Results indicated that customers attempt to be economically efficient with their bidding behavior. However, negotiation structures, long waits for a response, and rejected bids create injustice perceptions (particularly informational and distributive injustice), negatively influencing customers' recommendations to others and their repatronage. The authors then discuss the practical and theoretical implications of their results.

This DOI is not currently attached to any metadata records. DOIs can’t actually ever be deleted (they’re persistent), but sometimes our members create DOIs in error. We do have a process to approximate deletion which we follow only in rare cases where the DOI has been genuinely created in error, and most crucially, if the DOI has never been published anywhere online or in print and never otherwise distributed to or communicated with anyone (authors, readers, reviewers, etc.

The Federal Rules of Evidence allow defendants to offer testimony about their good character, but that testimony can be impeached with cross-examination or a rebuttal witness. It is assumed that jurors use the defense's character evidence (CE) to form guilt and conviction judgments but use impeachment evidence only to assess the character witness's credibility. Two experiments tested these assumptions by presenting mock jurors with various forms of CE and impeachment. Participants made trait ratings for the character witness and defendant and guilt and conviction judgments. Positive CE did not affect guilt or conviction judgments, but cross-examination caused a backlash in which judgments were harsher than when no CE was given. Using path analysis, the authors tested a model of the process by which CE and impeachment affect defendant and witness impressions and guilt and conviction judgments. Implications for juror decision making are discussed.

R. C. L. Lindsay and G. L. Wells (1985) argued that a sequential lineup enhanced discriminability because it elicited use of an absolute decision strategy. E. B. Ebbesen and H. D. Flowe (2002) argued that a sequential lineup led witnesses to adopt a more conservative response criterion, thereby affecting bias, not discriminability. Height was encoded as absolute (e.g., 6 ft [1.83 m] tall) or relative (e.g., taller than). If a sequential lineup elicited an absolute decision strategy, the principle of transfer-appropriate processing predicted that performance should be best when height was encoded absolutely. Conversely, if a simultaneous lineup elicited a relative decision strategy, performance should be best when height was encoded relatively. The predicted interaction was observed, providing direct evidence for the decision strategies explanation of what happens when witnesses view a sequential lineup.

Scholars have argued that anger expressed by participants in mediation is counterproductive; yet, there is also reason to believe that expressions of anger can be productive. The authors tested these competing theories of emotion by using data from online mediation. Results show that expression of anger lowers the resolution rate in mediation and that this effect occurs in part because expressing anger generates an angry response by the other party. However, when respondents are especially vulnerable, expressions of anger by the filer do not hinder settlement. The authors also examined precursors to anger, such as value of dispute and reputation, and the degree to which a focus on dispute resolution is reciprocated.