 |
 |
 |
 |
Directories for:
Keith D. Markman
Associate
Professor of PsychologyPh.D. (1994) Indiana University
Research Area:
Social Judgment & Behavioral Decision Making
Specializations:
Social, Judgment and Decision Making
Contact Information:
- Office: 200 Porter Hall
- Phone: (740) 593-1083
- E-mail: markman@ohio.edu
- Phone: (740) 593-1083
Research Interests:
My research interests, characterized broadly, are in the areas of motivated social cognition and social judgment and decision-making. Areas of specific interest break down into the following three categories:
I. Mental Simulation
Mental simulation involves the generation of imagined alternatives to reality. My research program in this area has led to the recent development of the Reflection and Evaluation Model (REM) of comparative thinking (Markman & McMullen, 2003), which makes predictions regarding when assimilation and contrast effects in counterfactual, social, and temporal comparisons are likely to occur, and specifies the affective and motivational consequences of making such comparisons.
At the heart of the model is the assertion that two psychologically distinct modes of mental simulation operate during comparative thinking: Reflection, an experiential (“as if”) mode of thinking characterized by vividly simulating that information about the comparison standard is true of or part of the self, and Evaluation, an evaluative mode of thinking characterized by the use of information about the standard as a reference point against which to evaluate one’s present standing. Reflection occurs when information about the standard is included in one’s self-construal, and evaluation occurs when such information is excluded. The result of reflection is that standard-consistent cognitions implicating the self become highly accessible, thereby yielding affective assimilation, whereas the result of evaluation is that comparison information is used as a standard against which one’s present standing is evaluated, thereby yielding affective contrast. The resulting affect leads to either an increase or decrease in behavioral persistence as a function of the type of task with which one is engaged, and a combination of comparison-derived causal inferences and regulatory focus strategies direct one toward adopting specific future action plans.
II. Openmindedness and Alternative Thinking Strategies
A second line of research explores the processes that underlie social predictions and perceptions and the debiasing effects of considering multiple alternatives and perspectives. Earlier research in this area sought to specify the process by which counterexplanations correct for the biasing effects of social explanations. The results of several studies suggested that considering multiple alternative outcomes for events, not just opposite outcomes, were effective for debiasing judgments, and more recent research has found that the consideration of alternatives in one domain may have debiasing effects on judgments made in a completely unrelated domain.
Even more recently, research conducted in the lab has suggested that it is possible to prime individuals to think in a more open-minded fashion. Individuals who have been so primed appear to try harder to integrate disparate pieces of information about other people in an effort to form a coherent impression.
III. Stereotyping and Prejudice
A. Automatic and Controlled Processes in Stereotyping and Prejudice
Recent work in the lab has been examining automatic and controlled processes in stereotyping and prejudice, as well as how self-directed negative affect and guilt (engendered by transgressing against one's normally egalitarian standards) affects the manner by which individuals perceptually unitize a sequence of behaviors performed by a stigmatized target.
B. Stereotype Threat
Finally, work conducted in the lab is focusing on specifying the mechanisms underlying stereotype-threat-induced performance deficits experienced by women on math tests, as well as techniques (e.g., gender affirmation) that may effectively short-circuit stereotype threat effects.
Selected Publications:
Journal Articles:
Hirt. E.R., & Markman, K.D. (1995). Multiple explanation: A consider-an-alternative strategy for debiasing judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1069-1086.
Markman, K.D., Gavanski, I., Sherman, S.J., & McMullen. M.N. (1995). The impact of perceived control on the imagination of better and worse possible worlds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 578-585.
Markman, K.D., Gavanski, I., Sherman, S.J., & McMullen, M.N. (1993). The mental simulation of better and worse possible worlds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 87-109.
Markman, K.D., & Hirt, E.R. (2002). Social prediction and the "allegiance bias". Social Cognition, 20, 58-86.
Markman, K.D., & McMullen, M.N. (2003). A reflection and evaluation model of comparative thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 244-267.
Markman, K.D., & Tetlock, P.E. (2000). "I couldn't have known": Accountability, foreseeability, and counterfactual denials of responsibility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 313-325.
Markman, K.D., & Tetlock, P.E. (2000). Accountability and close-call counterfactuals: The loser who nearly won and the winner who nearly lost. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1213-1224.
Markman, K.D., & Weary, G. (1996). The influence of chronic control concerns on counterfactual thought. Social Cognition, 14, 292-316.
McMullen, M.N., & Markman, K.D. (2002). Affective impact of close counterfactuals: Implications of possible futures for possible pasts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 64-70.
McMullen, M.N., & Markman, K.D. (2000). Downward counterfactuals and motivation: The "wake-up call" and the "Pangloss" effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 575-584.
Book Chapters:
Markman, K.D., & Weary, G. (1998). Depression, control motivation, and counterfactual thought. In M. Kofta, G. Weary, & G. Sedek (Eds.), Personal control in action: Cognitive and motivational mechanisms (pp. 363-390). New York: Plenum Press.
McMullen, M.N., Markman, K.D., & Gavanski, I. (1995). Living in neither the best nor worst of all possible worlds: Antecedents and consequences of upward and downward counterfactual thinking. In N.J. Roese and J.M. Olson (Eds.), What might have been: Social Psychological perspectives on counterfactual thinking (pp. 133-167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Some Recent or Upcoming Presentations:
Miller, A.K., & Markman, K.D. (2003).
Depressive symptomatology moderates the relationship between counterfactual thinking and motivation. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
Markman, K.D., & Elizaga, R. (2003).
Counterfactual thinking and regulatory focus. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Markman, K.D., McMullen, M.N., & Ratcliff, J.J. (2003).
Selective accessibility and counterfactual thinking: A test of the reflection-evaluation model. Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Los Angleles, California.
Ratcliff, J.J., & Markman, K.D. (2003).
Hot cognition: The influence of motivational intensity on subsequent performance strategies. Poster presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Markman, K.D. (2002).
What could have been...what should have been: Examining the mental simulations of 9/11 survivors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, Columbus, Ohio.
Markman, K.D., & Hirt, E.R. (2002).
Social prediction and the "allegiance bias". Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Savannah, Georgia.
Courses Taught:
- Undergraduate:
Introduction to Psychology; Social Psychology- Graduate:
Advanced Research Methods in Social Psychology- Counterfactual Thinking and Other Forms of Mental Simulation
- Graduate:
- Social Cognition
Affiliations:
