Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin最新文献

We show an interactive effect of perceiver-target similarity in ideological beliefs and target power on impressions of target morality. Consistent with prior research, perceivers rated targets with dissimilar ideologies as less moral than targets with similar ideologies, but this difference in ratings was magnified for powerful targets relative to less powerful targets. We argue that these results emerged because perceivers expected similar-ideology, powerful (vs. powerless) targets to help the self more, and expected dissimilar-ideology, powerful (vs. powerless) targets to hurt the self more. We establish this effect when people evaluate politicians (Study 1), groups, and individuals (Studies 2a-2b); demonstrate its predictive power over other kinds of interpersonal similarity; and show that it affects morality judgments uniquely when compared with other consequential dimensions of social evaluation. Finally, we manipulated power experimentally and showed the interaction when the difference between high- and low-power manipulations was controlled over just $1 (Studies 3-4).

This research investigated how an instance of intergroup helping affects intergroup attitudes and cooperative behavior. Past research demonstrates that helping behavior elicits prosociality, both reciprocally and toward uninvolved third parties. However, much of this research has either ignored group membership altogether or has assumed a shared group identity between benefactor and beneficiary. Where intergroup helping has been directly evaluated, more negative intergroup attitudes are often observed. The current study examined the effects of an instance of intergroup helping, introduced during a card game, on the beneficiary's attitudes of closeness and cooperative trading behavior as well as those of ingroup and outgroup witnesses to the helping act. Results from this well-powered study (N = 1,249) indicate that although intergroup helping is less likely to impact feelings of closeness, intergroup cooperative trading increases for both the beneficiary and the intergroup observers. These findings add to the understanding of how helping impacts intergroup relations.

Seven preregistered experimental studies investigated a potential mediator (self-blame) and moderator (the perceived responsibility of the helper for the help recipient's behavior) of Weiner's attribution-emotion-action model. When participants considered a nonchild close other experiencing depression, higher perceived controllability was related to lower sympathy, which correlated with less willingness to provide support; however, among parents considering their child experiencing depression, perceived controllability was either positively associated with sympathy (study 1) or did not influence sympathy (study 2). Offering an explanation, studies 3a/3b indicated a significantly weaker relationship between controllability and responsibility attributions when the target of help was the participant's child. Study 4 investigated the underlying mechanism. Parents experienced self-blame when the cause was controllable, which lowered the association between controllability and responsibility attributions. Studies 5 and 6 revealed this pattern was not specific to the parent-child relationship but occurred whenever the potential helper felt responsible for the help recipient's behavior.

As autonomous technology emerges, new variations in old questions arise. When autonomous technologies cause harm, who is to blame? The current studies compare reactions toward harms caused by human-controlled vehicles (HCVs) or human soldiers (HSs) to identical harms by autonomous vehicles (AVs) or autonomous robot soldiers. Drivers of HCVs, or HSs, were blamed more than mere users of AVs or HSs who outsourced their duties to ARSs. However, as human drivers/soldiers became less involved in (or were unaware of the preprogramming that led to) the harm, blame was redirected toward other entities (i.e., manufacturers and the tech company's executives), showing the opposite pattern as human drivers/soldiers. Results were robust to how blame was measured (i.e., degrees of blame versus apportionment of total blame). Overall, this research furthers the blame literature, raising questions about why, how (much), and to whom blame is assigned when multiple agents are potentially culpable.

In principle, the fundamental concepts person, woman, and man should apply equally to people of different genders and races/ethnicities. In reality, these concepts might prioritize certain groups over others. Based on interdisciplinary theories of androcentrism, we hypothesized that (a) person is more associated with men than women (person = man) and (b) woman is more associated with women than man is with men (i.e., women are more gendered: gender = woman). We applied natural language processing tools (specifically, word embeddings) to the linguistic output of millions of individuals (specifically, the Common Crawl corpus). We found the hypothesized person = man / gender = woman bias. This bias was stronger about Hispanic and White (vs. Asian) women and men. We also uncovered parallel biases favoring White individuals in the concepts person, woman, and man. Western society prioritizes men and White individuals as people and "others" women as people with gender, with implications for equity across policy- and decision-making contexts.

If money is good, then shouldn't more money always be better? Perhaps not. Traditional economic theories suggest that money is an ever-increasing incentivizer. If someone will accept a job for US$20/hr, they should be more likely to accept the same job for US$30/hr and especially for US$250/hr. However, 10 preregistered, high-powered studies (N = 4,205, in the United States and Iran) reveal how increasing incentives can backfire. Overly generous offers lead people to infer "phantom costs" that make them less likely to accept high job wages, cheap plane fares, and free money. We present a theory for understanding when and why people imagine these hidden drawbacks and show how phantom costs drive judgments, impact behavior, and intersect with individual differences. Phantom costs change how we should think about "economic rationality." Economic exchanges are not merely about money, but instead are social interactions between people trying to perceive (and deceive) each others' minds.

Infectious disease outbreaks are expected to predict support for conservative policies. However, earlier studies (January-June, 2020) reached conflicting findings regarding the association between COVID-19 threat and policy preferences in the United States. We revisit this issue by analyzing five nationally representative surveys conducted during the relatively severe periods of the pandemic (August 2020-December, 2020; total N = 82,753). Using Bayesian inference, we find strong evidence that subjective (e.g., fear of infection and pandemic outrage) but not objective (e.g., local cases and deaths) threat predicted support for liberal policies (e.g., immigration and universal health care). Meta-analyses revealed that the estimates depend on the type of subjective (.05 ≥ r ≤ .60) or objective (.00 ≥ r ≤ .14) COVID-19 threat. We propose an emotion-mediated dual-process model of pathogen management suggesting that infectious disease outbreaks activate both avoidance and caregiving motives that translate, respectively, into support for right-wing and left-wing policies.

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people face frequent discrimination, maltreatment, and violence for transgressing gender roles upheld in heteronormative societies. Ostracism (i.e., being excluded and ignored) is likely another, understudied form of discrimination against sexual minorities. In a multi-method approach using a nationally representative panel (N = 4104) and experience sampling data (N = 467, 14 days, k = 926 ostracism experiences), we find that LGB individuals report more ostracism experiences than straight individuals. In line with the idea that ostracism toward sexual minorities occurs as a function of gender role nonconformity, lesbians and gay men are rated by an independent rater sample as more likely to be ostracized (k = 10,760 ratings) when they are also rated as more lesbian/gay and less gender role conforming. Our findings speak in favor of ostracism as a discriminatory experience of LGB individuals that is driven by transgressions of heteronormativity.

Previous research found that experimentally reducing people's belief in free will affects social behaviors. However, more recent investigations could not replicate several findings in this literature. An explanation for the mixed findings is that free will beliefs are related to social behaviors on a correlational level, but experimental manipulations are not able to detect this relation. To test this interpretation, we conceptually replicated and extended a landmark study in the free will belief literature originally conducted by Baumeister et al. In five studies (total N = 1,467), we investigated whether belief in free will predicts helping behavior in comparison to other beliefs related to free will. Overall, our results support the original findings, as belief in free will correlated with helping behavior. However, the results also show that the best predictor of helping behavior is not belief in free will but belief in dualism. Theoretical implications are discussed.

We propose that deviancy aversion-people's domain-general discomfort toward the distortion of patterns (repeated forms or models)-contributes to the strength and prevalence of social norms in society. Five studies (N = 2,390) supported this hypothesis. In Study 1, individuals' deviancy aversion, for instance, their aversion toward broken patterns of simple geometric shapes, predicted negative affect toward norm violations (affect), greater self-reported norm following (behavior), and judging norms as more valuable (belief). Supporting generalizability, deviancy aversion additionally predicted greater conformity on accuracy-orientated estimation tasks (Study 2), adherence to physical distancing norms during COVID-19 (Study 3), and increased following of fairness norms (Study 4). Finally, experimentally heightening deviancy aversion increased participants' negative affect toward norm violations and self-reported norm behavior, but did not convincingly heighten belief-based norm judgments (Study 5). We conclude that a human sensitivity to pattern distortion functions as a low-level affective process that promotes and maintains social norms in society.