Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin最新文献

Social comparison theories suggest that ingroups are strengthened whenever important outgroups are weakened (e.g., by losing status or power). It follows that ingroups have little reason to help outgroups facing an existential threat. We challenge this notion by showing that ingroups can also be weakened when relevant comparison outgroups are weakened, which can motivate ingroups to strategically offer help to ensure the outgroups' survival as a highly relevant comparison target. In three preregistered studies, we showed that an existential threat to an outgroup with high (vs. low) identity relevance affected strategic outgroup helping via two opposing mechanisms. The potential demise of a highly relevant outgroup increased participants' perceptions of ingroup identity threat, which was positively related to helping. At the same time, the outgroup's misery evoked schadenfreude, which was negatively related to helping. Our research exemplifies a group's secret desire for strong outgroups by underlining their importance for identity formation.

The current work investigates the effects of target of perception's waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) on perceivers' judgments of sexual unrestrictedness and sexual victimization prototypicality. Studies 1a and 1b found that women with lower WHRs were perceived as relatively more sexually unrestricted. Studies 2a and 2b found that women with lower WHRs were perceived as relatively more prototypic of sexual victimization. Study 3 built on these findings to consider implications for responses to sexual assault disclosures. Perceivers disbelieved and minimized a disclosure of assault relatively more when made by a woman with a higher WHR. In sum, this body of work implicates WHR as a body cue that can inform consequential sexual perception. Thereby, this work identifies factors that could influence judgments of credibility of sexual violence reports, which may have implications for hesitancy to report sexual violence.

The literature has widely discussed and supported the relationship between poverty and support for authoritarian leaders and regimes. However, there are different claims about the mediating mechanism and a lack of empirical tests. We hypothesize that the effect of poverty on support for authoritarianism is mediated by shame: People living in poverty frequently experience social exclusion and devaluation, which is reflected in feelings of shame. Such shame, in turn, is likely to increase support for authoritarianism, mainly due to the promise of social re-inclusion. We support our hypothesis in two controlled experiments and a large-scale field study while empirically ruling out the two main alternative explanations offered in the literature: stress and anxiety. Finally, we discuss how the present findings can support policymakers in efficiently addressing the negative political consequences of poverty.

Individuals tend to hold a dim view of for-profit corporations, believing that profit-seeking comes at the expense of ethicality. In the present research, we show that this belief is not universal; rather, people associate ethicality with an organization's size. Across nine experiments (N = 4,796), people stereotyped large companies as less ethical than small companies. This size-ethicality stereotype emerged spontaneously (Study 1), implicitly (Study 2), and across industries (Study 3). Moreover, we find this stereotype can be partly explained by perceptions of profit-seeking behavior (Supplementary Studies A and B), and that people construe profit-seeking and its relationship to ethicality differently when considering large and small companies (Study 4). People attribute greater profit-maximizing motives (relative to profit-satisficing motives) to large companies, and these attributions shape their subsequent judgments of ethicality (Study 5; Supplementary Studies C and D).

Although measures of implicit associations are influential in the prejudice literature, comparative tests of the predictive power of these measures are lacking. A large-scale (N > 100,000) analysis of four commonly used measures-the Implicit Association Test (IAT), Single-Category IAT (SC-IAT), evaluative priming task (EPT), and sorting paired features task (SPF)-across 10 intergroup domains and 250 outcomes found clear evidence for the superiority of the SC-IAT in predictive and incremental predictive validity. Follow-up analyses suggested that the SC-IAT benefited from an exclusive focus on associations toward stigmatized group members, as associations toward non-stigmatized group members diluted the predictive strength of relative measures like the IAT, SPF, and EPT. These results highlight how conclusions about predictive validity can vary drastically depending on the measure selected and reveal novel insights about the value of different measures when focusing on predictive than convergent validity.

Social pain, defined as distress caused by negative interpersonal experiences (e.g., ostracism, mistreatment), is detrimental to health. Yet, it is unclear how social class might shape judgments of the social pains of low-socioeconomic status (SES) and high-SES individuals. Five studies tested competing toughness and empathy predictions for SES's effect on social pain judgments. Consistent with an empathy account, in all studies (N_cumulative = 1,046), low-SES White targets were judged more sensitive to social pain than high-SES White targets. Further, empathy mediated these effects, such that participants felt greater empathy and expected more social pain for low-SES targets relative to high-SES targets. Social pain judgments also informed judgments of social support needs, as low-SES targets were presumed to need more coping resources to manage hurtful events than high-SES targets. The current findings provide initial evidence that empathic concern for low-SES White individuals sensitizes social pain judgments and increases expected support needs for lower class White individuals.

Many measures have been developed to index intuitive versus analytic thinking. Yet it remains an open question whether people primarily vary along a single dimension or if there are genuinely different types of thinking styles. We distinguish between four distinct types of thinking styles: Actively Open-minded Thinking, Close-Minded Thinking, Preference for Intuitive Thinking, and Preference for Effortful Thinking. We discovered strong predictive validity across several outcome measures (e.g., epistemically suspect beliefs, bullshit receptivity, empathy, moral judgments), with some subscales having stronger predictive validity for some outcomes but not others. Furthermore, Actively Open-minded Thinking, in particular, strongly outperformed the Cognitive Reflection Test in predicting misperceptions about COVID-19 and the ability to discern between vaccination-related true and false news. Our results indicate that people do, in fact, differ along multiple dimensions of intuitive-analytic thinking styles and that these dimensions have consequences for understanding a wide range of beliefs and behaviors.

Greed, the insatiable and excessive desire and striving for more even at the expense of others, may be directed toward various goods. In this article, we propose that greed may be conceptualized as a domain-specific construct. Based on a literature review and an expert survey, we identified 10 domains of greed which we operationalized with the DOmain-SPEcific Greed (DOSPEG) questionnaire. In Study 1 (N = 725), we found support for the proposed structure and convergent validity with related constructs. Bifactor-(S-1) models revealed that generic greed is differentially related to the greed domains, indicating that generic greed primarily captures a striving for money and material things. In the second study (N = 591), we found that greed domains had incremental validity beyond generic greed with regard to corresponding criteria assessed via self- and other-reports. We conclude that greed can be conceptualized as a domain-specific construct and propose an onion model reflecting this structure.