How narcissistic self-construction sabotages their relationships: Accuracy and bias in partner perception

Trapped by their superordinate goal to maintain a grandiose self, narcissists navigate their relationships wishing to re-assure themselves of their specialness and superiority, using strategies bound to fail. Dyadic analyses of diary data (14 days, 83 couples) showed that narcissists focus on their partners’ shortcomings, becoming experts at detecting negative forms of support, while simultaneously minimizing their partner’s positive intentions. Partners of narcissists, in contrast, appear to have a positive bias in ongoing relationships and seem to compensate for some of the narcissists’ shortcomings. Narcissists’ focus on their own selfconstruction purposes also extends to their parenting roles. In a retrospective study, narcissistic mothers were found to demand superior performance, desiring to show-off their child, yet concurrently attributing their child’s success to themselves. They also exercise psychological control and role-reversal, requiring the child to cater to their needs, and to admire them, while simultaneously oblivious to their child’s needs and desires.

Varying expectancies and attention bias in phobic and non-phobic individuals.

Phobic individuals display an attention bias to phobia-related information and biased expectancies regarding the likelihood of being faced with such stimuli. Notably, although attention and expectancy biases are core features in phobia and anxiety disorders, these biases have mostly been investigated separately and their causal impact has not been examined. We hypothesized that these biases might be causally related. Spider phobic and low spider fearful control participants performed a visual search task in which they specified whether the deviant animal in a search array was a spider or a bird. Shorter reaction times (RTs) for spiders than for birds in this task reflect an attention bias toward spiders. Participants' expectancies regarding the likelihood of these animals being the deviant in the search array were manipulated by presenting verbal cues. Phobics were characterized by a pronounced and persistent attention bias toward spiders; controls displayed slower RTs for birds than for spiders only when spider cues had been presented. More important, we found RTs for spider detections to be virtually unaffected by the expectancy cues in both groups, whereas RTs for bird detections showed a clear influence of the cues. Our results speak to the possibility that evolution has formed attentional systems that are specific to the detection of phylogenetically salient stimuli such as threatening animals; these systems may not be as penetrable to variations in (experimentally induced) expectancies as those systems that are used for the detection of non-threatening stimuli. In sum, our findings highlight the relation between expectancies and attention engagement in general. However, expectancies may play a greater role in attention engagement in safe environments than in threatening environments.

Evidence for an encounter expectancy bias in fear of spiders.

Whereas research has demonstrated that phobic or fearful individuals overestimate the likelihood of incurring aversive consequences from an encounter with feared stimuli, it has not yet been systematically investigated whether these individuals also overestimate the likelihood (i.e., the frequency) of such encounters. In the current study, spider-fearful and control participants were presented with background information that allowed them to estimate the overall likelihood that different kinds of animals (spiders, snakes, or birds) would be encountered. Spider-fearful participants systematically overestimated the likelihood of encountering a spider with respect to the likelihood of encountering a snake or a bird. No such expectancy bias was observed in control participants. The results thus strengthen our idea that there indeed exist two different types of expectancy bias in high fear and phobia that can be related to different components of the fear response. A conscientious distinction and examination of these two types of expectancy bias are of potential interest for therapeutic applications.

Controlling for culture-specific response bias using ipsatization and response style indicators: Family orientation in seventeen cultures and two generations

Within-subject standardization (ipsatization) has been advocated as a possible means to control for culture-specific responding (e.g., Fisher, 2004). However, the consequences of different kinds of ipsatization procedures for the interpretation of mean differences remain unclear. The current study compared several ipsatization procedures with ANCOVA-style procedures using response style indicators for the construct of family orientation with data from 14 cultures and two generations from the Value-of-Children-(VOC)-Study (4135 dyads). Results showed that within-subject centering/standardizing across all Likert-scale items of the comprehensive VOC-questionnaire removed most of the original cross-cultural variation in family orientation and lead to a non-interpretable pattern of means in both generations. Within-subject centering/standardizing using a subset of 19 unrelated items lead to a decrease to about half of the original effect size and produced a theoretically meaningful pattern of means. A similar effect size and similar mean differences were obtained when using a measure of acquiescent responding based on the same set of items in an ANCOVA-style analysis. Additional models controlling for extremity and modesty performed worse, and combinations did not differ from the acquiescence-only model. The usefulness of different approaches to control for uniform response styles (scalar equivalence not given) in cross- cultural comparisons is discussed.

Neuroanatomy of intergroup bias: A white matter microstructure study of individual differences

Intergroup bias - the tendency to behave more positively towards an ingroup member than an outgroup member - is a powerful social force, for good and ill. And though it is widely demonstrated, intergroup bias is not universal, as it is characterized by significant individual differences. Recently, attention has begun to turn to whether neuroanatomy might explain these individual differences in intergroup bias. However, no research to date has examined whether white matter microstructure could help determine differences in behavior towards ingroup and outgroup members. In the current research, we examine intergroup bias with the third-party punishment paradigm and white matter integrity and connectivity strength as determined by diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). We found that both increased white matter integrity at the right temporal-parietal junction (TPJ) and connectivity strength between the right TPJ and the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC) were associated with increased impartiality in the third-party punishment paradigm, i.e., reduced intergroup bias. Further, consistent with the role that these brain regions play in the mentalizing network, we found that these effects were mediated by mentalizing processes. Participants with greater white matter integrity at the right TPJ and connectivity strength between the right TPJ and the DMPFC employed mentalizing processes more equally for ingroup and outgroup members, and this non-biased use of mentalizing was associated with increased impartiality. The current results help shed light on the mechanisms of bias and, potentially, on interventions that promote impartiality over intergroup bias.

Sensitisation to Ambrosia in Switzerland: a public health threat in waiting

BACKGROUND Ambrosia artemisiifolia (short name = Ambrosia common ragweed) pollen is a potent allergen and has recently been found in Switzerland, spreading from the southwest of the country. The aim of this study is to describe Ambrosia sensitisation rates in the population-based SAPALDIA cohort (Swiss Study on Air Pollution And Lung Diseases In Adults) and to test whether an increase in these rates could be observed. METHODS Among the 6345 participants from 8 areas who provided blood samples in 1991 and 2002, 5823 had valid results for specific IgE against common inhalant allergens tested with Phadiatop. In 2002 Ambrosia sensitisation was measured and positive tests were analysed for Artemisia vulgaris (mugwort). Blood samples taken in 1991 in Ticino and Geneva were also tested for Ambrosia. RESULTS Sensitisation rate (Phadiatop) did not increase significantly between the two surveys and sensitisation was found in 30% of the participants. A proportion of 7.9% showed specific IgE to Ambrosia pollen. The sensitisation rate in Lugano and Geneva had not changed substantially since 1991. Among those sensitised to Ambrosia 82% also showed specific IgE against Artemisia, suggesting a high rate of cross-reactivity. Only 1.3% were sensitized to Ambrosia alone. The incidence of asthma or hay fever in participants with specific IgE to Ambrosia pollen was not higher than in the general study population. CONCLUSION Currently Ambrosia pollen does not appear to be an important cause of inhalant allergies in Switzerland. Sensitisation rates are low and have not increased since 1991. Due to cross-reactivity Ambrosia sensitisation may be a consequence of primary sensitisation to Artemisia. Elimination of Ambrosia plants is nevertheless mandatory to avoid a future increase.

Hindsight bias in gustatory judgments

Being in hindsight, people tend to overestimate what they had known in foresight. This phenomenon has been studied for a wide variety of knowledge domains (e.g., episodes with uncertain outcomes, or solutions to almanac questions). As a result of these studies, hindsight bias turned out to be a robust phenomenon. In this paper, we present two experiments that successfully extended the domain of hindsight bias to gustatory judgments. Participants tasted different food items and were asked to estimate the quantity of a certain ingredient, for example, the residual sugar in a white wine. Judgments in both experiments were systematically biased towards previously presented low or high values that were labeled as the true quantities. Thus, hindsight bias can be considered a phenomenon that extends well beyond the judgment domains studied so far.

Denying the foreseeability of an event as a means of self-protection. The Impact of Self-Threatening Outcome Information on the Strength of the Hindsight Bias

The hindsight bias represents the tendency of people to falsely believe that they would have predicted the outcome of an event, once the outcome is known. Two experiments will be presented that show a reduction or even reversal of the hindsight bias when the outcome information is self-threatening for the participants. Participants read a report of an interaction between a man and a woman that ended with different outcomes: The woman was raped vs. the woman was not raped vs. no outcome information was given. Results of the first experiment indicated that especially female participants, who did not accept rape myths, showed a reversed hindsight bias, when they received the rape outcome information. The more threatening the rape outcome had been, the lower was their estimated likelihood of rape. Results of the second experiment confirmed those of the first. Female participants, who did not accept rape myths and perceived themselves highly similar to the victim, showed a strong reversed hindsight bias, when threatened by the rape outcome, whereas female participants, who did believe in rape myth and were not similar to the victim, showed a classical hindsight bias. These effects were interpreted in terms of self-serving or in-group serving functions of the hindsight bias: Participants deny the foreseeability of a self-threatening outcome as a means of self-protection even if they are not personally affected by the negative information, but a member of their group.

Exculpating victims and the reversal of hindsight bias

This experiment examines the role of the hindsight bias and of motivational forces such as the motive to believe in a just world as possible causes of the derogation of victims effect in the context of rape. The hindsight bias is the tendency of people to falsely believe that they would have predicted the outcome of an event once the outcome is known. Participants read descriptions of an interaction between a man and a woman that ended with one of four possible outcomes: The woman was raped with very severe consequences for her future life vs. rape with only minor consequences for her future life vs. no rape (assailant was forced to retreat by the strong defense of the victim) vs. no outcome information. To test motivational predictions the hindsight bias and the derogation effect were analyzed as a consequence of the sex of participants, the seriousness of the consequences of the rape, the belief in a just world and the acceptance of rape myths. Results supported the assumption that derogation effects are at least partly driven by hindsight bias and that motivational processes work via the hindsight bias. However, in this study we did not find a classical hindsight bias but a reversed hindsight bias: Especially female participants in the severe consequences of rape condition and those participants who did not accept rape myths rated the likelihood of rape in the rape outcome condition as smaller than participants in the no outcome information control group. They also derogated the victim less than participants in the no information control group. These effects were interpreted in terms of self-serving or in-group serving functions of the hindsight bias. Finally no support was found for the assumption that derogation effects are driven by the motive to believe in a just world.

Prior knowledge of the clinical picture does not introduce bias in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanocytic skin lesions

A common debate among dermatopathologists is that prior knowledge of the clinical picture of melanocytic skin neoplasms may introduce a potential bias in the histopathologic examination. Histologic slides from 99 melanocytic skin neoplasms were circulated among 10 clinical dermatologists, all of them formally trained and board-certified dermatopathologists: 5 dermatopathologists had clinical images available after a 'blind' examination (Group 1); the other 5 had clinical images available before microscopic examination (Group 2). Data from the two groups were compared regarding 'consensus' (a diagnosis in agreement by ≥4 dermatopathologists/group), chance-corrected interobserver agreement (Fleiss' k) and level of diagnostic confidence (LDC: a 1-5 arbitrary scale indicating 'increasing reliability' of any given diagnosis). Compared with Group 1 dermatopathologists, Group 2 achieved a lower number of consensus (84 vs. 90) but a higher k value (0.74 vs. 0.69) and a greater mean LDC value (4.57 vs. 4.32). The same consensus was achieved by the two groups in 81/99 cases. Spitzoid neoplasms were most frequently controversial for both groups. The histopathologic interpretation of melanocytic neoplasms seems to be not biased by the knowledge of the clinical picture before histopathologic examination.