No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Concept-attainment performance and strategies were compared for cooperative versus competitive pairs. A 2X2X2X5 repeated-measures factorial design was used with the following variables: instructions (cooperative or competitive), sex (male or female pairs), stimulus displays (form or sequence), and problems (5 for each pair). Major results were (a) Cooperative pairs had fewer card choices to solution, more use of focusing strategy, fewer untenable hypotheses, and more time to solution than competitive pairs; (b) there were no sex differences for number of card choices, strategies, or untenable hypotheses, although males did require more time; (c) there were fewer card choices, more focusing, fewer untenable hypotheses, and less time with form displays; (d) steady improvement occurred over the 5 problems on all measures.

The performance of individuals and cooperative pairs was compared on 3 successive concept-altainmenl problems. A2X2X2X8X3 repeated-measures factorial design was employed with the variables: number of persons (individual or cooperative pair), memory (paper and pencil for recording allowed or not allowed), sex (male or female), concept rule (concepts defined by 8 different symbolic logic operators), and problems (3 per S or Ss). Major results were: (a) for cooperative pairs fewer card choices to solution, more use of the attribute-testing focusing strategy, and a lower percentage of untenable hypotheses than individuals; (b) no main effects of memory or sex for card choices, focusing strategy, or untenable hypotheses; (c) fewer card choices for females than males when paper was allowed, with no difference between females and males when paper was not allowed; (d) more focusing strategy for male than female pairs, while male and female individuals did not differ; (e) improvement from Problem 1 to 2 on all 3 measures, with no differences between Problems 2 and 3; (f) low interproblem correlations within treatment conditions on all 3 measures.

Instrumental beliefs, value‐expressive beliefs, and attitudes related to parolees were investigated in 2 contexts. In Study I, students (N= 180) responded to value‐expressive measures in a mass survey and then, a month later, read 2 scenarios and completed measures of instrumental beliefs, attitudes, and intentions. Instrumental beliefs were better predictors of behavioral attitudes than were value‐expressive beliefs. In Study 2, the format of the measures was altered and all measures were administered concurrently. As in Study I, results showed that instrumental beliefs were consistent and strong predictors of attitudes toward parolees. Attitudes related to parolees appear to be based more on practical concerns (instrumental beliefs) than on moral or symbolic issues (value‐expressive beliefs).

No abstract

No abstract