Jeffrey Hughes
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Jeffrey Hughes has a total of 6 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Abigail A. Scholer
University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
2 shared publications- Abigail A. Scholer
Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
1 shared publication - Adam B. Cohen
Arizona State University
1 shared publication - Igor Grossmann
University of Waterloo
1 shared publication - James W. Beck
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
1 shared publication - Vincent Phan
Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 11 November 2024
- Published by Springer Nature in Journal of Business and Psychology
- Vol. 40 (4) , 925-939
Reconsidering the Trade-off Between Speed and Accuracy: The Role of Perceived Goal Progress Velocity
- 11 November 2024
- Published by Springer Nature in Journal of Business and Psychology
- Vol. 40 (4) , 925-939
Reconsidering the Trade-off Between Speed and Accuracy: The Role of Perceived Goal Progress Velocity
- 8 February 2017
- Published by SAGE Publications in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Vol. 43 (4) , 570-583
When Wanting the Best Goes Right or Wrong
Researchers have often disagreed on how to define maximization, leading to conflicting conclusions about its potential benefits or drawbacks. Drawing from motivation research, we distinguish between the goals (i.e., wanting the best) and strategies (e.g., alternative search) associated with maximizing. Three studies illustrate how this differentiation offers insight into when maximizers do or do not experience affective costs when making decisions. In Study 1, we show that two motivational orientations, promotion focus and assessment mode, are both associated with the goal of wanting the best, yet assessment (not promotion) is related to the use of alternative search strategies. In Study 2, we demonstrate that alternative search strategies are associated with frustration on a discrete decision task. In Study 3, we provide evidence that one reason for this link may be due to reconsideration of previously dismissed options. We discuss the potential of this approach to integrate research in this area.
- 8 February 2017
- Published by SAGE Publications in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
- Vol. 43 (4) , 570-583
When Wanting the Best Goes Right or Wrong
Researchers have often disagreed on how to define maximization, leading to conflicting conclusions about its potential benefits or drawbacks. Drawing from motivation research, we distinguish between the goals (i.e., wanting the best) and strategies (e.g., alternative search) associated with maximizing. Three studies illustrate how this differentiation offers insight into when maximizers do or do not experience affective costs when making decisions. In Study 1, we show that two motivational orientations, promotion focus and assessment mode, are both associated with the goal of wanting the best, yet assessment (not promotion) is related to the use of alternative search strategies. In Study 2, we demonstrate that alternative search strategies are associated with frustration on a discrete decision task. In Study 3, we provide evidence that one reason for this link may be due to reconsideration of previously dismissed options. We discuss the potential of this approach to integrate research in this area.
- Open Access
- 8 September 2015
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Psychology
- Vol. 6, 1352
Tolerating the “doubting Thomas”: how centrality of religious beliefs vs. practices influences prejudice against atheists
Past research has found a robust effect of prejudice against atheists in largely Christian-dominated (belief-oriented) samples. We propose that religious centrality of beliefs vs. practices influences attitudes toward atheists, such that religious groups emphasizing beliefs perceive non-believers more negatively than believers, while groups emphasizing practices perceive non-practicing individuals more negatively than practicing individuals. Studies 1-2, in surveys of 41 countries, found that Muslims and Protestants (belief-oriented) had more negative attitudes toward atheists than did Jews and Hindus (practice-oriented). Study 3 experimentally manipulated a target individual’s beliefs and practices. Protestants had more negative attitudes toward a non-believer (vs. a believer), whereas Jews had more negative attitudes toward a non-practicing individual (vs. a practicing individual, particularly when they had a Jewish background). This research has implications for the psychology of religion, anti-atheist prejudice, and cross-cultural attitudes regarding where dissent in beliefs or practices may be tolerated or censured within religious groups.
- 8 September 2015
- Published by Frontiers Media SA in Frontiers in Psychology
- Vol. 6, 1352
Open AccessTolerating the “doubting Thomas”: how centrality of religious beliefs vs. practices influences prejudice against atheists
Past research has found a robust effect of prejudice against atheists in largely Christian-dominated (belief-oriented) samples. We propose that religious centrality of beliefs vs. practices influences attitudes toward atheists, such that religious groups emphasizing beliefs perceive non-believers more negatively than believers, while groups emphasizing practices perceive non-practicing individuals more negatively than practicing individuals. Studies 1-2, in surveys of 41 countries, found that Muslims and Protestants (belief-oriented) had more negative attitudes toward atheists than did Jews and Hindus (practice-oriented). Study 3 experimentally manipulated a target individual’s beliefs and practices. Protestants had more negative attitudes toward a non-believer (vs. a believer), whereas Jews had more negative attitudes toward a non-practicing individual (vs. a practicing individual, particularly when they had a Jewish background). This research has implications for the psychology of religion, anti-atheist prejudice, and cross-cultural attitudes regarding where dissent in beliefs or practices may be tolerated or censured within religious groups.