Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin最新文献

Although conspiracy belief may arise from a frustration of psychological needs, research has yet to investigate these relationships over time. Using four annual waves of longitudinal panel data in New Zealand (2019-2022; N = 55,269), we examined the relationship between four psychological needs (namely belonging, control, meaning in life, and self-esteem) and conspiracy belief. Results from four random-intercept cross-lagged panel models reveal stable between-person effects indicating that those whose core needs are less satisfied tend to exhibit higher levels of conspiracy belief across time. Within-person analyses further identify small cross-lagged effects within individuals: decreases in levels of control and belonging, as well as increases in levels of meaning in life, temporally precede increases in conspiracy belief. Within-person fluctuations in conspiracy belief also have negative cross-lagged associations with control (but not with the three other needs). These data provide novel insights into the psychological factors that foster conspiracy belief.

This research investigates whether racially dominant (White) and minoritized group members (Black) differentially evaluate intergroup harm in ambiguous (vs. overt) acts of cultural appropriation (the aversive racism hypothesis), due to attributions of positive intentions to the target (the intent as justification hypothesis). Four experiments (N = 1,020, 3 preregistered) and an internal meta-analysis converge to demonstrate that White perceivers evaluated less harm than Black perceivers in ambiguous acts of cultural appropriation. Attributions of positive intent served as a mechanism underlying this effect; naturally occurring variations in positive intent mediated the link between participant race and harm evaluations (Studies 2 and 3), and experimentally manipulating target intent altered harm evaluations as well as motivations for collective action (Study 4). Findings integrate work from multiple academic disciplines with insights from contemporary theories of prejudice to suggest that perceivers' attributions of positive intent can obscure their evaluations of harm in acts of cultural appropriation.

Stereotype threat refers to the concern of being judged based on stereotypes about one's social group. This preregistered meta-analysis examines the correlates of stereotype threat in the workplace (k = 61 independent samples, N = 40,134). Results showed that stereotype threat was positively related to exhaustion, identity separation, negative affect, turnover intentions, and behavioral coping, and negatively related to career aspirations, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, job engagement, job performance, positive affect, self-efficacy, and work authenticity. In addition, moderator analyses for constructs represented in at least k = 10 samples in the focal analyses showed that relations did not differ for measures of stereotype threat and stigma consciousness. However, the negative relationships between stereotype threat and career aspirations, job satisfaction, and job engagement were stronger for older employees compared with female employees as the stereotyped group. Overall, the findings suggest that stereotype threat constitutes an important stressor in the workplace.

Reputation is multidimensional, with some traits being more relevant than others in particular contexts. Can people selectively respond to reputational cues relevant to the task at hand? Across three studies, we examined how people weigh cues about helpfulness and competence when forming expectations about strangers' behavior. Using adapted investment games, we varied whether a stranger's helpfulness or competence predicted participants' future payoffs. We found that when helpfulness is task-relevant (Experiments 1 and 2), participants correctly use this cue in investment decisions. When competence matters most (Experiment 3), participants use it as the primary cue. Overall, a high reputation for outcome-irrelevant characteristics did not compensate for a low reputation for the outcome-relevant reputational cue. However, we also find an asymmetric spillover: Decision-makers prefer cooperating with others who are highly competent and highly helpful, regardless of task demands. We discuss our results within the theoretical framework of person perception and theories of reputation.

We conducted two reverse-correlation studies, as well as two pilot studies reported in the online supplement (total N = 1,411), on the topics of (a) whether liberals and conservatives differ in the types of dehumanization that they cognitively emphasize when mentally representing one another, and if so, (b) whether liberals and conservatives are sensitive to how they are represented in the minds of political outgroup members. Results suggest that partisans indeed differ in the types of dehumanization that they cognitively emphasize when mentally representing one another: whereas conservatives' dehumanization of liberals emphasizes immaturity (vs. savagery), liberals' dehumanization of conservatives more strongly emphasizes savagery (vs. immaturity). In addition, results suggest that partisans may be sensitive to how they are represented. That is, partisans' meta-representations-their representations of how the outgroup represents the ingroup-appear to accurately index the relative emphases of these two dimensions in the minds of political outgroup members.

People tend to evaluate themselves as better than they actually are. Such enhanced positive evaluation occurs not only for the self but also for close others. We extend the exploration of enhanced evaluation of close others to that of strangers. We predict that when individuals consider becoming friends with a stranger, their preference for a pleasant physical experience will drive an enhanced evaluation of that person. In two experiments, participants who considered friendship with a stranger evaluated the stranger as looking, sounding, and smelling better than how control participants evaluated them. The amount of time participants expected to spend with the stranger predicted their evaluation (Studies 1-2). In a large-scale third study, using various target stimuli, we found that when participants have an interest in a friendship but then are unable to physically spend time together, the enhanced-evaluation effect is weaker compared with when they could spend time together.

Radicalization-as a complex process of adopting extremist attitudes-includes maladaptive responses to the transformative power of globalization. Globalization contains sociocultural disruptive and acculturative processes, initiating exclusionary and integrative reactions. These reactions have dissimilarly been associated with aspects of extremism. In seven preregistered studies (N = 2,161), we draw on various methods combining naturalistic circumstances, cross-sectional, longitudinal, experimental, and representative data to scrutinize the complex globalization-radicalization nexus within the contexts of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan. Our results provide empirical support for the hypothesis that insecure life attachment (i.e., experience of contextual safety, inclusiveness, reliability, fairness, and facilitating well-being) and globalization perceived as a threat can lead to extremism through defensive reactions to globalization. Specifically, we found ethnic protection to be a central mechanism connecting sociocultural disruption and threats with extremism. Globalized radicalization ascends as a contemporary phenomenon reflecting the dark side of global interconnectivity.

Although two people could both enact similar forms of hypocrisy, one person might be judged as more hypocritical than the other. The present research advances a novel, theoretical explanation for a paradigmatic instance of this: the increased hypocrisy ascribed to contradicting a morally (vs. nonmorally) based attitude. In contrast to prior explanations, the present research shows that people infer targets holding morally (vs. nonmorally) based attitudes are more difficult to change. Consequently, when people are hypocritical on these stances, it elicits greater surprise, which amplifies the perceived hypocrisy. Through both statistical mediation and experimental moderation, we provide evidence for this process and show how our explanation generalizes to understanding heightened hypocrisy in other contexts, too (i.e., violating nonmoral attitudes held with certainty vs. uncertainty). Altogether, we provide an integrative, theoretical lens for predicting when moral and nonmoral acts of hypocrisy will be perceived as particularly hypocritical.

Humans have long pondered the distinction between action and inaction. Classic work in social sciences provides evidence that most people believe that others experience higher levels of affect when they obtain the same outcome through action as opposed to inaction. In this paper, we theorize that people's attributions of affect to identical outcomes resulting from action versus inaction are largely constructive in nature, such that they heavily depend on the elicitation procedure. Seven preregistered studies demonstrate that most individuals cease to attribute greater affect to identical outcomes resulting from action as opposed to inaction when it is made possible-or salient-that they can state that action and inaction are associated with equal levels of affect. Consequently, the present studies suggest that researchers can reach different conclusions about participants' general proclivity to attribute greater affect to identical outcomes resulting from action (vs. inaction) depending on how participants' beliefs are measured.

When people consider what is good for their country, they might face a conflict between the country's short-term and long-term interests. We suggest that resolving this conflict depends on people's form of national identification and future time perspective. Across four studies (N = 4,274), we showed that constructive patriotism, but not conventional patriotism or glorification, was positively associated with future time perspective. Moreover, we showed that this further translated into people's responses to intertemporal conflicts. Specifically, constructive patriotism was indirectly linked to higher support for national policies with long-term advantages (despite short-term disadvantages) and lower support for national policies with long-term disadvantages (despite short-term advantages), and these links were mediated by future time perspective. Overall, our results demonstrate that distinct forms of national identification are differently linked to future time perspective. Likewise, this helps explain differences in how much people care about their country's present and future.