Перегляд вихідного коду сторінки Precisely How I Greater My Carboplatin Accomplishment By 180%

Experiment 2 The second experiment sought to replicate the recall memory findings of Experiment 1, and to examine whether the greater attentiveness of high-DFS participants would extend to judgments about the target (cf. Dijksterhuis et al., 1996). Judgments are critical in that they often shape one��s behavior toward a target, thus rendering recalled information relevant to social interaction. If high-DFS participants are more likely to engage in categorical processing, they should not only attend to impression-inconsistent information more and recall it better, but rely on it more in their evaluations, and thus produce more moderate judgments. Hypothesis 3: Compared to low-DFS  individuals, to the extent that high-DFS individuals recall impression-inconsistent information better than impression-consistent information, they are less extreme in their  judgments. Participants One hundred-two undergraduate students participated in this research in exchange for course credit (31% women, average age 19.0 years, range 17�C24). Materials and [http://www.selleckchem.com/products/3-deazaneplanocin-a-dznep.html DZNeP] Procedure Materials were identical to Experiment 1. However, the presentation of behaviors of Bob was simplified with all participants receiving a mostly high intelligence set (1/2 intelligent, 1/4 unintelligent) or a mostly low intelligence set (1/2 unintelligent, 1/4 intelligent) of behaviors as part of a booklet, all in the same order. Participants were asked to study the list until they felt they knew what kind of person Bob is (typically less than 3 min). Prior to a 2-min distractor and the subsequent recall task, participants were asked to rate Bob on seven different trait dimensions using a seven-point Likert-type rating scale. Three traits  were used to form an intelligence score [intelligent, bright, simple-minded (reversed), �� = 0.66]. [The remaining traits (forgetful, likable, interesting, boring) did not yield any relevant results.] Then, participants worked on the same recall task as in Experiment 1, and completed the PNS scale (�� = 0.79), based on which the DFS subscale (�� = 0.70) and the RLS subscale (�� = 0.71) were computed. Results Judgments Intelligence scores were entered into an analysis with (Majority of Behaviors: Intelligent vs. unintelligent) as between-groups factor and alternatingly the two PNS subscales as continuous predictor. The model involving DFS produced the expected main effect for Majority of Behaviors, such that participants who had learned about more intelligent behaviors than unintelligent behaviors of Bob rated him as more intelligent compared to participants who had learned about more unintelligent than intelligent behaviors (M = 5.02 vs. 4.29), F(1,98) = 13.82, p