{"id":5276,"date":"2021-02-28T06:16:22","date_gmt":"2021-02-28T11:16:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/?p=5276"},"modified":"2021-08-13T16:54:03","modified_gmt":"2021-08-13T20:54:03","slug":"psychological-phenomena-discovered-by-scott-t-allisons-research-lab-1985-present","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/2021\/02\/28\/psychological-phenomena-discovered-by-scott-t-allisons-research-lab-1985-present\/","title":{"rendered":"Psychological Phenomena Discovered by Scott T. Allison\u2019s Research Lab, 1985 – Present"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Below is a partial listing of phenomena discovered by Dr. Scott T. Allison’s research lab<\/a> from 1985 to the present day.<\/p>\n

1. The Group Attribution Error<\/strong> \u2013 1985<\/p>\n

The tendency to overlook the power of group decision rules in producing group outcomes, leading to the inference that group outcomes reflect group members\u2019 attitudes.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1985). The group attribution error. Journal of Experimental\u00a0Social Psychology, 21, 563-579.<\/em><\/p>\n

2. The Illusion of Attitude Change<\/strong> \u2013 1987<\/p>\n

People\u2019s tendency to use two decision outcomes to assume that attitude change has occurred, overlooking the role of two difference decision rules.<\/p>\n

Mackie, D. M., & Allison, S. T. (1987). Group attribution errors and the illusion of group attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 460-480.<\/em><\/p>\n

3. The Feature-Positive Effect on Attitude and Consensus Judgments<\/strong> \u2013 1988<\/p>\n

The tendency of actions to exert a stronger effect on attitudes and consensus judgements compared inactions.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Messick, D. M. (1988). The feature-positive effect, attitude strength, and degree of perceived consensus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 231-241.<\/em><\/p>\n

4. Muhammad Ali Effect<\/strong> \u2013 1989<\/p>\n

The tendency of people to rate themselves as more moral than others but not necessarily as more intelligent than others. (based on a quip from Ali who said after failing the Army entrance exam, ‘I never said I was the smartest, only the greatest’)<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M., & Goethals, G. R. (1989). On being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect. Social Cognition, 7, 275-296.<\/em><\/p>\n

5. Constructive Social Comparison<\/strong> \u2013 1991<\/p>\n

The phenomenon of people\u2019s needs and motivations biasing their social comparisons in a self-serving manner.<\/p>\n

Goethals, G. R., Messick, D. M., & Allison, S. T. (1991). The uniqueness bias: Studies of constructive social comparison. In J. Suls & B. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 149-176). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.<\/em><\/p>\n

6. Nonpartitioned Resource Overconsumption Effect<\/strong> \u2013 1992<\/p>\n

The tendency of people to consume more than their fair share of a common resource when they resource is nonpartitioned in nature compared to when it is partitioned.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., McQueen, L. R., & Schaerfl, L. M. (1992). Social decision making processes and the equal partitionment of shared resources. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 23-42.<\/em><\/p>\n

7. Group Correspondence Biases in Public Goods Tasks<\/strong> \u2013 1994<\/p>\n

The bias in assuming that a successful outcome in public goods tasks is diagnostic of group members\u2019 level of cooperation and competence.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Kerr, N. L. (1994). Group correspondence biases and the provision of public goods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 688-698.<\/em><\/p>\n

8. <\/strong>Metaphor-Based Hypotheses in Social Dilemma Research<\/strong> \u2013 1996<\/p>\n

The strategy of scientists to employ metaphorical images to inform their research on social dilemma situations.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., Beggan, J. K., & Midgley, E. H. (1996). The quest for \u2018similar instances\u2019 and \u2018simultaneous possibilities\u2019: Metaphors in social dilemma research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 479-497.<\/em><\/p>\n

9. <\/strong>Unintended Resource Overconsumption Effect<\/strong> \u2013 1997<\/p>\n

The tendency of people to accidentally overconsume common resources.<\/p>\n

Herlocker, C. E., Allison, S. T., Foubert, J. D., & Beggan, J. K. (1997). Intended and unintended overconsumption of physical, spatial, and temporal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 992-1004.<\/em><\/p>\n

10. Two-Stage Process Model of Shared Resource Consumption<\/strong> \u2013 2000<\/p>\n

A psychological model of resource consumption that consists of an initial application of a \u201cdivide equally\u201d rule followed by an adjustment from this rule in a self-serving direction.<\/p>\n

Roch,\u00a0 S., Samuelson, C., Allison, S. T., & Dent, J. (2000). Cognitive load and the equality heuristic: A two stage model of resource overconsumption in small groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83, 185-212.<\/em><\/p>\n

11. The Paradox of Ambiguous Information<\/strong> \u2013 2002<\/p>\n

The tendency of people to judge ambiguous information as less important than nonambiguous information despite preferring to share ambiguous information with their collaborators.<\/p>\n

Eylon, D., & Allison, S. T. (2002). The paradox of ambiguity in cooperative and competitive organizational settings. Group and Organization Management, 27, 172-208.<\/em><\/p>\n

12. The Death Positivity Bias<\/strong> \u2013 2005<\/p>\n

The tendency of people to evaluate the dead more favorably than the living.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Eylon, D. (2005). The demise of leadership: Death positivity biases in posthumous impressions of leaders. In D. Messick & R. Kramer (Eds.), The Psychology of Leadership: New Perspectives and Research (pp 295-317). New York: Erlbaum.<\/em><\/p>\n

13. The Frozen in Time Effect<\/strong> \u2013 2005<\/p>\n

People\u2019s tendency to resist changing their impressions of the dead compared to the living.<\/p>\n

Eylon, D., & Allison, S. T. (2005). The frozen in time effect in evaluations of the dead. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1708-1717.<\/em><\/p>\n

14. The Underdog Abandonment Effect<\/strong> \u2013 2008<\/p>\n

The tendency of people to no longer root for the underdog when both self\u2010relevance and consequences are low.<\/p>\n

Kim, J., Allison, S. T., Eylon, D., Goethals, G., Markus, M., McGuire, H., & Hindle, S. (2008). Rooting for (and then Abandoning) the Underdog. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 2550-2573.<\/em><\/p>\n

15. The Great Eight Traits of Heroes<\/strong> \u2013 2011<\/p>\n

The discovery that people believe that heroes possess the traits of wise, strong, charismatic, caring, resilient, reliable, selfless, and inspiring.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Goethals, G. R. (2011). Heroes: What they do and why we need them. New York: Oxford University Press.<\/em><\/p>\n

16. Social Influence Based Taxonomy of Heroism<\/strong> \u2013 2012<\/p>\n

The scientific identification of heroes as Transforming, Transfigured, Traditional, Transparent, Transposed, Tragic, Transitional, Transitory, Trending, and Transcendent.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Goethals, G. R. (2013). Heroic leadership: An influence taxonomy of 100 exceptional individuals. New York: Routledge.<\/em><\/p>\n

17. The Heroic Leadership <\/strong>Dynamic<\/strong> \u2013 2014<\/p>\n

A system of psychological forces that can explain how humans are drawn to heroes, how they benefit from these heroes and their stories, and how heroic tales help people become heroes themselves.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Goethals, G. R. (2014). \u201cNow he belongs to the ages\u201d: The heroic leadership dynamic and deep narratives of greatness. In Goethals, G. R., et al. (Eds.), Conceptions of leadership:\u00a0Enduring ideas and emerging insights. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.<\/em><\/p>\n

18. Epistemic and Energizing Functions of Heroism<\/strong> \u2013 2014<\/p>\n

The conceptualization of the functions of heroism that includes epistemological needs involving the imparting of wisdom and emerging needs involving healing, growing, and inspiration.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Goethals, G. R. (2014). \u201cNow he belongs to the ages\u201d: The heroic leadership dynamic and deep narratives of greatness. In Goethals, G. R., et al. (Eds.), Conceptions of leadership:\u00a0Enduring ideas and emerging insights. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.<\/em><\/p>\n

19. The Johnny Carson Effect<\/strong> \u2013 2014<\/p>\n

The tendency of people\u2019s current need states to determine their choice of heroes, with these need-states changing as a function of people\u2019s developmental stages and their changing life circumstances. (named after Johnny Carson’s quip that after all his divorces, his hero changed from Babe Ruth to King Henry VIII)<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Goethals, G. R. (2016). Hero worship: The elevation of the human spirit. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 46, 187-210.<\/em><\/p>\n

20. Six Benefits of Suffering<\/strong> \u2013 2016<\/p>\n

The identification of benefits of suffering as offering (1) redemption, (2) developmental progress, (3) humility, (4) compassion, (5) social union, and (6) meaning and purpose.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Setterberg, G. C. (2016). Suffering and sacrifice: Individual and collective benefits, and implications for leadership. In S. T. Allison, C. T. Kocher, & G. R. Goethals (Eds), Frontiers in spiritual leadership: Discovering the better angels of our nature. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.<\/em><\/p>\n

21. Six Types of Heroic Transformation<\/strong> \u2013 2017<\/p>\n

Six commons patterns of transformation in heroes that involve changes in their mental, emotional, physical, spiritual, moral, and motivational state.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., Goethals, G. R., & Kramer, R. M. (2017). Setting the scene: The rise and coalescence of heroism science. In S. T. Allison, G. R. Goethals, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of heroism and heroic leadership. New York: Routledge.<\/em><\/p>\n

22. Three Heroic Transformative Arcs<\/strong> \u2013 2017<\/p>\n

The tendency of heroes to transform from a state of egocentricity to sociocentricity; from dependence to autonomy; and from stagnation to growth.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., & Goethals, G. R. (2017). The hero’s transformation. In S. T. Allison, G. R. Goethals, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of heroism and heroic leadership. New York: Routledge.<\/em><\/p>\n

23. The Personal Heroic Imperative<\/strong> \u2013 2018<\/p>\n

Each human being\u2019s built-in mandate to fulfill their heroic imperative by imagining and creating their own heroic growth.<\/p>\n

Efthimiou, O., Allison, S. T., & Franco, Z. E. (2018). Heroism and wellbeing in the 21st<\/sup> century: Recognizing our personal heroic imperative. In O. Efthimiou, S. T. Allison, & Z. E. Franco (Eds.), Heroism and wellbeing in the 21st Century: Applied and emerging perspectives. New York: Routledge.<\/em><\/p>\n

24. Transcendent and Trapped Immortality<\/strong> \u2013 2018<\/p>\n

The tendency of people to perceive dead<\/em> heroes and villains differently. Specifically, we believe deceased good-doers achieve\u00a0transcendent<\/em> immortality, with their souls persisting beyond space and time; and evil-doers to have trapped<\/em> immortality, with their souls persisting on Earth, bound to a physical location.<\/p>\n

Gray, K., Anderson, S., Doyle, C. M., Hester, N., Schmitt, P., Vonasch, A., Allison, S. T., and Jackson, J. C. (2018). To be immortal, do good or evil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 868-880.<\/em><\/p>\n

25. Heroic Lag<\/strong> \u2013 2019<\/p>\n

The delay between the point in time when a hero first expresses their heroic message and when mainstream society adopts that message.<\/p>\n

Goethals, G. R., & Allison, S. T. (2019). The romance of heroism and heroic leadership: Ambiguity, attribution, and apotheosis. West Yorkshire: Emerald.<\/em><\/p>\n

26. Heroic Consciousness<\/strong> \u2013 2019<\/p>\n

The tendency of heroes to demonstrate a mental and experiential approach to the world that is nondualistic, transrational, unitive, and empowered.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T. (2019). Heroic consciousness. Heroism Science, 4, 1-43.<\/em><\/p>\n

27. Seven Barriers to Heroic Transformation\u00a0<\/strong>\u2013 2019<\/p>\n

The tendency of people to avoid heroic transformation because of self-ignorance, impoverished environments, personal trauma, victim identification, absence of mentors, mental\/physical illness, and lack of psychological flexibility.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T., Goethals, G. R., Marrinan, A. R., Parker, O. M., Spyrou, S. P., Stein, M. (2019). The metamorphosis of the hero: Principles, processes, and purpose. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 606.<\/em><\/p>\n

28. Heroic Leadership Imperative<\/strong> \u2013 2020<\/p>\n

The mandate of transforming heroic leaders to meet the individual, collective, and transcendent needs of their followers.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T. & Goethals, G. R. (2020). The heroic leadership imperative: How leaders inspire and mobilize change. West Yorkshire: Emerald.<\/em><\/p>\n

29. Heroic Wholeness Imperative<\/strong> \u2013 2020<\/p>\n

The mandate of leaders to promote psychological wholeness and well-being by meeting the higher-level transcendent needs of followers.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T. & Goethals, G. R. (2020). The heroic leadership imperative: How leaders inspire and mobilize change. West Yorkshire: Emerald.<\/em><\/p>\n

30. The Hero Androgyny Phenomenon\u00a0<\/strong> — 2020
\nThe tendency of heroes to possess both masculine and feminine traits, i.e., agency plus communality.<\/p>\n

Hoyt, C. L., Allison, S. T., Barnowski, A., & Sultan, A. (2020). Lay theories of heroism and leadership: The role of gender, communion, and agency. Social Psychology, 51, 381-395. <\/em><\/p>\n

31. Heroic Autonomy\u00a0<\/strong> — 2021<\/p>\n

The imperative of the hero to perform the last and most crucial heroic act alone and independent from their friends and mentors.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T. (2021). Beth Harmon\u2019s hero\u2019s journey: The psychology of heroism in The Queen\u2019s Gambit. Richmond: Palsgrove.<\/em><\/p>\n

32. Heroic Balance\u00a0<\/strong> — 2021<\/p>\n

The ability of the hero to achieve a healthy life balance needed to achieve their heroic mission. Heroes needs to balance intuition with reason; emotion with logic; self-confidence with humility; autonomy with dependency; personal life with professional life; and more.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T. (2021). Beth Harmon\u2019s hero\u2019s journey: The psychology of heroism in The Queen\u2019s Gambit. Richmond: Palsgrove.<\/em><\/p>\n

33. Heroism Attribution Error \u2013<\/strong> 2022<\/p>\n

The tendency of people to confuse fame for heroism, such that they attribute heroism to celebrities who are famous for non-heroic reasons.<\/p>\n

Goethals, G. R., & Allison, S. T. (2022).\u00a0The construction and presentation of heroes and heroines.\u00a0In K. Lee (Ed.)\u00a0A cultural history of fame in the modern age. Camden, UK: Bloomsbury Press.<\/em><\/p>\n

34. Motional Intelligence —<\/strong> 2023<\/p>\n

The ability of leaders to use their bodily movements effectively in such a way to inspire and mobilize followers.<\/p>\n

Allison, S. T. (2023). Motional intelligence and leadership. In G. R. Goethals, S. T. Allison, & G. J. Sorenson (Eds.). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Leadership Studies. Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.<\/em><\/p>\n

.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Below is a partial listing of phenomena discovered by Dr. Scott T. Allison’s research lab from 1985 to the present day. 1. The Group Attribution Error \u2013 1985 The tendency to overlook the power of group decision rules in producing group outcomes, leading to the inference that group outcomes reflect group members\u2019 attitudes. Allison, S. … Continue reading Psychological Phenomena Discovered by Scott T. Allison\u2019s Research Lab, 1985 – Present<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1182,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5444],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5276","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary-and-analysis"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/phawtM-1n6","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5276","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1182"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5276"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5276\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5283,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5276\/revisions\/5283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5276"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5276"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/heroes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5276"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}