One of the most reliable and impactful methods for enhancing a persuasive appeal is to match an aspect of the proposal (i.e., its content, source, or the setting in which it is delivered) to an aspect of the consumer receiving it. This personalized matching in persuasion (also called tailoring, targeting, customizing, or personalizing) comprises a robust and growing literature. In the present review, we describe different types of persuasive matches, the primary characteristics of people who are targeted, and the key psychological mechanisms underlying the impact of matching. Importantly, although most research on personalized matching has concluded that matching is good for persuasion, we also describe and explain instances where it has produced negative (i.e., “backfire”) effects. That is, more than just the conclusion “matching is good” that many researchers have drawn, we analyze when and why it is good and when and why it can be ineffective—insight that can benefit marketers and consumers alike in understanding how personally matched appeals can impact attitudes and ultimately behavior.

The question of whether and how visual artists see the world differently than non-artists has long engaged researchers and scholars in the arts, sciences, and humanities. Yet as evidence regarding this issue accumulates, it has become clear that the answers to these questions are by no means straightforward. With a view to advancing ongoing debate in this field, the current study aimed to replicate and extend previous research by exploring the differences in visual-spatial ability between art students (n = 42) and non-art students (n = 37), using a comprehensive battery of visual-spatial and drawing tasks. Art students outperformed non-art students on drawing measures and some (but not all) visual-spatial tasks. This nuanced pattern of results broadly supports the notion that art students differ from non-art students in their ability to exert top-down control over attentional processing, but not in the phenomenology of low-level visual processing. Implications for theories of artistic expertise are discussed.

Conflicting empirical and theoretical accounts suggest that dyslexia is associated with either average, enhanced, or impoverished high-level visuospatial processing relative to controls. Such heterogeneous results could be due to the presence of wider variability in dyslexic samples, which is unlikely to be identified at the single study level, due to lack of power. To address this, this study reports a meta-analysis of means and variances in high-level visuospatial ability in 909 non-dyslexic and 956 dyslexic individuals. The findings suggest that dyslexia is associated not only with a lower mean performance on visuospatial tasks but also with greater variability in performance. Through novel meta-analytic techniques, we demonstrate a negative effect size for mean differences (-.457), but a positive effect size for SD differences (+.118; SD ratio = 1.107). In doing so, this is the first study to demonstrate impoverished visuospatial processing of the majority of individuals with dyslexia in addition to greater variance in performance in this group. The findings advocate for further consideration of both the presence of, and reasons for, increased variance in perception, attention, and memory across neurodevelopmental disorders.

Abstract. In a widely publicized set of studies, participants who were primed to consider unethical events preferred cleansing products more than did those primed with ethical events ( Zhong & Liljenquist, 2006 ). This tendency to respond to moral threat with physical cleansing is known as the Macbeth Effect. Several subsequent efforts, however, did not replicate this relationship. The present manuscript reports the results of a meta-analysis of 15 studies testing this relationship. The weighted mean effect size was small across all studies (g = 0.17, 95% CI [0.04, 0.31]), and nonsignificant across studies conducted in independent laboratories (g = 0.07, 95% CI [−0.04, 0.19]). We conclude that there is little evidence for an overall Macbeth Effect; however, there may be a Macbeth Effect under certain conditions.