[Correction Notice An Erratum for this article was reported online in Journal of Experimental Psychology General on Jan 14 2021 (see record 2021-07705-001). In the article, formatting for UK Research Councils funding was omitted. The author note and copyright line now reflect the standard acknowledgment of and formatting for the funding received for this article. All versions of this article have been corrected.] Attention determines which cues receive processing and are learned about. Learning, however, leads to attentional biases. In the study of animal learning, in some circumstances, cues that have been previously predictive of their consequences are subsequently learned about more than are nonpredictive cues, suggesting that they receive more attention. In other circumstances, cues that have previously led to uncertain consequences are learned about more than are predictive cues. In human learning, there is a clear role for predictiveness, but a role for uncertainty has been less clear. Here, in a human itation of cues. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).Preschoolers commonly interpret how a group is as evidence for how individual group members should be-often leading to emphatic disapproval of norm violations (i.e., descriptive-to-prescriptive reasoning). The present research suggests that this tendency is shaped by how preschoolers explain group norm violations. In Study 1, preschoolers held norm violators accountable for their actions (e.g., they evaluated them as bad and withheld resources from them), suggesting that they construed norm violations as internally motivated and avoidable acts deserving of blame. In Study 2, preschoolers were most disapproving of those who violated norms because of preferences (e.g., because they liked to), less disapproving of those who did so because of traits (e.g., because of an aversion), and least disapproving of those who did so because of situations (e.g., because of an external constraint), suggesting that explanations for norm violations affect preschoolers' judgments of norm violators. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/dmb.html Thus, similar to a judge's sentence or a jury's verdict, preschoolers' reasoning about the (mis)behavior of others is affected by why the behavior occurred. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Success on many tasks depends on a trade-off between speed and accuracy. In a novel variant, a speed-accuracy trade-off with sample-based decisions in which both speed and accuracy jointly depend on (self-truncated) sample size, we found strong accuracy biases. On every trial of a sequential investment game, participants chose between 2 investment funds based on binary samples of the funds' past outcomes. Participants could stop sampling and decide whenever they felt sufficiently informed. Total payoff was the product of choice accuracy and number of choices completed within the available time (speed). Participants' failure to understand the dominance of speed over accuracy-that speed decreases more than accuracy improves with increasing sample size-led to dramatic oversampling. Our research aimed to examine to what extent metacognitive functions of monitoring and control could correct for the accuracy bias. Experiments 1a through 1c demonstrated similarly strong accuracy biases and payoff losses in psychology and economics students, depressed, and control patients. In Experiments 2 through 4, the accuracy bias persisted despite several manipulations (feedback, sample limit, choice difficulty, payoff, sampling truncation as default) that underlined the speed advantage, reflecting a conspicuous metacognitive deficit. Even when participants faced no risk of losing on incorrect trials but could still win on correct trials (Experiment 3) and when sampling was contingent on the active solicitation of every new element (Experiment 4), participants continued to sample too much and failed to overcome the accuracy bias. The final discussion focuses on psychological reasons and possible remedies for the metacognitive deficit in trade-off regulation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Social and behavioral scientists have long investigated the relationship between interpersonal trust and features of the environment. However, it remains unclear how the microenvironment of relational distance (i.e., social proximity between 2 persons) interacts with the macroenvironment of human ecology (i.e., social and natural environments) to predict people's levels of trusting other persons. In this research, we tackled this puzzle using diverse methodologies (e.g., meta-analysis, experiment, and multilevel analysis) and large, cultural-group samples. Four studies found that, across many countries (e.g., 77 countries in Study 3) and regions within a country (e.g., 28 Chinese provinces in Study 4), members of these social units trusted close others (e.g., family members) more than distant others (e.g., strangers). However, this general effect of relational distance was stronger in societies embedded within more restrictive cultural, sociopolitical, and natural ecologies (e.g., a more collectivistic cultural logic, less developed socioeconomic and political institutions, and a stronger threat of infectious diseases, such as HCV infection). More importantly, people's attitudinal trust of distant others was higher in countries or regions with less restrictive ecocultural features, but such differences often disappeared in the context of trusting close others. Compared with other sociopolitical and natural features, the societal culture of collectivism often was a unique explanatory variable for the micro-macro interplay of current interest. These converging pieces of evidence provide a clear view of how levels of interpersonal trust vary as a function of relational distance and ecocultural environments simultaneously. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).The current research challenges the assumption that the presence of women in leadership positions will automatically "break the glass ceiling" for other women. We contend that it is not just a female leader's presence, but also her performance, that influences evaluations of subsequent female candidates for leadership positions. We argue that the continued scarcity and perceived mismatch of women with high-level leadership increases gender salience, promoting perceptions of within-group similarity and fostering an evaluative generalization from the performance of a female leader to the evaluations of another, individual woman. In 5 studies, we demonstrate that the effect of exposure to a female leader on another woman's evaluations and leadership opportunities depends on whether she is successful or unsuccessful (Study 1) and whether she confirms or disconfirms stereotype-based expectations about women's leadership abilities (Study 2). Supporting the role of gender salience and shared group membership in the process, we show that this effect occurs only between women in male gender-typed leadership roles Evaluative generalization does not occur between women in contexts that are not strongly male in gender type (Study 3) and is not observed between men in male-typed leadership (Study 4).