@article{RinnKrishnaDeutsch2023, author = {Rinn, Robin and Krishna, Anand and Deutsch, Roland}, title = {The psychology of income wealth threshold estimations: A registered report}, series = {British Journal of Social Psychology}, volume = {62}, journal = {British Journal of Social Psychology}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1111/bjso.12581}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-311847}, pages = {630 -- 650}, year = {2023}, abstract = {How do people estimate the income that is needed to be rich? Two correlative survey studies (Study 1 and 2, N = 568) and one registered experimental study (Study 3, N = 500) examined the cognitive mechanisms that are used to derive an answer to this question. We tested whether individuals use their personal income (PI) as a self-generated anchor to derive an estimate of the income needed to be rich (= income wealth threshold estimation, IWTE). On a bivariate level, we found the expected positive relationship between one's PI and IWTE and, in line with previous findings, we found that people do not consider themselves rich. Furthermore, we predicted that individuals additionally use information about their social status within their social circles to make an IWTE. The findings from study 2 support this notion and show that only self-reported high-income individuals show different IWTEs depending on relative social status: Individuals in this group who self-reported a high status produced higher IWTEs than individuals who self-reported low status. The registered experimental study could not replicate this pattern robustly, although the results trended non-significantly in the same direction. Together, the findings revealed that the income of individuals as well as the social environment are used as sources of information to make IWTE judgements, although they are likely not the only important predictors.}, language = {en} } @article{KrishnaRiedMeixner2021, author = {Krishna, Anand and Ried, Sophia and Meixner, Marie}, title = {State-trait interactions in regulatory focus determine impulse buying behavior}, series = {PLoS One}, volume = {16}, journal = {PLoS One}, number = {7}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0253634}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-261206}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Little research has focused on motivational state-trait interactions to explain impulse buying. Although the trait chronic regulatory focus has been linked to impulse buying, no evidence yet exists for an effect of situational regulatory focus and no research has examined whether the fit of chronic and situational regulatory focus can influence impulse buying with actual consumptive consequences rather than purchase intentions. Two laboratory experiments (total N = 250) manipulated situational regulatory focus before providing opportunities for impulse buying. In addition, cognitive constraint was manipulated as a potential boundary condition for regulatory focus effects. Situational promotion focus increased impulse buying relative to situational prevention focus in participants with strong chronic promotion, consistent with regulatory fit theory and independently of cognitive constraint. Surprisingly, situational promotion focus also increased impulse buying in participants with strong chronic prevention, but only under low cognitive constraint. These results may be explained by diverging mediating cognitive processes for promotion vs. prevention focus' effect on impulse buying. Future research must focus more on combining relevant states and traits in predicting consumer behavior. Marketing implications are discussed.}, language = {en} } @article{KrishnaRodriguesMitschkeetal.2021, author = {Krishna, Anand and Rodrigues, Johannes and Mitschke, Vanessa and Eder, Andreas B.}, title = {Self-reported mask-related worrying reduces relative avoidance bias toward unmasked faces in individuals with low Covid19 anxiety syndrome}, series = {Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications}, volume = {6}, journal = {Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications}, doi = {10.1186/s41235-021-00344-8}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265720}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Facial masks have become and may remain ubiquitous. Though important for preventing infection, they may also serve as a reminder of the risks of disease. Thus, they may either act as cues for threat, priming avoidance-related behavior, or as cues for a safe interaction, priming social approach. To distinguish between these possibilities, we assessed implicit and explicit evaluations of masked individuals as well as avoidance bias toward relatively unsafe interactions with unmasked individuals in an approach-avoidance task in an online study. We further assessed Covid19 anxiety and specific attitudes toward mask-wearing, including mask effectiveness and desirability, hindrance of communication from masks, aesthetic appeal of masks, and mask-related worrying. Across one sample of younger (18-35 years, N = 147) and one of older adults (60+ years, N = 150), we found neither an average approach nor avoidance bias toward mask-wearing compared to unmasked individuals in the indirect behavior measurement task. However, across the combined sample, self-reported mask-related worrying correlated with reduced avoidance tendencies toward unmasked individuals when Covid19 anxiety was low, but not when it was high. This relationship was specific to avoidance tendencies and was not observed in respect to explicit or implicit preference for mask-wearing individuals. We conclude that unsafe interaction styles may be reduced by targeting mask-related worrying with public interventions, in particular for populations that otherwise have low generalized Covid19 anxiety.}, language = {en} } @article{KrishnaPeter2018, author = {Krishna, Anand and Peter, Sebastian M.}, title = {Questionable research practices in student final theses - prevalence, attitudes, and the role of the supervisor's perceived attitudes}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {13}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, number = {8}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0203470}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-177296}, pages = {e0203470}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Although questionable research practices (QRPs) and p-hacking have received attention in recent years, little research has focused on their prevalence and acceptance in students. Students are the researchers of the future and will represent the field in the future. Therefore, they should not be learning to use and accept QRPs, which would reduce their ability to produce and evaluate meaningful research. 207 psychology students and fresh graduates provided self-report data on the prevalence and predictors of QRPs. Attitudes towards QRPs, belief that significant results constitute better science or lead to better grades, motivation, and stress levels were predictors. Furthermore, we assessed perceived supervisor attitudes towards QRPs as an important predictive factor. The results were in line with estimates of QRP prevalence from academia. The best predictor of QRP use was students' QRP attitudes. Perceived supervisor attitudes exerted both a direct and indirect effect via student attitudes. Motivation to write a good thesis was a protective factor, whereas stress had no effect. Students in this sample did not subscribe to beliefs that significant results were better for science or their grades. Such beliefs further did not impact QRP attitudes or use in this sample. Finally, students engaged in more QRPs pertaining to reporting and analysis than those pertaining to study design. We conclude that supervisors have an important function in shaping students' attitudes towards QRPs and can improve their research practices by motivating them well. Furthermore, this research provides some impetus towards identifying predictors of QRP use in academia.}, language = {en} } @article{EderMaasSchubmannetal.2022, author = {Eder, Andreas B. and Maas, Franzisca and Schubmann, Alexander and Krishna, Anand and Erle, Thorsten M.}, title = {Motivations underlying self-infliction of pain during thinking for pleasure}, series = {Scientific Reports}, volume = {12}, journal = {Scientific Reports}, number = {1}, doi = {10.1038/s41598-022-14775-w}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-301059}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Previous research suggested that people prefer to administer unpleasant electric shocks to themselves rather than being left alone with their thoughts because engagement in thinking is an unpleasant activity. The present research examined this negative reinforcement hypothesis by giving participants a choice of distracting themselves with the generation of electric shock causing no to intense pain. Four experiments (N = 254) replicated the result that a large proportion of participants opted to administer painful shocks to themselves during the thinking period. However, they administered strong electric shocks to themselves even when an innocuous response option generating no or a mild shock was available. Furthermore, participants inflicted pain to themselves when they were assisted in the generation of pleasant thoughts during the waiting period, with no difference between pleasant versus unpleasant thought conditions. Overall, these results question that the primary motivation for the self-administration of painful shocks is avoidance of thinking. Instead, it seems that the self-infliction of pain was attractive for many participants, because they were curious about the shocks, their intensities, and the effects they would have on them.}, language = {en} }