This article presents a framework for studying personality in the stress process. The framework specifies that personality may affect both exposure and reactivity to stressful events and that both processes may explain how personality affects health and psychological outcomes. The framework also specifies that personality differences in reactivity may be due to differential choice of coping efforts and differential effectiveness of those efforts. In a 14-day daily study of 94 students, this framework was used to analyze the links among neuroticism, daily interpersonal conflicts, coping with conflicts, and distress. Results showed that high-neuroticism participants had greater exposure and reactivity to conflicts. Furthermore, high- and low-neuroticism participants differed both in their choice of coping efforts and in the effectiveness of those efforts, a possibility not considered in previous models of personality in the stress process.

Although there is abundant evidence that perceived availability of support buffers the effects of stressors on mental health, the relatively meager research on support transactions has failed to show an association between actual receipt of support and adjustment to stressors. The authors examined a possible explanation for this inconsistency, that awareness of receiving support entails an emotional cost and that the most effective support is unnoticed by the recipient. Using data from a daily diary study of support provision and receipt in couples, the authors show that many transactions reported by supporters are not reported by recipients. They also show that these invisible support transactions promote adjustment to a major stressor.

No abstract

We asked active psychological researchers to answer a sirrvey regarding the following data-analytic issires: (a) the effect of reliability on Type I and Type II errors, (6) the interpretation of interaction, (c) contrast analysis. and (d) the role of power and effect size in sirccessfirl replications. Orrr 551 participants (a 60% response rate) answered 59% of the questions correctly; 46% accirracy ivoirld be expected according to participants' response preferences alone. Accirracy was higher for respondents with higher acadettiic ranks arid for qirestions with "no" as the riglit answer. It is srrggested that altkoirgli experienced researchers are able to answer difficirlt biit basic data-analytic qirestions at better tliati chance levels, there is also a high degree of misiinderstanding of some firndamental issires of data analysis.

In this article we present the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1980(Chaiken, , 1987; Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989) as a theoretical framework for research on product warning labels. The model proposes two fundamental information processing modes. When processing systematically, perceivers access, scrutinize, and integrate all useful information to reach their judgment. In contrast, heuristic processing involves the use of learned knowledge structures in the form of simple decision rules, or cognitive heuristics, to reach judgments. In addition to proposing when either or both of these processing modes will occur, and with what effect, the model also specifies three different underlying types of processing motivations, termed accuracy, defense, and impression, each with implications for information processing and judgments. This model is used to explain past findings on the effectiveness of product warning labels, and to suggest new areas for future research as well as practical guidelines for the design of warning labels. ᭧ 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Accidents involving consumer and industrial products lead to millions of serious injuries each year (U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 1995). It is possible that many of these accidents may have been 622 ZUCKERMAN AND CHAIKEN prevented if people had noticed, read, comprehended, and adhered to the on-product warnings that appear on many products and describe the hazards of their use and how to avoid them. In an attempt to promote safe product use, much empirical research has been conducted to explore the factors that determine the effectiveness of such product warning labels. The goal of this article is to use the heuristic-systematic model of persuasion (Chaiken, 1980(Chaiken, , 1987Chaiken et al., 1989) to provide a theoretical framework for this literature that can explain and integrate past findings, suggest fruitful avenues for future research, and provide practical guidelines for increasing compliance with warning label recommendations. We begin by applying the model's basic principles to this issue, and then discuss how recent extensions of the model involving different types of processing motivations may play a role as well. THE HEURISTIC-SYSTEMATIC MODEL: BASIC PRINCIPLESThe heuristic-systematic model proposes two fundamental informationprocessing modes that people use to reach a wide variety of judgments. The systematic processing mode is a comprehensive, analytic orientation in which perceivers access, scrutinize, and integrate all useful information to reach their judgment. Although it can vary in its extensiveness, prototypical systematic processing refers to the upper end of a data-seeking/analysis/integration continuum. In contrast, the heuristic-processing mode involves the use of learned knowledge structures in the form of simple decision rules, or cognitive heuristics, to reach judgments. For example, rather than carefully consider the merits of a persuasive argument provided by an expert source, an individual may instead ch...

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract