Cooperation underlies the ability of groups to realize collective benefits (e.g., creation of public goods). Yet, cooperation can be difficult to achieve when people face situations with conflicting interests between what is best for individuals versus the collective (i.e., social dilemmas). To address this challenge, groups can implement rules about structural changes in a situation. But what institutional rules can best facilitate cooperation? Theoretically, rules can be made to affect structural features of a social dilemma, such as the possible actions, outcomes, and people involved. We derived 13 preregistered hypotheses from existing work and collected 6 decades of empirical research to test how nine structural features influence cooperation within prisoner's dilemmas and public goods dilemmas. We do this by meta-analyzing mean levels of cooperation across studies (Study 1, k = 2,340, N = 229,528), and also examining how manipulations of these structural features in social dilemmas affect cooperation within studies (Study 2, k = 909). Results indicated that lower conflict of interests was associated with higher cooperation and that (a) the implementation of sanctions (i.e., reward and punishment of behaviors) and (b) allowing for communication most strongly enhanced cooperation. However, we found inconsistent support for the hypotheses that group size and matching design affect cooperation. Other structural features (e.g., symmetry of dilemmas, sequential decision making, payment) were not associated with cooperation. Overall, these findings inform institutions that can (or not) facilitate cooperation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
合作是群体实现集体利益（如创造公共产品）的基础。然而，当人们面临个人利益与集体利益发生冲突时（即社会困境），合作就很难实现。为了应对这一挑战，群体可以实施有关结构性变化的规则。但什么样的制度规则最能促进合作呢？从理论上讲，规则可以影响社会困境的结构特征，如可能的行动、结果和参与人员。我们从现有研究中推导出 13 个预先登记的假设，并收集了 60 年来的实证研究，以检验九个结构特征如何影响囚徒困境和公共物品困境中的合作。为此，我们对不同研究的平均合作水平进行了元分析（研究 1，k = 2,340, N = 229,528），同时还考察了在社会两难中操纵这些结构特征如何影响研究内部的合作（研究 2，k = 909）。结果表明，较低的利益冲突与较高的合作度相关，(a) 实施制裁（即对行为的奖励和惩罚）和(b) 允许交流最能促进合作。然而，我们发现小组规模和匹配设计影响合作的假设并不一致。其他结构特征（如困境的对称性、顺序决策、支付）与合作无关。总之，这些发现为能够（或不能）促进合作的机构提供了信息。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
{"title":"Institutions and cooperation: A meta-analysis of structural features in social dilemmas.","authors":"Shuxian Jin,Giuliana Spadaro,Daniel Balliet","doi":"10.1037/pspi0000474","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000474","url":null,"abstract":"Cooperation underlies the ability of groups to realize collective benefits (e.g., creation of public goods). Yet, cooperation can be difficult to achieve when people face situations with conflicting interests between what is best for individuals versus the collective (i.e., social dilemmas). To address this challenge, groups can implement rules about structural changes in a situation. But what institutional rules can best facilitate cooperation? Theoretically, rules can be made to affect structural features of a social dilemma, such as the possible actions, outcomes, and people involved. We derived 13 preregistered hypotheses from existing work and collected 6 decades of empirical research to test how nine structural features influence cooperation within prisoner's dilemmas and public goods dilemmas. We do this by meta-analyzing mean levels of cooperation across studies (Study 1, k = 2,340, N = 229,528), and also examining how manipulations of these structural features in social dilemmas affect cooperation within studies (Study 2, k = 909). Results indicated that lower conflict of interests was associated with higher cooperation and that (a) the implementation of sanctions (i.e., reward and punishment of behaviors) and (b) allowing for communication most strongly enhanced cooperation. However, we found inconsistent support for the hypotheses that group size and matching design affect cooperation. Other structural features (e.g., symmetry of dilemmas, sequential decision making, payment) were not associated with cooperation. Overall, these findings inform institutions that can (or not) facilitate cooperation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142490830","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Across 15 studies (N = 2,636), people who considered the prevalence of a problem (e.g., 4.2 million people drive drunk each month) inferred it caused less harm, a phenomenon we dub the big problem paradox. People believed dire problems-ranging from poverty to drunk driving-were less problematic upon learning the number of people they affect (Studies 1-2). Prevalence information caused medical experts to infer medication nonadherence was less dangerous, just as it led women to underestimate their true risk of contracting cancer. The big problem paradox results from an optimistic view of the world. When people believe the world is good, they assume widespread problems have been addressed and, thus, cause less harm (Studies 3-4). The big problem paradox has key implications for motivation and helping behavior (Studies 5-6). Learning the prevalence of medical conditions (i.e., chest pain, suicidal ideation) led people to think a symptomatic individual was less sick and, as a result, to help less-in violation of clinical guidelines. The finding that scale warps judgments and de-motivates action is of particular relevance in the globalized 21st century. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"The bigger the problem the littler: When the scope of a problem makes it seem less dangerous.","authors":"Lauren Eskreis-Winkler,Luiza Tanoue Troncoso Peres,Ayelet Fishbach","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000409","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000409","url":null,"abstract":"Across 15 studies (N = 2,636), people who considered the prevalence of a problem (e.g., 4.2 million people drive drunk each month) inferred it caused less harm, a phenomenon we dub the big problem paradox. People believed dire problems-ranging from poverty to drunk driving-were less problematic upon learning the number of people they affect (Studies 1-2). Prevalence information caused medical experts to infer medication nonadherence was less dangerous, just as it led women to underestimate their true risk of contracting cancer. The big problem paradox results from an optimistic view of the world. When people believe the world is good, they assume widespread problems have been addressed and, thus, cause less harm (Studies 3-4). The big problem paradox has key implications for motivation and helping behavior (Studies 5-6). Learning the prevalence of medical conditions (i.e., chest pain, suicidal ideation) led people to think a symptomatic individual was less sick and, as a result, to help less-in violation of clinical guidelines. The finding that scale warps judgments and de-motivates action is of particular relevance in the globalized 21st century. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"59 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142490834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Lucia L-A Boileau,Jochen E Gebauer,Wiebke Bleidorn,P Jason Rentfrow,Jeff Potter,Samuel D Gosling
Do people of different socioeconomic status (SES) differ in how they see themselves on the Big Two self-concept dimensions of agency and communion? Existent research relevant to this theoretically and socially important question has generally been indirect: It has relied on distant proxies for agentic and communal self-concepts, narrow operationalizations of SES, comparatively small samples, and data from few nations/world regions. By contrast, the present research directly examines the associations between SES and agentic and communal self-concepts, relies on well-validated measures of agency and communion, examines three complementary measures of SES, and uses data from 6 million people (years of age: M = 26.12, SD = 11.50) across 133 nations. Overall, people of higher status saw themselves as somewhat more agentic and as slightly less (or negligibly less) communal. Crucially, those associations varied considerably across nations. We sought to explain that variation with 11 national characteristics and found only three of them to be robustly relevant: National religiosity and pathogen load curbed status differences in agentic self-concepts, and income inequality amplified status differences in communal self-concepts. Our discussion develops theory to explain the importance of national religiosity, pathogen load, and income inequality for socioeconomic status differences in agentic and communal self-concepts and it also describes the substantial societal implications of those differences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
不同社会经济地位（SES）的人在如何看待自己的 "代理 "和 "共融 "两大自我概念维度上是否存在差异？与这一具有重要理论和社会意义的问题相关的现有研究一般都是间接的：这些研究依赖于代理和共通自我概念的遥远替代物、狭隘的 SES 操作方法、相对较小的样本以及来自少数国家/世界地区的数据。相比之下，本研究直接考察了社会经济地位与代理型和社区型自我概念之间的关系，采用了经过充分验证的代理型和社区型测量方法，考察了三种互补的社会经济地位测量方法，并使用了来自 133 个国家的 600 万人的数据（年龄：M = 26.12，SD = 11.50）。总体而言，地位越高的人认为自己的能动性越高，共融性越低（或低得可以忽略不计）。重要的是，这些关联在不同国家之间存在很大差异。我们试图用 11 个国家的特征来解释这种差异，结果发现其中只有三个国家的特征具有很强的相关性：民族宗教信仰和病原体负荷抑制了代理型自我概念的地位差异，而收入不平等扩大了社区型自我概念的地位差异。我们的讨论提出了一些理论来解释民族宗教信仰、病原体负荷和收入不平等对代理人和社区自我概念的社会经济地位差异的重要性，同时也描述了这些差异的重大社会影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)。
{"title":"Socioeconomic status differences in agentic and communal self-concepts: Insights from 6 million people across 133 nations.","authors":"Lucia L-A Boileau,Jochen E Gebauer,Wiebke Bleidorn,P Jason Rentfrow,Jeff Potter,Samuel D Gosling","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000517","url":null,"abstract":"Do people of different socioeconomic status (SES) differ in how they see themselves on the Big Two self-concept dimensions of agency and communion? Existent research relevant to this theoretically and socially important question has generally been indirect: It has relied on distant proxies for agentic and communal self-concepts, narrow operationalizations of SES, comparatively small samples, and data from few nations/world regions. By contrast, the present research directly examines the associations between SES and agentic and communal self-concepts, relies on well-validated measures of agency and communion, examines three complementary measures of SES, and uses data from 6 million people (years of age: M = 26.12, SD = 11.50) across 133 nations. Overall, people of higher status saw themselves as somewhat more agentic and as slightly less (or negligibly less) communal. Crucially, those associations varied considerably across nations. We sought to explain that variation with 11 national characteristics and found only three of them to be robustly relevant: National religiosity and pathogen load curbed status differences in agentic self-concepts, and income inequality amplified status differences in communal self-concepts. Our discussion develops theory to explain the importance of national religiosity, pathogen load, and income inequality for socioeconomic status differences in agentic and communal self-concepts and it also describes the substantial societal implications of those differences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142449376","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ellen C Reinhart,Rebecca M Carey,Hazel Rose Markus
Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts are less likely to believe they contribute to society. Helping others by giving one's time is an important way of contributing to others that also varies with social class. Five studies (N = 7,326) investigated whether one source of the social class disparity in perceived contributions is a default model that considers helping distant others (i.e., bridging help, e.g., volunteering) as more of a contribution than helping close others (i.e., bonding help, e.g., caring for family members). In Study 1, Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts perceived they contribute less to society (i.e., self-perceived contributions, Part A) and believed others perceive them as contributing less (i.e., metaperceived contributions, Part B). Studies 2-4 provide evidence for a default model of social good: Americans across social class contexts and even helpers themselves perceived bridging help as more of a contribution than bonding help, in part, because bridging help is perceived as reflecting more choice to help. With a representative sample (Midlife Development in the United States), Study 5 finds that Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts engaged in relatively less bridging help and more bonding help. However, bridging help served as a stronger pathway to feelings of contributing than bonding help did. Together, these studies suggest that people in lower social class contexts may experience a psychological inequality, in part, because some of the forms of help that are most accessible, familiar, and practiced are widely perceived as less of a contribution. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Who feels they contribute to U.S. society? Helping behaviors and social class disparities in perceived contributions.","authors":"Ellen C Reinhart,Rebecca M Carey,Hazel Rose Markus","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000411","url":null,"abstract":"Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts are less likely to believe they contribute to society. Helping others by giving one's time is an important way of contributing to others that also varies with social class. Five studies (N = 7,326) investigated whether one source of the social class disparity in perceived contributions is a default model that considers helping distant others (i.e., bridging help, e.g., volunteering) as more of a contribution than helping close others (i.e., bonding help, e.g., caring for family members). In Study 1, Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts perceived they contribute less to society (i.e., self-perceived contributions, Part A) and believed others perceive them as contributing less (i.e., metaperceived contributions, Part B). Studies 2-4 provide evidence for a default model of social good: Americans across social class contexts and even helpers themselves perceived bridging help as more of a contribution than bonding help, in part, because bridging help is perceived as reflecting more choice to help. With a representative sample (Midlife Development in the United States), Study 5 finds that Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts engaged in relatively less bridging help and more bonding help. However, bridging help served as a stronger pathway to feelings of contributing than bonding help did. Together, these studies suggest that people in lower social class contexts may experience a psychological inequality, in part, because some of the forms of help that are most accessible, familiar, and practiced are widely perceived as less of a contribution. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142449379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Manon A van Scheppingen,Gabriel Olaru,Thomas Leopold
Romantic partners tend to be more similar in self-reported personality traits than would be expected by chance. This similarity can be due to the choice of a similar partner, partners becoming more similar to each other over time, or dissimilar couples breaking up. To examine whether these processes (choice, convergence, or breakup) explain personality trait similarities in couples, we followed a sample of 1,180 German couples (N = 2,360 individuals; age range = 17-82 years old) from right after moving in together (ranging from 0 to 4 years after) up to 16 years thereafter. Using bivariate latent growth curve models, we found that couples were already similar in openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness in the first years of moving in together. Although couples showed correlated change in conscientiousness, this did not increase similarity. Response surface analyses showed that separation risk was generally unrelated to dissimilarity. Furthermore, romantic partners did not become more dissimilar in the years before separation. Taken together, these results suggest that personality similarity in cohabiting couples is fully driven by choosing a similar partner. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and research on personality similarity in romantic relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Personality trait similarity in recently cohabiting couples: Partner choice, convergence, or selective breakup?","authors":"Manon A van Scheppingen,Gabriel Olaru,Thomas Leopold","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000527","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000527","url":null,"abstract":"Romantic partners tend to be more similar in self-reported personality traits than would be expected by chance. This similarity can be due to the choice of a similar partner, partners becoming more similar to each other over time, or dissimilar couples breaking up. To examine whether these processes (choice, convergence, or breakup) explain personality trait similarities in couples, we followed a sample of 1,180 German couples (N = 2,360 individuals; age range = 17-82 years old) from right after moving in together (ranging from 0 to 4 years after) up to 16 years thereafter. Using bivariate latent growth curve models, we found that couples were already similar in openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness in the first years of moving in together. Although couples showed correlated change in conscientiousness, this did not increase similarity. Response surface analyses showed that separation risk was generally unrelated to dissimilarity. Furthermore, romantic partners did not become more dissimilar in the years before separation. Taken together, these results suggest that personality similarity in cohabiting couples is fully driven by choosing a similar partner. We discuss the implications of these findings for theory and research on personality similarity in romantic relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"232 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142449381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although fear of missing out (FOMO) has become a widely experienced phenomenon, the specific social situations and cognitions driving the FOMO experience have not yet been closely studied. Across seven experiments (N = 5,441), we find that FOMO occurs when people miss events involving valued social groups and is driven by the perception of missed bonding and concerns about how this may negatively affect their future relationships. People feel greater FOMO when they miss events involving valued others (vs. strangers or irrelevant social groups) and when events foster social bonding (vs. individual activity)-even when the events themselves may be unenjoyable. FOMO is further intensified when concerns about one's future social-group belonging are elevated, either stemming from situational triggers (e.g., social media photos) or one's chronic anxious attachment to their social group. Notably, these concerns are exaggerated when considering the social costs of missing an event for oneself (vs. a friend). Given the social underpinnings of FOMO, reaffirming one's social belonging by reflecting on past social connection provides temporary relief. By revealing a novel, situational antecedent of FOMO and the underlying cognitions, this research demonstrates that current well-being is informed not only by current and past feelings of belonging but also by hypothetical projections about one's future social belonging. Taken together, our findings highlight the importance of social bonding in experiential consumption, identify new determinants of FOMO, and lay the groundwork for simple interventions to mitigate FOMO and its maladaptive consequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Anxiety about the social consequences of missed group experiences intensifies fear of missing out (FOMO).","authors":"Jacqueline R Rifkin,Cindy Chan,Barbara E Kahn","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000418","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000418","url":null,"abstract":"Although fear of missing out (FOMO) has become a widely experienced phenomenon, the specific social situations and cognitions driving the FOMO experience have not yet been closely studied. Across seven experiments (N = 5,441), we find that FOMO occurs when people miss events involving valued social groups and is driven by the perception of missed bonding and concerns about how this may negatively affect their future relationships. People feel greater FOMO when they miss events involving valued others (vs. strangers or irrelevant social groups) and when events foster social bonding (vs. individual activity)-even when the events themselves may be unenjoyable. FOMO is further intensified when concerns about one's future social-group belonging are elevated, either stemming from situational triggers (e.g., social media photos) or one's chronic anxious attachment to their social group. Notably, these concerns are exaggerated when considering the social costs of missing an event for oneself (vs. a friend). Given the social underpinnings of FOMO, reaffirming one's social belonging by reflecting on past social connection provides temporary relief. By revealing a novel, situational antecedent of FOMO and the underlying cognitions, this research demonstrates that current well-being is informed not only by current and past feelings of belonging but also by hypothetical projections about one's future social belonging. Taken together, our findings highlight the importance of social bonding in experiential consumption, identify new determinants of FOMO, and lay the groundwork for simple interventions to mitigate FOMO and its maladaptive consequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142449380","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Oliver Sng,Keelah E G Williams,Saori Tsukamoto,Steven L Neuberg
Perceivers hold ecology stereotypes-beliefs about how the environments others live in shape their behavior. Drawing upon a life history perspective, we examine the stereotypes people hold about those who live in relatively harsh and unpredictable ecologies. First, across diverse demographic groups and societies (the United States, India, Japan, Romania, the United Kingdom), people believe that individuals who live in harsh and unpredictable environments engage in "faster" behaviors (n = 2,078; ds from .80 to 2.14)-that they are more impulsive, sexually unrestricted, opportunistic, and invest less in education and their own children (Studies 1, 2, and 3). Second, these ecology stereotypes seem to underlie certain Black/White race stereotypes held by White perceivers in the United States (Study 1) and family structure stereotypes (i.e., growing up in a single-mother home) held by perceivers in both Japan and the United States (Studies 4a and 5a). Supporting this, the application of these race and family structure stereotypes is overridden or attenuated when perceivers are presented with direct information about a specific person's ecology (Studies 1, 4A, and 5B). Third, beliefs that there is high ecological mobility within a society reduce the magnitude of ecology stereotypes (Study 3), as one would expect if ecology stereotypes function to help perceivers better predict others' behavior. Last, ecology stereotypes do not seem to be just general valence biases or to simply reflect social class stereotypes. In sum, ecology stereotypes may be an influential but relatively unexamined type of stereotype, with broad implications for thinking about other group stereotypes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Ecology stereotypes exist across societies and override race and family structure stereotypes.","authors":"Oliver Sng,Keelah E G Williams,Saori Tsukamoto,Steven L Neuberg","doi":"10.1037/pspa0000421","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000421","url":null,"abstract":"Perceivers hold ecology stereotypes-beliefs about how the environments others live in shape their behavior. Drawing upon a life history perspective, we examine the stereotypes people hold about those who live in relatively harsh and unpredictable ecologies. First, across diverse demographic groups and societies (the United States, India, Japan, Romania, the United Kingdom), people believe that individuals who live in harsh and unpredictable environments engage in \"faster\" behaviors (n = 2,078; ds from .80 to 2.14)-that they are more impulsive, sexually unrestricted, opportunistic, and invest less in education and their own children (Studies 1, 2, and 3). Second, these ecology stereotypes seem to underlie certain Black/White race stereotypes held by White perceivers in the United States (Study 1) and family structure stereotypes (i.e., growing up in a single-mother home) held by perceivers in both Japan and the United States (Studies 4a and 5a). Supporting this, the application of these race and family structure stereotypes is overridden or attenuated when perceivers are presented with direct information about a specific person's ecology (Studies 1, 4A, and 5B). Third, beliefs that there is high ecological mobility within a society reduce the magnitude of ecology stereotypes (Study 3), as one would expect if ecology stereotypes function to help perceivers better predict others' behavior. Last, ecology stereotypes do not seem to be just general valence biases or to simply reflect social class stereotypes. In sum, ecology stereotypes may be an influential but relatively unexamined type of stereotype, with broad implications for thinking about other group stereotypes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"104 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142449383","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mieke Johannsen,Naemi D Brandt,Olaf Köller,Jenny Wagner
Why are some students more successful than others? We combined motivational and personality predictors and jointly examined the relevance of subject-specific academic self-concepts and Big Five personality traits for academic performance. Based on data from two independent studies of German 9th graders (Study 1: N = 1,508, Mage = 14.98 years, 51% female, 38% immigrant background; Study 2: N = 19,783, Mage = 15.10 years, 50% female, 36% immigrant background), we, first, estimated latent bivariate correlations to investigate the nomological net between these socioemotional characteristics. Second, using latent moderated regression models, we examined the role of the main and interaction effects of both characteristics for academic performance levels and changes assessed by grades and test scores. Finally, we tested whether the relevance of socioemotional characteristics for academic performance differed across sociodemographic characteristics. Five findings stand out: First, we established widely consistent nomological nets between the academic self-concepts and Big Five traits, especially regarding the German self-concept. Second, the domain-specific self-concepts were consistent predictors of different academic performance measures in the respective subject. Third, beyond the established main effects of openness and conscientiousness, all Big Five traits contributed to performance in some way. Fourth, despite some inconsistencies, socioemotional characteristics formed only synergistic interaction effects. Fifth, students' sociodemographic background was likewise important illustrating main effects on performance and foremost synergistic interaction effects with socioemotional predictors. Our results highlight the complex interplay between motivation, personality, and sociodemographic variables in predicting academic achievement and underline the need to be mindful of this interactive nature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Who flourishes in school? The interplay of academic self-concept and personality and its role for academic performance in middle adolescence.","authors":"Mieke Johannsen,Naemi D Brandt,Olaf Köller,Jenny Wagner","doi":"10.1037/pspp0000525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000525","url":null,"abstract":"Why are some students more successful than others? We combined motivational and personality predictors and jointly examined the relevance of subject-specific academic self-concepts and Big Five personality traits for academic performance. Based on data from two independent studies of German 9th graders (Study 1: N = 1,508, Mage = 14.98 years, 51% female, 38% immigrant background; Study 2: N = 19,783, Mage = 15.10 years, 50% female, 36% immigrant background), we, first, estimated latent bivariate correlations to investigate the nomological net between these socioemotional characteristics. Second, using latent moderated regression models, we examined the role of the main and interaction effects of both characteristics for academic performance levels and changes assessed by grades and test scores. Finally, we tested whether the relevance of socioemotional characteristics for academic performance differed across sociodemographic characteristics. Five findings stand out: First, we established widely consistent nomological nets between the academic self-concepts and Big Five traits, especially regarding the German self-concept. Second, the domain-specific self-concepts were consistent predictors of different academic performance measures in the respective subject. Third, beyond the established main effects of openness and conscientiousness, all Big Five traits contributed to performance in some way. Fourth, despite some inconsistencies, socioemotional characteristics formed only synergistic interaction effects. Fifth, students' sociodemographic background was likewise important illustrating main effects on performance and foremost synergistic interaction effects with socioemotional predictors. Our results highlight the complex interplay between motivation, personality, and sociodemographic variables in predicting academic achievement and underline the need to be mindful of this interactive nature. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142449382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The widely documented "outgroup homogeneity effect" refers to people's tendency to view members of groups to which they do not belong (outgroups) as more similar to one another than members of their own groups (ingroups). Here, we present evidence for a novel but related phenomenon: People tend to view members of different minority groups as collectively more similar to one another than members of the majority group are to one another. Across nine studies (and four studies reported in the Supplemental Materials), we demonstrate a robust "minority-groups homogeneity effect" among participants from both majority groups (Studies 1-5) and minority groups (Studies 6-8), albeit less consistently among the latter. We provide experimental support for the role of beliefs in the common fate of minorities in driving this effect: When participants are led to believe that minority groups do not share a common fate, they no longer rate them as more similar than the majority (Study 9). These studies shed light on a broad pattern of social perception that may influence how members of different groups interact with one another and how they respond to cultural and demographic changes in society. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"The minority-groups homogeneity effect: Seeing members of different minority groups as more similar to each other than members of the majority.","authors":"Stephanie J Tepper,Thomas D Gilovich","doi":"10.1037/pspi0000476","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000476","url":null,"abstract":"The widely documented \"outgroup homogeneity effect\" refers to people's tendency to view members of groups to which they do not belong (outgroups) as more similar to one another than members of their own groups (ingroups). Here, we present evidence for a novel but related phenomenon: People tend to view members of different minority groups as collectively more similar to one another than members of the majority group are to one another. Across nine studies (and four studies reported in the Supplemental Materials), we demonstrate a robust \"minority-groups homogeneity effect\" among participants from both majority groups (Studies 1-5) and minority groups (Studies 6-8), albeit less consistently among the latter. We provide experimental support for the role of beliefs in the common fate of minorities in driving this effect: When participants are led to believe that minority groups do not share a common fate, they no longer rate them as more similar than the majority (Study 9). These studies shed light on a broad pattern of social perception that may influence how members of different groups interact with one another and how they respond to cultural and demographic changes in society. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142439656","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ranran Li, Daniel Balliet, Isabel Thielmann, Reinout E de Vries
The idea that strong situations restrict variance in behaviors has been treated as a maxim in psychology. Prior work has, however, offered inconclusive support for this proposition. We aimed to overcome the limitations of prior research to conclusively test the restricted variance hypothesis derived from the situational strength framework. Specifically, we conducted a preregistered meta-analysis (k = 301, N = 25,670) in the context of cooperative behavior observed within the standard social dilemma paradigm. We found that strong, compared with weak, situations (theorized and validated via perception ratings) indeed restricted variance in behaviors. Moreover, ratings on perceived situational strength of specific experimental conditions (k = 138, nstudies = 41) further supported the hypothesis that higher levels of perceived situational strength were associated with less variance in behavior. Our findings have important theoretical implications for understanding the situational forces shaping social behavior and for advancing research on person-situation interactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
{"title":"Revisiting situational strength: Do strong situations restrict variance in behaviors?","authors":"Ranran Li, Daniel Balliet, Isabel Thielmann, Reinout E de Vries","doi":"10.1037/pspi0000475","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000475","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The idea that strong situations restrict variance in behaviors has been treated as a maxim in psychology. Prior work has, however, offered inconclusive support for this proposition. We aimed to overcome the limitations of prior research to conclusively test the restricted variance hypothesis derived from the situational strength framework. Specifically, we conducted a preregistered meta-analysis (<i>k</i> = 301, <i>N</i> = 25,670) in the context of cooperative behavior observed within the standard social dilemma paradigm. We found that strong, compared with weak, situations (theorized and validated via perception ratings) indeed restricted variance in behaviors. Moreover, ratings on perceived situational strength of specific experimental conditions (<i>k</i> = 138, <i>n</i><sub>studies</sub> = 41) further supported the hypothesis that higher levels of perceived situational strength were associated with less variance in behavior. Our findings have important theoretical implications for understanding the situational forces shaping social behavior and for advancing research on person-situation interactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":16691,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality and social psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142391330","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：