David Santos

Personality scales use response formats ranging from dichotomous to continuous. Understanding how individuals respond to these formats is crucial for interpreting the consequences of those responses. This research examines the moderating role of holistic-analytic thinking style on the impact of response formats on fluency and subsequent behavioral outcomes. Across multiple personality scales and methodological approaches ( N = 3,636), holistic (vs. analytic) thinkers experienced greater fluency with continuous (vs. dichotomous) scales. This effect was observed with measured and manipulated thinking styles (Studies 1 and 2) and replicated using cultural groups as a proxy (Study 3). We also explored psychological discomfort as a mechanism. A 3-point (Study 4) and a 6-point scale (Study 5) also elicited fluency among holistic individuals. Finally, matching thinking styles with scale formats affected behavioral intentions (Study 5) and behavior (Study 6). Our research indicates that choosing response formats should consider factors beyond psychometric properties, including cultural and individual differences.

We attempted replications of 274 claims of positive results from 164 quantitative papers published from 2009 to 2018 in 54 journals in the social and behavioral sciences. Replications were high-powered on average to detect the original effect size (Median = 99.6%), used original materials when relevant and available, and were peer-reviewed in advance through a standardized internal protocol. Replications showed statistically significant results in the original pattern for 151 of 274 claims (55.1% [95% CI 49.2 - 60.9%]) and for 80.8 of 164 papers (49.3% [95% CI 43.8 - 54.7%]) weighed for replicating multiple claims per paper. We observed modest variation in replication rates across disciplines (42.5% to 63.1%) though some estimates had high uncertainty. For claims with Pearson’s r effect sizes, the median was 0.25 [95% CI 0.21 - 0.27] for original studies and 0.10 [95% CI 0.09 - 0.13] for replication studies, a 82.4% [95% CI 67.8 - 88.2%] reduction in shared variance. Thirteen methods for evaluating replication success provided estimates ranging from 28.6% to 74.8% (median = 49.3%). Some decline in effect size and significance is expected based on power to detect original effects and regression to the mean due to replicating only positive results. The conditions that promote or inhibit replicability are worthy of additional investigation.

This research explored the role of holistic-analytic thinking style in predicting the willingness to intervene in cases of intimate partner violence against women and donation decisions to nonprofit organizations combating this issue. Specifically, holistic individuals (as measured individual difference or manipulated state) were more willing to intervene and donate. These effects were mediated by participants’ beliefs about intervention and donation contributions. Across three empirical studies, we used samples from different populations and different methodological approaches to increase the generalizability of our findings. Our research offers insights for nonprofit organizations combating this problem about how to increase fundraising effectively.

The present research examined whether consideration of individuals' certainty in their holism can enhance the ability of this individual difference to predict how they respond to contradiction‐relevant outcomes. Across four studies, participants first completed a standardized measure of holistic‐analytic thinking. Then, they rated how certain they were in their responses to the holism scale or were experimentally induced to feel high or low certainty. Next, participants were exposed to dialectical proverbs (Study 1a and 1b), to a counter‐attitudinal change induction (Study 2), or to a paradigm of attitudinal ambivalence (Study 3). Results revealed that participants with higher certainty in their holistic thinking exhibited higher preference for dialectical proverbs (Study 1a and 1b), changed their attitude less following a counter‐attitudinal task (Study 2) and showed weaker correspondence between objective and subjective ambivalence (Study 3). Beyond examining new domains and discovering novel findings, the present work was designed to be the first to show moderation of previously identified effects in the domain of holistic thinking and responses to contradiction.

Individuals are regularly exposed to incongruences in their product or brand encounters (e.g., Moschino Cheap and Chic or Neutrogena Deep Clean Gentle). This research examines how individuals’ reactions towards such incongruences may differ based on their inherent thinking styles. Across two studies, we demonstrated that holistic (vs. analytic) thinkers exhibited greater willingness to engage in positive word of mouth for products with incongruent (vs. congruent) elements. Prior research mainly explored the effect of thinking styles on individuals’ evaluations of incongruent information comprised of both positive and negative characteristics. This research shows that even similarly positive but conceptually incongruent characteristics may cause different reactions based on individuals’ thinking styles.

Background:: In this study, we examined whether a persuasive message in favor of a pro-environmental proposal could influence attitude change through a self-validation process when individuals were told that the source of the proposal belonged to their ingroup (vs. their outgroup). Method:: Participants read a message that advocated for the use of solar power. Immediately following the message, participants were asked to list their thoughts regarding the persuasive proposal. A thought favorability index was created for each participant. Following the thought-listing task, participants received the experimental manipulation (i.e., ingroup vs. outgroup source) based on the minimal group paradigm, after which they reported their attitudes towards the proposal. Results:: A regression analysis showed the predicted interaction between thought favorability and type of source (i.e., ingroup vs. outgroup) on attitudes towards the solar power proposal. According to our expectations, thought favorability was a better predictor of attitudes for participants in the ingroup (vs. outgroup) source condition. Conclusions:: Attitudes can be polarized as a function of ingroup versus outgroup differentiation through a self-validation process.

The present research examines the effect of holistic-analytic thinking style on causal responsibility. Across seven studies ( N = 4,103), participants’ thinking style was either measured or manipulated. Then, the valence or number of consequences varied in several scenarios involving a cause–consequence relationship. As a dependent measure, participants indicated the degree of responsibility attributed to the cause mentioned in each scenario. The results revealed that holistic (vs. analytic) participants assigned more responsibility to the cause when the consequences presented were a combination of positive and negative outcomes (vs. univalent), and when multiple (vs. single) consequences were triggered in the scenario. To explore the explanatory factor for these results, a final study manipulated the complexity of the consequences, along with the number. The results of this research suggested that holistic (vs. analytic) individuals consider the degree of complexity of consequences to establish causal attribution.

Research on persuasion has shown that for attitudes to change people need to take into consideration not only the thoughts message recipients generate in response to proposals but also how people think about their own thoughts (metacognition). In the present research, we introduce a new perspective for improving outgroup attitudes focused on the distinction between cognition and metacognition but this time applied to the perceptions of others’ minds. Specifically, we examined to what extent thinking about the mental processes of outgroup members influences attitudes towards those outgroups. We compared the impact of thinking about how others think (perceived primary cognition) with how others think about their own thoughts (perceived secondary cognition or metacognition). In the primary cognition treatment, participants answered questions about the thinking processes of outgroup members. In the secondary cognition treatment, participants answered questions that required them to consider how outgroup members think about their own thoughts (i.e., metacognition). Compared to controls, these treatments were capable of improving attitudes of Spanish citizens towards Syrian refugees, South American immigrants, and Roma people. A third study used a minimal group paradigm in which a fictitious outgroup was described as having primary (vs. secondary) cognition. A final study also tested the implications of assuming that groups have one type of cognition or another. The effects of the two treatments varied depending on the type of outgroup.