Authors: Sebastian Bailey
3
. This study asked participants to complete a math test and gave them a fifteen-minute head start with which to practice, play a video game, or work on a puzzle. Interestingly, when the math test was described as an important measurement of their mathematical and cognitive skills, the chronic procrastinators spent more time on the video game or the puzzle than the non-procrastinators. But when the math test was described as a fun game, there was no difference in the amount of time spent on the video game or puzzle by both chronic procrastinators and non-procrastinators. Joseph R. Ferrari and Dianne M. Tice, “Procrastination as a Self-Handicap for Men and Women: A Task-Avoidance Strategy in a Laboratory Setting,”
Journal of Research in Personality
34, no. 1 (2000): 73–83.
4
. William J. Knaus,
End Procrastination Now! Get It Done with a Proven Psychological Approach
(New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010).
5
. Piers Steel, “The Nature of Procrastination: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review of Quintessential Self-Regulatory Failure,”
Psychological Bulletin
133, no. 1 (2007): 65–94.
Chapter 6: Get in the Right Relationship Mind-Set
1
. John Bowlby,
Attachment
(London: Hogarth Press, 1982).
2
. L. J. Berlin, J. Cassidy, and K. Appleyard, “The Influence of Early Attachments on Other Relationships,” in
Handbook of Attachment: Theory, Research, and Clinical Applications
, eds. J. Cassidy and P. R. Shaver (New York: Guilford Press, 2008).
3
. Bowlby believed that a child’s attachment style would persist throughout his or her life and across all relationships. While this is mostly true, in some cases children have different attachment styles with different caregivers, so they might have experienced a secure attachment with one and an anxious attachment with another, for example. Also, attachment styles are fairly persistent across one’s life but can change, becoming more or less secure with further relationships. H. Rudolph Schaffer,
Introducing Child Psychology
(Oxford: Blackwell, 2007).
4
. The
I’m okay, you’re okay
concepts were first introduced by the psychiatrist Thomas Harris. See T. A. Harris,
I’m OK—You’re OK
(New York: Harper and Row, 1967).
5
. Christopher Peterson and Martin E. P. Seligman,
Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook and Classification
(Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association and Oxford University Press, 2004).
Chapter 7: Bid for Attention
1
. John M. Gottman and Clifford I. Notarius, “Decade Review: Observing Marital Interaction,”
Journal of Marriage and the Family
62, no. 4 (2000): 927–47.
2
. John M. Gottman and L. J. Krokoff, “Marital Interaction and Satisfaction: A Longitudinal View,”
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
57, no. 1 (1989): 47–52.
3
. Joann Wu Shortt and John M. Gottman, “Closeness in Young Adult Sibling Relationships: Affective and Physiological Processes,”
Social Development
6, no. 2 (1997): 142–64.
4
. Lynn F. Katz and John M. Gottman, “Patterns of Marital Conflict Predict Children’s Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors,”
Developmental Psychology
29, no. 6 (1993): 940–50.
5
. John M. Gottman and Janice L. Driver, “Dysfunctional Marital Conflict and Everyday Marital Interaction,”
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage
43, nos. 3–4 (2005): 63–77.
6
. John M. Gottman, “The Roles of Conflict Engagement, Escalation, and Avoidance in Marital Interaction: A Longitudinal View of Five Types of Couples,”
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
61, no. 1 (1993): 6–15.
7
. John M. Gottman and R. W. Levenson, “Marital Processes Predictive of Later Dissolution: Behavior, Physiology, and Health,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
63, no. 2 (1992): 221–33.
8
. In 1998, John Gottman repeated the 1992 research and predicted divorce with an 83 percent success rate. John M. Gottman, James Coan, Sybil Carrere, and Catherine Swanson, “Predicting Marital Happiness and Stability from Newlywed Interactions,”
Journal of Marriage and the Family
60, no. 1 (1998): 5–22.
Chapter 9: Win Hearts and Minds
1
. This paper replicated previous research in validating the influence tactics, especially as it concerns direction of who you’re trying to influence: upward, downward, or laterally. Interestingly, it found that the two most used tactics regardless of direction of influence are rational persuasion and consultation, the latter having a focus on collaborative decision making or involving others to bring them around to your point of view. Gary Yukl and Cecilia M. Falbe, “Influence Tactics and Objectives in Upward, Downward, and Lateral Influence Attempts,”
Journal of Applied Psychology
75, no. 2 (1990): 132–40.
2
. Except for simple requests, this approach can work wonders. In a study where a plainclothes researcher wanted to skip to the front of a long line to use a copy machine, the researcher simply asked to skip to the front of the line, but the technique didn’t work too well. Yet when the researcher said he wanted to skip to the front “because I need to make some copies,” people frequently said yes. This example of weak reasoning shows the power of the word “because” with simple requests. Ellen J. Langer, Arthur Blank, and Benzion Chanowitz, “The Mindlessness of Ostensibly Thoughtful Action: The Role of ‘Placebic’ Information in Interpersonal Interaction,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
36, no. 6 (1978): 635–42.
3
. In this study, participants in a research lab were unknowingly influenced by a confederate they thought was another research participant. This confederate unexpectedly gave them a soft drink and then later asked them to buy raffle tickets. Participants were more likely to buy raffle tickets if they’d be given a soft drink. It’s believed that social norms are at work here and participants buy raffle tickets to return the favor. Dennis T. Regan, “Effects of a Favor and Liking on Compliance,”
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
7, no. 6 (1971): 627–39.
4
. This groundbreaking study showed that by virtue of asking for a favor you can influence someone to like you more, even if you don’t return the favor. Research participants won some money in a fake contest. Half were approached by the researcher afterward and asked to return the money because, he said, it had come out of his own pocket and he needed it for more studies. The other half got to keep the money. In both cases, participants were asked at the end to rate how much they liked the researcher, and those who were asked to give the money back liked the researcher substantially
more
than those who had been allowed to keep the money. Psychologists argue this works because people are driven to adjust their attitudes in accordance with their behaviors. So, the participants who gave the money back might have done so out of social pressure, but they then subconsciously readjusted their attitudes so it felt more like they did the researcher a favor because they liked him. Jon Jecker and David Landy, “Liking a Person as a Function of Doing Him a Favour,”
Human Relations
22, no. 4 (1969): 371–78.
Chapter 10: Impress Everyone
1
. It used to be thought that charisma was innate; you either had it or you didn’t. But psychologists and management experts have since changed their minds, arguing instead that charisma is based on certain key behaviors that can be learned. John Antonakis, Marika Fenley, and Sue Liechti, “Learning Charisma,”
Harvard Business Review
90, no. 6 (2012): 127–30.
2
. The empirical studies explained in this paper show that the positive emotional expressions inherent to charisma influence others to feel more positive. As a result, people are more likely to look favorably on the person who exhibited charisma in the first place. Joyce E. Bono and Remus Ilies, “Charisma, Positive Emotions, and Mood Contagion,”
The Leadership Quarterly
17, no. 4 (2006): 317–34.
3
. Deborah G. Ancona and Chee L. Chong, “Entrainment: Cycles and Synergy in Organizational Behavior,” working papers 3443-92, Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1992, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/2421.
4
. This interesting study showed that when college students delivered a fake campaign speech as a “charismatic leader” character—smiling broadly and intensely, making more eye contact than usual, etc.—those observing the speech also demonstrated the same charismatic behaviors. Paul D. Cherulnik, Kristina A. Donley, Tay Sha R. Wiewel, and Susan R. Miller, “Charisma Is Contagious: The Effect of Leaders’ Charisma on Observers’ Affect,”
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
31, no. 10 (2001): 2149–59.
5
. Cynthia G. Emrich, Holly H. Brower, Jack M. Feldman, and Howard Garland, “Images in Words: Presidential Rhetoric, Charisma, and Greatness,”
Administrative Science Quarterly
46, no. 3 (2001): 527–57.
6
. E. M. Forster,
Aspects of the Novel
(London: Edward Arnold, 1927).
Chapter 11: Give Great Feedback
1
. This review article looks at years of feedback research and the evidence for its effectiveness as a performance enhancer and motivator. The review is very helpful, but what is most interesting is the feedback model the paper proposes, based on reaching recipients at four levels: task, process, self-regulation, and self. The paper argues that feedback aimed at the self-regulation level is the most effective type because it encourages a recipient’s self-assessment. Recipients who are capable of honest self-assessment have the meta-cognitive skills to measure their own performance as they go and can eventually develop their own internal feedback systems as well as self-correcting behaviors. Feedback givers can use this self-regulation feedback to encourage these self-management behaviors in the recipient. John Hattie and Helen Timperley, “The Power of Feedback,”
Review of Educational Research
77, no. 1 (2007): 81–112.
2
. Though there is some controversy over the power of immediate versus delayed feedback, in most cases immediate feedback is preferable. Delayed feedback might work better with high-achieving, highly capable recipients, particularly those grappling with complex issues that require new concept formation and new thinking, which proceeds a bit slower than procedural or behavioral changes. But when in doubt, go with immediate feedback. Valerie J. Shute, “Focus on Formative Feedback,”
Review of Educational Research
78, no. 1 (2008): 153–89.
3
. This study showed the power of verbal praise as a feedback technique and found that graduate students given verbal praise performed better on examinations, spent more time on homework, and were more motivated in the classroom. Dawson R. Hancock, “Influencing Graduate Students’ Classroom Achievement, Homework Habits, and Motivation to Learn with Verbal Praise,”
Educational Research
44, no. 1 (2002): 83–95.
4
. Valerie J. Shute, “Focus on Formative Feedback.”
5
. Results of this study showed that negative feedback from 360-degree reviews was perceived by the recipient as less accurate and less useful. These results question the efficacy of 360-degree feedback as a whole and the assumption that negative feedback leads to growth. J. F. Brett and L. E. Atwater, “360-Degree Feedback: Accuracy, Reactions, and Perceptions of Usefulness,”
Journal of Applied Psychology
86, no. 5 (2001): 930–42.
6
. This empirical study showed that medical students given the feedback sandwich believed it was an effective and useful approach that would improve their future performance. But the feedback sandwich did not positively impact their future performance and was the least effective feedback method overall. Jay Parkes, Sara Abercrombie, and Teresita McCarty, “Feedback Sandwiches Affect Perceptions but Not Performance,”
Advances in Health Sciences Education
18, no. 3 (2013): 397–407.
Chapter 12: Detox Your Relationships
1
. A. Ostell and S. Oakland, “Absolutist Thinking and Health,”
British Journal of Medical Psychology
72 (1999): 239–250.
2
. Roy F. Baumeister, Karen Dale, and Kristin L. Sommer, “Freudian Defense Mechanisms and Empirical Findings in Modern Social Psychology: Reaction Formation, Projection, Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial,”
Journal of Personality
66, no. 6 (1998): 1081–124. Self-defense research, originally taken from Freud, is now applied to understanding stereotyping and prejudice, since it is thought that both spring from a defense mechanism whereby one suppresses and then projects one’s unpleasant thoughts and feelings onto an alternative group or person. Interestingly, those that excelled at suppressing negative thoughts about themselves or their group were the most likely to project this negativity onto another group. Leonard S. Newman, Tracy L. Caldwall, Brian Chamberlin, and Thomas Griffin, “Thought Suppression, Projection, and the Development of Stereotypes,”
Basic and Applied Social Psychology
27, no. 3 (2010): 259–66.
Chapter 13: Navigate Difficult Conversations
1
. “John Gottman on Couples Therapy,” interview by Randall C. Wyatt, 2001, http://www.psycho therapy.net/interview/john-gottman.
2
. This study looked at fifty-six newlywed couples over four years and found that aggression and communication had different roles to play in their marriages. Aggression levels mediated those couples that stayed together and those that headed for divorce. Communication was not correlated with this variable but, instead, mediated whether or not the couples were satisfied. Those with strong communication skills were more satisfied than those with poor communication. R. D. Rogge and T. N. Bradbury, “Till Violence Does Us Part: The Differing Roles of Communication and Aggression in Predicting Adverse Marital Outcomes,”
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
67, no. 3 (1999): 340–51.