Two experiments, one conducted with American college students and one with Israeli pilots and their instructors, explored the predictive power of reputation-based assessments versus the stated "name of the game" (Wall Street Game vs. Community Game) in determining players' responses in an N-move Prisoner's Dilemma. The results of these studies showed that the relevant labeling manipulations exerted far greater impact on the players' choice to cooperate versus defect--both in the first round and overall--than anticipated by the individuals who had predicted their behavior. Reputation-based prediction, by contrast, failed to discriminate cooperators from defectors. A supplementary questionnaire study showed the generality of the relevant short-coming in naïve psychology. The implications of these findings, and the potential contribution of the present methodology to the classic pedagogical strategy of the demonstration experiment, are discussed.

Two studies explored the tension between self-interest and the equality norm in problems of resource allocation. Study 1 presented graduate business students with a hypothetical task requiring them to make a series of managerial decisions. On learning the outcome of those decisions, they were asked to divide a bonus pool between self and a rival manager (who had opted for very different decisions and achieved either the same results as self on 2 criteria or a better result on 1 criterion and a worse result on the other criterion). Study 2 required Stanford and San Jose State undergraduates to consider the division of a hypothetical scholarship fund between candidates from their 2 schools. Data from both studies contrasted the apparent evenhandedness and lack of self-interest manifested by allocators with the self-serving responses of evaluators. Furthermore, when faced with different claims, participants were inclined to justify an unequal allocation of resources--provided that they, or a representative of their group, received the larger share--that few personally would have recommended, demanded, or imposed.

We examined whether completion of a military Freefall parachuting program enhanced self-efficacy in the domains of leader self-control and leader assertiveness. The Freefall program was particularly suited for self-efficacy development because Freefall required personal mastery to overcome a substantial perceived risk. We surveyed participants at the beginning and end of the Freefall program. We also distributed a subsequent survey nine months later that allowed us to compare leader self-efficacy as a function of participation in Freefall and a similarly risky but less mastery-oriented Soaring program (i.e., flying gliders). The obtained results indicated that successful performance in Freefall, but not in Soaring, contributed to leader self-control and leader assertiveness. The implications for leading in dangerous and traditional contexts are discussed.

This qualitative study examines how cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy make sense of their experiences, form attitudes and beliefs, construct identities, and how a vocal minority of men create and perpetuate a biased gender norm. Despite an institutional intention of egalitarianism, cadets construct a highly masculinized culture. Focus group and interview analyses show how cadets perpetuate the military masculine-warrior narrative in sensemaking and the construction of gender differences. We argue that the narratives become an acceptable way to express gender biases, overriding the actual reason for the existence of fitness testing. We conclude by addressing the contradiction between policies promoting the inclusion of women in the military and the sexism described above. Acknowledging the lived experience of military personnel would allow for better perceptions of gender equality and suggests potential directions for policy, practice, and future research.

No abstract