Hidden talents in harsh conditions? A preregistered study of memory and reasoning about social dominance.

Although growing up in stressful conditions can undermine mental abilities, people in harsh environments may develop intact, or even enhanced, social and cognitive abilities for solving problems in high-adversity contexts (i.e. 'hidden talents'). We examine whether childhood and current exposure to violence are associated with memory (number of learning rounds needed to memorize relations between items) and reasoning performance (accuracy in deducing a novel relation) on transitive inference tasks involving both violence-relevant and violence-neutral social information (social dominance vs. chronological age). We hypothesized that individuals who had more exposure to violence would perform better than individuals with less exposure on the social dominance task. We tested this hypothesis in a preregistered study in 100 Dutch college students and 99 Dutch community participants. We found that more exposure to violence was associated with lower overall memory performance, but not with reasoning performance. However, the main effects of current (but not childhood) exposure to violence on memory were qualified by significant interaction effects. More current exposure to neighborhood violence was associated with worse memory for age relations, but not with memory for dominance relations. By contrast, more current personal involvement in violence was associated with better memory for dominance relations, but not with memory for age relations. These results suggest incomplete transfer of learning and memory abilities across contents. This pattern of results, which supports a combination of deficits and 'hidden talents,' is striking in relation to the broader developmental literature, which has nearly exclusively reported deficits in people from harsh conditions. A video abstract of this article can be viewed at: https://youtu.be/e4ePmSzZsuc.

Quick question or intensive inquiry: The role of message elaboration in the effectiveness of self-persuasive anti-alcohol posters.

Self-persuasion (i.e., generating your own arguments) is often more persuasive than direct persuasion (i.e., being provided with arguments), even when the technique is applied in media messages by framing the message as a question. It is unclear, however, if these messages are more persuasive when viewed for a long period to allow more elaboration about the message, or for a short period to reduce elaboration. In the current experiment, this is addressed by examining whether anti-alcohol posters framed as a statement (direct persuasion) or an open-ended question (self-persuasion) are more effective to reduce alcohol consumption under conditions of short- or long message exposure, compared to a control condition (no poster). Additionally, the potentially moderating roles of self-perceived alcohol identity and self-esteem on both types of persuasion are examined. Participants (N = 149) were exposed to a self-persuasion or direct persuasion anti-alcohol poster, either briefly before or continuously during a bogus beer taste task. The amount of alcohol consumed was the covert dependent variable. Contrary to expectations, both posters failed to affect alcohol consumption, regardless of exposure length. No moderation effects for self-perceived alcohol identity and self-esteem of the participants were found. Possible explanations are discussed.