Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin最新文献

In six studies, we examined two foundational questions about moral praise. First, what makes an action praiseworthy? In Study 1, participants reported that actions that exceed duties (compared with dutiful actions) deserve greater praise and are perceived as less likely to happen. Second, what do observers infer from praise? Praise may communicate information about local norms. In Study 2, we found that-in general-participants expect praise to increase the likelihood of a behavior. However, in Studies 3-6, participants inferred that moral behavior that receives praise is less common and is less required and expected of people. These inferences led individuals to judge that someone would be less likely to perform a behavior that was praised. These studies provide insight into the lay beliefs and communicative function of moral praise.

Public reactions to algorithmic decisions often diverge. While high-profile media coverage suggests that the use of AI in organizational decision-making is viewed as unfair and received negatively, recent survey results suggest that such use of AI is perceived as fair and received positively. Drawing on fairness heuristic theory, the current research reconciles this apparent contradiction by examining the roles of decision outcome and fairness perception on individuals' attitudinal (Studies 1-3, 5) and behavioral (Study 4) reactions to algorithmic (vs. human) decisions. Results from six experiments (N = 2,794) showed that when the decision was unfavorable, AI was perceived as fairer than human, leading to a less negative reaction. This heightened fairness perception toward AI is shaped by its perceived unemotionality. Furthermore, reminders about the potential biases of AI in decision-making attenuate the differential fairness perception between AI and human. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

The process model of patience attempts to reconcile disparate approaches to understanding patience. This investigation provides an initial test of the tenets of this new theoretical model, which positions impatience as a discrete emotion and patience as a targeted form of emotion regulation. In three studies with diverse samples (N = 1,401; data collected 2022-2023), participants responded to hypothetical scenarios designed to tap into familiar experiences of impatience. Regarding impatience, findings support our claim that impatience arises in response to the perception that a delay is unreasonable or unfair, and situational and intrapersonal characteristics emerged as predictors of impatience. Regarding patience, findings were consistent with the conceptualization of patience as driven more by intrapersonal than situational factors and revealed a set of individual differences that predicted patience. This investigation lends support to the process model of patience as a viable approach, generative of testable research questions, with implications for well-being.

The present study investigated spousal interdependencies in well-being and the sources of these interdependencies among Americans and Japanese. We collected high-powered three-wave longitudinal and cross-sectional data from a wide age range of participants (Ns = 3,012 American couples aged 26-96 and 2,307 Japanese couples aged 24-76) and assessed a variety of well-being measures. Study 1 replicated previous findings that American spouses' well-being was positively associated with each other. Studies 2a and 2b generalized the findings of Study 1 to Japanese spouses. Both Studies 1 and 2b showed conflicting results: There were effects of mutual influence and shared environmental factors' influences on American and Japanese spouses' well-being in a longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model when using the cross-lagged panel model, but not when using the random intercept cross-lagged panel model. These findings illustrate that the interdependent nature of well-being is an essential feature of American and Japanese married couples.

Important scientific contributions regarding intersectional marginalization are often advanced by researchers who, themselves, hold the relevant intersecting identities. But how are these researchers perceived? In an experiment gauging the perspective of a demographically representative sample of U.S. Americans (N = 385), we found that research on Black women's marginalization was perceived as equivalently trustworthy and meritorious whether it was conducted by a Black woman, Black man, White woman, or White man. Our data suggested this was because a Black woman conducting this work was perceived ambivalently-positively due to her perceived standing and expertise, but negatively due to her perceived vested interest. In three follow-up experiments examining perceptions of Black American women, specifically (N = 243, 139, 182), we found a different pattern-Black women consistently evaluated this research more favorably if it was conducted by a fellow Black woman, prioritizing her standing, expertise, and commitment to the community.

Although historical negation-the ideologically-based denial of the contemporary relevance of colonial injustices-sustains inequities between settler colonisers and Indigenous peoples, few studies explore the psychological processes underlying historical negation among settler colonisers. In this pre-registered study, we examine whether perceived group-based relative deprivation (GRD) fosters historical negation among New Zealand Europeans. To do so, we use seven annual waves of data from a nationwide panel sample of New Zealand European adults (N = 26,759) and random intercept cross-lagged panel modelling to predict within-person changes in historical negation over time. Contrary to our hypotheses, no significant within-person associations emerged between GRD and historical negation. GRD did, however, have a positive between-person association with historical negation among sole-identifying New Zealand Europeans. These results indicate that GRD among settler colonisers correlates with-but does not drive-the minimisation of the present-day relevance of colonial injustices.

People tend to judge those who perform good deeds, such as donating money, as moral. Yet, prosocial actors are not equally appraised. In this article, we explore how moral judgment varies based on the donation distribution strategy-that is, the extent to which donors distribute resources across recipients. In seven studies (N = 1,495), we show that distributing help is considered by observers to be more moral than concentrating help on a single recipient. Furthermore, this effect is driven by observers perceiving the donors distributing their help to be more committed toward the charitable cause. We extend the generalizability of our results by showing that the effect replicates across three populations considered culturally distant along the WEIRD dimensions. The article ends with a discussion of the theoretical relevance of the findings.

How do people whose beliefs conflict with the scientific consensus respond to two-sided messages that communicate both the belief-challenging consensus and isolated belief-affirming findings? Across three experiments (N_total = 1,124), we gave homeopathy supporters belief-challenging and belief-affirming information in varying orders. In Studies 1 and 2, we measured perceived trustworthiness of homeopathy-related science between both pieces of information. Compared with participants who received belief-challenging information first, participants who received belief-affirming information first reported higher trust in homeopathy-related science after the first information and were more likely to report believing that homeopathy is not effective after both pieces of information. Study 3 showed that the order effect on reported belief in the effectiveness of homeopathy did not occur without the interim measurement of perceived trustworthiness. This pattern is consistent with a consistency effect due to the interim measurement. Overall, two-sided messages did not outperform one-sided messages regarding changes in reported beliefs.

The 2024 U.S. presidential election seemed to have the potential to profoundly impact the national economy, financial markets, and geopolitics. Did Donald Trump's re-election influence Americans' psychology as well? We conducted a 7-wave longitudinal survey tracking N = 623 Americans (36% male, M_age = 45.05 years (SD_age = 22.97) from 3 weeks before the election to 16 weeks after. As the election results came in, Democratic supporters reported a decrease in well-being, optimism and personal control, lower institutional trust, higher cynicism, more experiences of disrespect, and a stronger conspiracy mentality-changes that persisted up to 4 months post-election. In contrast, Republican supporters experienced changes in the opposite direction, effectively reversing the previously observed liberal advantage in institutional trust and diminishing the liberal-conservative gap in other psychological outcomes. These results challenge the notion of inherent psychological differences between liberals and conservatives, highlighting how such differences can shift depending on which party holds power.