Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin最新文献

While research has documented positivity biases in workplace feedback to women versus men, this phenomenon is not fully understood. We take a motivational perspective, theorizing that the gender stereotype of warmth shapes feedback givers' goals, amplifying the importance placed on kindness when giving critical feedback to a woman versus a man. We found support for this hypothesis in a survey of professionals giving real developmental feedback (Study 1, N = 4,842 raters evaluating N = 423 individuals) and five experiments with MBA students, lab participants, and managers (Studies 2-5, N = 1,589). Across studies, people prioritized the goal of kindness more when they gave, or anticipated giving, critical feedback to a woman versus a man. Studies 1, 3, and 5 suggest that this kindness bias relates to gendered positivity biases, and Studies 4a and 4b tested potential mechanisms and supported an indirect effect through warmth. We discuss implications for the study of motivation and workplace gender bias.

Despite increasing contact opportunities, prejudice toward refugees persists, especially in mass immigration contexts. We investigated changes in and associations between Turkish early adolescents' (N = 687, M_age = 11.11 years) positive and negative contact with Syrian refugees and their outgroup approach-avoidance tendencies over 15 months (three waves). Univariate growth curve models demonstrated a rise in outgroup negativity indicated by increasing negative contact and avoidance tendencies, and decreasing approach tendencies, while positive contact only slightly increased over time (nonsignificantly). Combined latent growth curve models showed that increasing positive contact buffered against increasing outgroup negativity in behavioral tendencies by predicting a less steep decline in approach and a less steep increase in avoidance. Increasing negative contact was positively associated with increasing outgroup negativity so that it predicted a more steep increase in avoidance. Findings underline the importance of early contact interventions that target the fast deterioration of positive intergroup interactions in increasingly hostile intergroup contexts.

Understanding when people are likely to feel ambivalent is important, as ambivalence is associated with key attitude outcomes, such as attitude-behavior consistency. Interestingly, the presence of conflicting positive and negative reactions (objective ambivalence) is weakly related to feeling conflicted (subjective ambivalence). We tested a novel situation that can influence the correspondence between objective and subjective ambivalence: whether a message and a recipient's topic match in affective versus cognitive orientation. When a person encounters a message with an affective or cognitive match to the topic, conflicting reactions may be more accessible, increasing feelings of ambivalence. Across five studies, greater objective-subjective ambivalence correspondence occurred with an affective-cognitive match between message and topic orientation. Studies 4 and 5 also demonstrated that this primarily occurred when the message was counterattitudinal. This work contributes to the literature explaining the gap between measures of objective and subjective ambivalence as well as how messages can influence attitude strength properties.

We hypothesized that people would exhibit a reticence bias, the incorrect belief that they will be more likable if they speak less than half the time in a conversation with a stranger, as well as halo ignorance, the belief that their speaking time should depend on their goal (e.g., to be liked vs. to be found interesting), when in fact, perceivers form global impressions of each other. In Studies 1 and 2, participants forecasted they should speak less than half the time when trying to be liked, but significantly more when trying to be interesting. In Study 3, we tested the accuracy of these forecasts by randomly assigning participants to speak for 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, or 70% of the time in a dyadic conversation. Contrary to people's forecasts, they were more likable the more they spoke, and their partners formed global rather than differentiated impressions.

This meta-analysis examines generalized reciprocity, that is, the relationship between how people perceive others and how they are perceived by others. It tests the hypothesis that generalized reciprocity varies as a function of the content domain under investigation. Generalized reciprocity for attributes with primarily communal content (e.g., friendliness) was hypothesized to be more positive than generalized reciprocity for attributes with primarily agentic content (e.g., assertiveness). Sixty-four primary studies reporting correlations between perceiver and target effects with a total number of 17,561 participants were included in the analysis. Results of a multilevel meta-analytical random effects model showed that reciprocity correlations were slightly negative, but around zero, for primarily agentic attributes (r = -.05) and became more positive with increasing communal content (up to r = .18 for primarily communal attributes). Generalized reciprocity thus varied depending on the extent to which the regarded attribute is agentic versus communal.

Groups have their health and well-being impacted by satisfying their members' needs and providing resources to help cope with threats. Multiple group memberships serve to accumulate these benefits and also provide resilience to the effects of group loss. However, the additional well-being benefits of belonging to multiple different types of group remain to be determined. In a preregistered cross-sectional survey in Nottingham, England (Study 1, N = 328), we found that group-type diversity predicted well-being and that this effect was fully serially mediated by increased creative self-efficacy, then reduced loneliness. To confirm our hypothesis in a more robust sample we conducted longitudinal analyses on the English Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSA) dataset (Study 2, N = 5,838) finding that group-type diversity at time one (T1) predicted well-being at T2 (4 years later), even when accounting for wellbeing and loneliness at T1. We discuss the implications for enhancing group-based health interventions.

Research on the relation between hormones and unethical behaviors and tendencies has provided mixed results, hindering the understanding of the potential biological regulation of unethical behaviors and tendencies. We conducted an exploratory, longitudinal study (N = 257 women) allowing to estimate relations between, on the one hand, steroid hormones (testosterone, cortisol, estradiol, and progesterone) and conception probability and, on the other hand, a broad variety of measures related to unethicality (self-reported personality variables, cheating in committed relationships, self-serving economic dishonesty in a behavioral task, namely, the mind game). Contrary to theoretical assumptions of and results from some previous studies, we find no consistent relation between hormones and unethical behavior or tendencies in the majority of analyses. Yet, some small, exploratory associations emerged that call for (preregistered) replications, before more firm conclusions can be made.

Across nine experiments (eight preregistered) involving Western and Asian samples, we showed that people providing ambiguous (vs. specific) responses to questions in various social scenarios are seen as less likable. This is because, depending on the social context, response ambiguity may be interpreted as a way to conceal the truth and as a sign of social disinterest. Consequently, people reported lower inclination to befriend or date individuals who appeared to provide ambiguous responses. We also identified situations in which response ambiguity does not harm likability, such as when the questions are sensitive and the responder may need to "soften the blow." A final exploratory study showed that response ambiguity also impacts personality perceptions-individuals providing ambiguous responses are judged as less warm, less extraverted, less gullible, and more cautious. We discuss theoretical implications for the language psychology and person perception literatures and practical implications for impression management and formation.

Empathy has the potential to bridge political divides. Here, we examine barriers to cross-party empathy and explore when and why these differ for liberals and conservatives. In four studies, U.S. and U.K. participants (total N = 4,737) read hypothetical scenarios and extended less empathy to suffering political opponents than allies or neutral targets. These effects were strongly shown by liberals but were weaker among conservatives, such that conservatives consistently showed more empathy to liberals than liberals showed to conservatives. This asymmetry was partly explained by liberals' harsher moral judgments of outgroup members (Studies 1-4) and the fact that liberals saw conservatives as more harmful than conservatives saw liberals (Studies 3 and 4). The asymmetry persisted across changes in the U.S. government and was not explained by perceptions of political power (Studies 3 and 4). Implications and future directions are discussed.