Journal of personality and social psychology最新文献

Age, cohort, and period effects are three ways to explain personality trait change over time. While past research mostly focused on age differences, showing relatively consistent patterns, evidence for cohort differences is more mixed, and period differences have hardly been examined. However, age, period, and cohort are exactly collinear (age = period-cohort), such that estimates are likely confounded and always hinge on so-called identification assumptions. Identification assumptions shape substantive conclusions, and inappropriate or inconsistent strategies may explain past discrepant findings. To address this age-period-cohort identification problem in personality change, we leveraged four large-scale (N_total > 2 Mio) repeated cross-sectional data sets from 2003 to 2022. Our aims were to demonstrate how identification assumptions common in personality studies impact estimates for age, cohort, and period and to use weaker, substantively informed assumptions to narrow down the range of plausible solutions. Results showed that common identification strategies of constraining one temporal effect to zero can dramatically affect conclusions-less for age-graded, but more for generational differences. Using weaker assumptions, our results indicated that all three factors-age, cohort, and period-likely contribute to trait differences over time. Assuming age-graded change in a certain direction revealed cohort-related decreases in extraversion, openness, and neuroticism and increases in agreeableness, alongside period-related increases in extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness. This suggests that several previously assumed cohort differences may actually be driven by period effects, overlooked due to strong identification assumptions. Overall, highlighting the importance of appropriate identification strategies, our results offer unique insights into factors driving trait differences over time. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

We form a first impression every time we meet someone unfamiliar to us. When this happens, we often have access to information about this person's appearance, voice and the first thing we learn about them is usually their name. Despite this, much of what we know about social evaluation processes has been almost exclusively based on facial information. Here, approximately 45,000 spontaneous first impression descriptors were sampled to identify the most common judgments we make when presented with information about someone's face, voice, and name at the same time as well as when presented with information about their voice or name only. Ratings of these most common traits were then collected, and exploratory factor analysis was used to establish the underlying structure of multimodal, voice-, and name-based first impressions. Consistent with facial impression models, the two underlying dimensions of social evaluation, approachability and competence, emerged consistently regardless of the degree or type of identity information available, further adding to the existing evidence for their universal nature. Additional independent dimensions capturing confidence and pretentiousness were also found for multimodal impressions. These more social aspects of first impressions highlight further cultural learning routes to impression formation in addition to the evolutionary ones that have been the sole focus of existing work based on unimodal impressions from faces. Such findings draw attention to the need to further understand the mechanisms behind first impressions from different identity cues and, more importantly, how these cues are integrated together to form person first impressions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Existing research examining the creation of positive and prosocial interpersonal relations has established moral elevation as an approach-oriented emotion to be associated with a range of positive and prosocial outcomes. In this article and with the goal to identify emotional mechanism for improving intergroup relations in contexts of conflict, we examined the effects of moral elevation on enhancing intergroup relations. Across four experimental studies (Ns = 1,131), conducted in four understudied countries directly affected or threatened by intergroup conflict, we demonstrated that induced moral elevation elicits important cognitive and emotional shifts toward adversarial groups, resulting in improved intergroup relations. Specifically, we show that inducing moral elevation through stories of outgroup moral exemplars (individuals who have risked their life to save the life of an outgroup member) enhanced perceptions of intergroup moral similarity and positive emotions toward the outgroup, consequently fostering greater approach and prosocial intergroup behaviors. This pattern proved consistent across four distinct contexts: nonconflict (Sweden), ongoing conflict (Pakistan), protracted conflict (Serbia), and postconflict (Bosnia and Herzegovina). This article advances existing theory on positive emotions by identifying a novel emotional mechanism conducive to improving intergroup relations in contexts of conflict and extends the impact of learning about exemplary moral behaviors performed by relevant others. Ultimately, this article underscores the relevance of moral elevation in mitigating intergroup conflicts using intergroup interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Studies have shown that anomie, that is, the perception that a society's leadership and social fabric are breaking down, is a central predictor of individuals' support for authoritarianism. However, causal evidence for this relationship is missing. Moreover, previous studies are ambiguous regarding the mediating mechanism and lack empirical tests for the same. Against this background, we derive a set of integrative hypotheses: First, we argue that perceptions of anomie lead to a perceived lack of political control. The repeated failure to exert control in the political sphere leads to feelings of uncertainty about the functioning and meaning of the political world. This uncertainty heightens people's susceptibility to authoritarianism because, we argue, the latter promises a sense of order, meaning, and the guidance of a "strong leader." We support our hypothesis in a large-scale field study with a representative sample of the German population (N = 1,504) while statistically ruling out alternative explanations. Adding internal validity, we provide causal evidence for each path in our sequential mediation hypothesis in three preregistered, controlled experiments (conducted in the United States, total N = 846). Our insights may support policymakers in addressing the negative political consequences of anomie. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Structural racism has become a household term used in the media and in everyday conversations around diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Despite increased discussion of structural racism, people often struggle to understand how structural racism is perpetuated by individuals. We integrate research on moral psychology, social cognition, and intergroup relations to investigate whether structural explanations can lead to reduced perceptions of responsibility and punishment for managers who engage in discriminatory hiring decisions. A field study of health care system employees who perceived discriminatory hiring as originating from structural factors (vs. individual factors) were less likely to hold the hiring manager accountable (Study 1). Explaining discriminatory hiring to participants as due to structural factors (vs. a no-information control condition; Studies 2a, 2b, 2c, and 3) decreased desires to hold the hiring manager accountable. We found evidence that this lessened accountability was due to participants' simultaneous perceptions that the hiring manager was less responsible for the lack of diversity and did not intend to discriminate under a structural racism explanation. However, when the relationship between individual and structural racism was explained, participants were more likely to hold perpetrators of discrimination accountable while allowing for crucial discussions around structural racism (Study 4). This work suggests that Americans may lack a deep understanding of the complexities surrounding structural racism, and that the connections between individuals and structural racism must be explained in order to motivate people to hold perpetrators of discrimination accountable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Overconfidence is prevalent despite being linked to various negative outcomes for individuals, organizations, and even societies. To explain this puzzling phenomenon, C. Anderson, Brion, et al. (2012) proposed a status-enhancement theory of overconfidence: Expressing overconfidence helps individuals attain social status. In this registered report, we conducted a direct replication of Study 5 by C. Anderson, Brion, et al. (2012), who found that individual differences in desire for status were positively correlated with being overconfident about one's task performance relative to others. We also tested the generalizability of the key relationship to a different measure of desire for status. Furthermore, we complemented traditional significance testing with equivalence testing and Bayesian analysis to test a set of null hypotheses in the original study. We found support for the status-enhancement hypothesis: Desire for status had a positive association with overconfidence using both the original measure of desire for status (β = 0.19, 95% CI [0.09, 0.28]) and the alternative measure (β = 0.31, 95% CI [0.22, 0.39]). A follow-up extension study aimed to test this relationship causally by manipulating the social context where status motives may be stronger (a competitive vs. cooperative context) and testing whether such an effect is driven by state-level desire for status. We did not find a direct causal effect of social context on overconfidence but an indirect association via state-level desire for status: A competitive (vs. cooperative) group context increased desire for status (β = 0.34, 95% CI [0.18, 0.51]), which in turn predicted greater overconfidence (β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.31, 0.46]). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).