Journal of personality and social psychology最新文献

This research examines whether the phenomenon of nominative determinism (a name-driven outcome) exists in the real world. Nominative determinism manifests as a preference for a profession or city to live in that begins with the same letter as a person's own name. The literature presents opposing views on this phenomenon, with one stream of research documenting the influence and another stream questioning the existence and generalizability of the effect, as well as the proposed underlying process. To examine whether the effect occurs in the real world, we use large language models trained on Common Crawl, Twitter, Google News, and Google Books using two natural language processing word-embedding algorithms (word2vec and GloVe). After controlling for relevant variables, we find consistent evidence of the relationship between people's names and a preference for major life choices starting with the same letter as their first name. Our theoretical framework of identity expression builds on the implicit egotism explanation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Moral foundations theory has been a generative framework in moral psychology in the last 2 decades. Here, we revisit the theory and develop a new measurement tool, the Moral Foundations Questionnaire-2 (MFQ-2), based on data from 25 populations. We demonstrate empirically that equality and proportionality are distinct moral foundations while retaining the other four existing foundations of care, loyalty, authority, and purity. Three studies were conducted to develop the MFQ-2 and to examine how the nomological network of moral foundations varies across 25 populations. Study 1 (N = 3,360, five populations) specified a refined top-down approach for measurement of moral foundations. Study 2 (N = 3,902, 19 populations) used a variety of methods (e.g., factor analysis, exploratory structural equations model, network psychometrics, alignment measurement equivalence) to provide evidence that the MFQ-2 fares well in terms of reliability and validity across cultural contexts. We also examined population-level, religious, ideological, and gender differences using the new measure. Study 3 (N = 1,410, three populations) provided evidence for convergent validity of the MFQ-2 scores, expanded the nomological network of the six moral foundations, and demonstrated the improved predictive power of the measure compared with the original MFQ. Importantly, our results showed how the nomological network of moral foundations varied across cultural contexts: consistent with a pluralistic view of morality, different foundations were influential in the network of moral foundations depending on cultural context. These studies sharpen the theoretical and methodological resolution of moral foundations theory and provide the field of moral psychology a more accurate instrument for investigating the many ways that moral conflicts and divisions are shaping the modern world. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

To what extent do individuals differ in understanding how others see them and who is particularly good at it? Answering these questions about the "good metaperceiver" is relevant given the beneficial outcomes of meta-accuracy. However, there likely is more than one type of the good metaperceiver: One who knows the specific impressions they make more than others do (dyadic meta-accuracy) and one who knows their reputation more than others do (generalized meta-accuracy). To identify and understand these good metaperceivers, we introduce the social meta-accuracy model (SMAM) as a statistical and conceptual framework and apply the SMAM to four samples of first impression interactions. As part of our demonstration, we also investigated the routes to and the correlates of both types of good metaperceivers. Results from SMAM show that, overall, people were able to detect the unique and general first impressions they made, but there was little evidence for individual differences in dyadic meta-accuracy in a first impression. In contrast, there were substantial individual differences in generalized meta-accuracy, and this ability was largely explained by being transparent (i.e., good metaperceivers were seen as they saw themselves). We also observed some evidence that good generalized metaperceivers in a first impression tend to be extraverted and popular. This work demonstrated that the SMAM is a useful tool for identifying and understanding both types of good metaperceivers and paves the way for future work on individual differences in meta-accuracy in other contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Every research project has limitations. The limitations that authors acknowledge in their articles offer a glimpse into some of the concerns that occupy a field's attention. We examine the types of limitations authors discuss in their published articles by categorizing them according to the four validities framework and investigate whether the field's attention to each of the four validities has shifted from 2010 to 2020. We selected one journal in social and personality psychology (Social Psychological and Personality Science; SPPS), the subfield most in the crosshairs of psychology's replication crisis. We sampled 440 articles (with half of those articles containing a subsection explicitly addressing limitations), and we identified and categorized 831 limitations across the 440 articles. Articles with limitations sections reported more limitations than those without (avg. 2.6 vs. 1.2 limitations per article). Threats to external validity were the most common type of reported limitation (est. 52% of articles), and threats to statistical conclusion validity were the least common (est. 17% of articles). Authors reported slightly more limitations over time. Despite the extensive attention paid to statistical conclusion validity in the scientific discourse throughout psychology's credibility revolution, our results suggest that concerns about statistics-related issues were not reflected in social and personality psychologists' reported limitations. The high prevalence of limitations concerning external validity might suggest it is time that we improve our practices in this area, rather than apologizing for these limitations after the fact. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Research on ostracism has mostly focused on ostracized targets' reactions to being excluded and ignored. In contrast, the ostracizing sources' perspective and reasons for why individuals decide to ostracize others are still a largely unexplored frontier for empirical research. We propose two fundamental motives situated in the target's behavior that drive motivated ostracism decisions for the benefit of one's group: A perceived norm violation of the target and perceived expendability of the target for achieving group goals. Two survey studies and five experiments (total N = 2,394, all preregistered) support our predictions: When asked to recall a recent ostracism decision and the motives for it, participants reported both perceived norm violations and/or expendability of the target as motives (Study 1). Switching to the target perspective, the frequency of experienced ostracism was associated with both self-perceived norm violations and expendability (Study 2). In five experiments (Studies 3-7), participants consistently choose to ostracize targets more often when they perceived them to be either norm-violating, or inept in a skill important for the group and thus expendable. Additionally, Studies 5-7 show that strategic considerations about the requirements of the situational context influence ostracism decisions: Participants were more likely to ostracize norm-violating targets in cooperative contexts, and more likely to ostracize inept targets in performance contexts. Results have strong theoretical implications for research on ostracism and group dynamics, as well as for interventions targeting ostracism behavior: Particularly, adjusting the requirements of the situational context might be a viable option to decrease ostracism and promote inclusion in groups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Academic fields exhibit substantial levels of gender segregation. Here, we investigated differences in field-specific ability beliefs (FABs) as an explanation for this phenomenon. FABs may contribute to gender segregation to the extent that they portray success as depending on "brilliance" (i.e., exceptional intellectual ability), which is a trait culturally associated with men more than women. Although prior work has documented a relation between academic fields' FABs and their gender composition, it is still unclear what the underlying dynamics are that give rise to gender imbalances across academia as a function of FABs. To provide insight into this issue, we custom-built a new data set by combining information from the author-tracking service Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) with information from a survey of U.S. academics across 30 fields. Using this expansive longitudinal data set (Ns = 86,879-364,355), we found that women were underrepresented among those who enter fields with brilliance-oriented FABs and overrepresented among those who exit these fields. We also found that FABs' association with women's transitions across academic fields was substantially stronger than their association with men's transitions. With respect to mechanisms, FABs' association with gender segregation was partially explained by the fact that women encounter more prejudice in fields with brilliance-oriented FABs. With its focus on the dynamic patterns shaping segregation and its broad scope in terms of geography, career stage, and historical time, this research makes an important contribution toward understanding the factors driving gender segregation in academia. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Because trust is essential in relationships, scholars have sought to determine what causes people to trust each other. A burgeoning area of research on trust has focused on power dynamics. Yet, although successful trust development in relationships is a function of one individual initiating trust and another individual reciprocating this trust, research has focused exclusively on the impact of power on trust initiation and left unaddressed the impact of power on trust reciprocation. In the current research, I examine the impact of power dynamics on trust reciprocation-people trusting someone who first trusts them. Across five preregistered experiments, I demonstrate that people are more likely to trust high-power individuals than low-power individuals when these individuals first trust them. I also demonstrate that people are more likely to distrust high-power individuals than low-power individuals when these individuals first distrust them. Power dynamics amplify trust and distrust reciprocation because people believe that having power means making decisions based on dispositions rather than the situation. This belief makes people think that-compared to low-power individuals-high-power individuals view them as more trustworthy when trusting them, but more untrustworthy when distrusting them, which motivates reciprocation. Taken together, these findings show that power helps and hurts trust development and highlight when and why this occurs. This provides some clarity to a literature dominated by inconclusive findings on the relationship between power and trust, provides a blueprint for understanding the impact of power on longer term reciprocal trust development, and provides important practical implications for power holders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

The desire to change one's personality traits has been shown to be stronger if people are dissatisfied with associated aspects of their life. While evidence for the effects of interventions on personality trait change is increasing, it is unclear whether these lead to subsequent improvements in the satisfaction with various domains of life. In this study, we examined the effects of a 3-month digital-coaching personality change intervention study on 10 domains of satisfaction. We focused on the three largest intervention groups of the study (N = 418), which included participants who wanted to increase their Emotional Stability, Conscientiousness, or Extraversion. Bivariate latent change score models were used to examine correlated change between the targeted personality traits and satisfaction domains. We found that global life satisfaction and satisfaction with oneself as a person increased in all three intervention groups. In addition, increases in specific satisfaction domains were reported for the Conscientiousness (e.g., work/school, health, friendships) and Emotional Stability (e.g., family, sexual relationships, emotions) group. Increases were stable up to the 3-month follow-up. In contrast, the waitlist control group did not report any changes in global or domain-specific life satisfaction. Changes in the satisfaction domains were positively correlated with self-reported personality trait change to a similar degree as the cross-sectional associations, but not to observer-reported personality trait change. The personality intervention thus seemed to have a positive effect on satisfaction with various domains of life, which was associated with the degree of self-reported personality trait change. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).