Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin最新文献

Research has identified a double-bind for female leaders: When acting in line with gender stereotypes, they are viewed as more likeable but less competent. Here, we test the impact of using gender stereotypical language-characterized by more prevention-focused language (e.g., avoiding risks) and less promotion-focused language (e.g., seeking gains)-on U.S. governors' approval ratings during COVID-19 and their ability to promote effective social distancing behaviors. With a final dataset of 3,759 documents capturing governors' communication, a 13-week panel of Google mobility data containing 6,534 observations (Study 1), U.S. nationally representative survey data from 57,532 participants (Study 2), and 24,247 tweets (Study 3), we find that female governors who use less prevention-focused, stereotypical language in their communications are more effective at increasing compliance with social distancing measures but receive lower approval ratings. As such, women leaders' necessary approaches in crisis situations may undermine their sustainability in positions of power.

Research has characterized the emotional response to social rejection as a generalized negative affect, overlooking the diverse reactions of rejected individuals. We explored how humiliation and related emotions (anger, shame, and guilt) are linked to post-rejection behavior, and how two key appraisals (unfairness and internalization of devaluation) evoke specific emotions. In two studies-an experimental Cyberball study (N = 186) and a large-scale correlational study (N = 1,200)-we found that humiliation was associated with both unfairness and internalization, anger only with unfairness, shame with internalization, and guilt with internalization and negatively with unfairness. Humiliation was correlated with aggressive confrontation and avoidance, anger with aggressive and non-aggressive confrontation, shame with avoidance and negatively with non-aggressive confrontation, and guilt with reparation and non-aggressive confrontation. We discuss the relevance of these emotional pathways for understanding social rejection and informing targeted interventions to mitigate harmful responses.

What do laypeople think causes conspiracy beliefs? In six correlational studies (N = 2,024) and a qualitative study (N = 190), we examined laypeople's attributions of others' conspiracy beliefs and how these attributions predict their intentions to correct conspiracy believers. Attribution research suggests that dispositional (vs. situational) attributions should dominate lay beliefs and negatively predict correction intentions. Dispositional attributions of conspiracy beliefs were indeed more prevalent than attributions to situational causes, with two exceptions: Conspiracy beliefs were attributed most strongly to influence from social media and misinformation. Attributing another person's conspiracy beliefs more strongly to social media or misinformation also predicted intentions to correct this person, more so than other attributions. Our results suggest that (a) assessing attributions at a more detailed level than is often done can help uncover yet unobserved nuance in laypeople's attributions and (b) encouraging certain attributions of conspiracy beliefs could help foster their interpersonal correction.

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.