Once and Again: Repeated Viewing Affects Judgments of Spontaneity and Preparation.

Reality is fleeting, and any moment can only be experienced once. Rewatching a video, however, allows people to repeatedly observe the exact same moment. We propose that people may fail to fully distinguish between merely observing behavior again (through replay) from that behavior being performed again in the exact same way. Using an assortment of stimuli that included auditions, commercials, and potential trial evidence, we demonstrated through nine experiments (N = 10,412 adults in the United States) that rewatching makes a recorded behavior appear more rehearsed and less spontaneous, as if the actors were simply precisely repeating their actions. These findings contribute to an emerging literature showing that incidental video features, like perspective or slow motion, can meaningfully change evaluations. Replay may inadvertently shape judgments in both mundane and consequential contexts. To understand how a video will influence its viewer, one will need to consider not only its content, but also how often it is viewed.

Do people know how others view them? Two approaches for identifying the accuracy of metaperceptions.

Self-knowledge includes not only beliefs about one's own traits and abilities, but beliefs about how others view the self. Are such metaperceptions accurate? This article identifies two distinct standards used to determine meta-accuracy. The correlational approach tests whether metaperceptions correlate with an accuracy criterion (i.e. social perceptions). The mean-level approach instead asks whether metaperceptions tend to err in a systematic direction. This article reviews complementary lessons gleaned from research taking one approach or the other: whether metaperceptions merely reflect self-perceptions, whose metaperceptions are more or less accurate, and what psychological processes impede meta-accuracy, among others. Ultimately, neither approach is endorsed as unconditionally superior. Instead, which approach offers the proper accuracy standard should depend on the decisions those metaperceptions will guide.

Empirical audit and review and an assessment of evidentiary value in research on the psychological consequences of scarcity.

Empirical audit and review is an approach to assessing the evidentiary value of a research area. It involves identifying a topic and selecting a cross-section of studies for replication. We apply the method to research on the psychological consequences of scarcity. Starting with the papers citing a seminal publication in the field, we conducted replications of 20 studies that evaluate the role of scarcity priming in pain sensitivity, resource allocation, materialism, and many other domains. There was considerable variability in the replicability, with some strong successes and other undeniable failures. Empirical audit and review does not attempt to assign an overall replication rate for a heterogeneous field, but rather facilitates researchers seeking to incorporate strength of evidence as they refine theories and plan new investigations in the research area. This method allows for an integration of qualitative and quantitative approaches to review and enables the growth of a cumulative science.

Do publications in low-impact journals help or hurt a CV?

Using psychology professors as participants, the present study investigates how publications in low-impact psychology journals affect evaluations of a hypothetical tenure-track psychology job applicant. Are "weak" publications treated as evidence for or against a candidate's ability? Two experiments revealed that an applicant was rated as stronger when several weak publications were added to several strong ones and was rated as weaker when the weak publications were removed. A third experiment showed that the additional weak publications were not merely viewed as a signal of additional strong publications in the future; instead, the weak publications themselves appear to be valued. In a fourth and final experiment, we found that adding a greater number of weak publications also strengthened the applicant, but not more so than adding just a few. The study further suggests that the weak publications may signal ability, as applicants with added weak publications were rated as both more hardworking and more likely to generate innovative research ideas. Advice for tenure-track psychology applicants: Do not hesitate to publish in even the weakest journals, as long as it does not keep you from publishing in strong journals. Implications of the market rewarding publications in low-impact journals are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Volume Estimation Through Mental Simulation.

Although mental simulation underlies many day-to-day judgments, we identified a new domain influenced by simulation: volume estimation. Previous research has identified various ways in which volume estimates are biased but typically has not presented a psychological process by which such judgments are made. Our simulation-informs-perception account proposes that people often estimate a container's size by simulating filling it. First, this produces an orientation effect: The same container is judged larger when right side up than when upside down because of the greater ease of imagining filling an upright container. Second, we identified a cavern effect: Imagining pouring water through a narrow opening toward a relatively wide base produces a sense that the container is cavernous and large (compared with identically sized, wide-topped, narrow-based containers). By testing for and demonstrating the importance of simulation to these effects, we showed how complex perceptual judgments can be distorted by higher level cognitive influences even when they are necessarily informed by modularly processed perceptual input.

Generational differences in American students' reasons for going to college, 1971-2014: The rise of extrinsic motives.

We examined generational differences in reasons for attending college among a nationally representative sample of college students (N = 8 million) entering college between 1971-2014. We validated the items on reasons for attending college against an established measure of extrinsic and intrinsic values among college students in 2014 (n = 189). Millennials (in college 2000s-2010s) and Generation X (1980s-1990s) valued extrinsic reasons for going to college ("to make more money") more, and anti-extrinsic reasons ("to gain a general education and appreciation of ideas") less than Boomers when they were the same age in the 1960s-1970s. Extrinsic reasons for going to college were higher in years with more income inequality, college enrollment, and extrinsic values. These results mirror previous research finding generational increases in extrinsic values begun by GenX and continued by Millennials, suggesting that more recent generations are more likely to favor extrinsic values in their decision-making.