No abstract

The relationship of managerial experience to gender and attractiveness biases was examined in decisions involving suitability for hire and probable organizational progression within a typical financial institution. Each of 112 managers evaluated 4 equivalent resume-data sheets, to which different candidate photographs were attached. The photographs were varied using a 2 X 2 (Gender X Attractiveness) design wherein each photograph depicted a woman or a man who was either highly attractive or slightly below average in attractiveness. For both ratings and rankings of candidates, clear evidence of attractiveness and gender biases were present. The extent of the bias was generally smaller for the most experienced managers, although less attractive female applicants were routinely at a disadvantage regardless of managerial experience.

Conventional economic theory assumes that people are uniformly risk averse. Psychological studies, however, have shown that people are sometimes risk averse for gains but risk seeking for losses, a phenomenon termed the reflection effect. The robustness of the reflection effect was examined both within subjects and across subjects differing in risk style for a set of multi-outcome lotteries. Reflection was found to be weak and irregular for all choice pairs except those that included a lottery with a riskless component. The latter were generally preferred for gains but not for losses by both riskaverse and risk-seeking subjects. In all other choices, risk-averse and risk-seeking subjects differed systematically from one another, but in ways that are more complex than pure risk aversion or risk seeking would predict. The findings suggest a general inability of weighted value theories such as prospect theory (Kahneman ATverskv, 1979) to adequately describe the pattern of risk preferences over individuals and over the full range of lottery types. Such inadequacy suggests the need for an alternative approach to risk with emphasis on the goals and strategies that individuals bring to the risky choice process.

Is it better to be realistic or optimistic? A realistic outlook improves chances to negotiate the environment successfully, whereas an optimistic outlook places priority on feeling good. But are realistic and optimistic outlooks necessarily in conflict? The author suggests that the fuzzy nature of accuracy typically places only loose boundaries on what it means to be realistic. As a result, there are many forms of optimism that do not, in principle, yield unrealistic assessments. Nevertheless, there remain numerous "optimistic biases" that do involve self-deception, or convincing oneself of desired beliefs without appropriate reality checks. The author describes several ways that realistic and unrealistic optimism can be differentiated and explores the impact of this distinction for current views of optimism. This critique reveals how positive psychology may benefit from a focus on personal meaning and knowledge as they relate to making the most of life.

No abstract