{"title":"Correction of Paulina Banaszkiewicz (2022). Biological sex and psychological gender differences in the experience and expression of romantic jealousy","authors":"","doi":"10.32872/spb.15121","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.15121","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"109 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141812516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Correction of Nathan Vidal et al. (2023). Assessing the reliability of an infrared thermography protocol to assess cold-induced brown adipose tissue activation in French psychology students","authors":"","doi":"10.32872/spb.15037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.15037","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"37 26","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141663747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Moral reframing is a communication technique that involves persuading an audience to support an issue they typically oppose on ideological grounds by appealing to concepts and values that align with their moral concerns. Overall, previous research has found that moral reframing can encourage attitude change more so than non-reframed messages. One pending question, though, is whether people would or would not use this technique in the first place (e.g., because it requires embracing values that one might not endorse). This online study (N = 249) tested the willingness of US-based liberals to use a message appealing to conservative values (morally reframed), vs. one appealing to liberal values (not morally reframed), to persuade a hypothetical conservative audience to be more pro-environmental. Reasons behind message choice and feelings about both messages were measured. Results showed that most participants chose to use the morally reframed message (73%). This choice was justified by the message’s perceived effectiveness, while rejecting it was justified by the need to feel true to one’s own beliefs and values. However, regardless of actual message choice, participants overall reported more positive and less negative integrity feelings for the message that was not morally reframed.
{"title":"Willingness to use moral reframing: Support comes from perceived effectiveness, opposition comes from integrity concerns","authors":"Aaron Isiminger, Roger Giner-Sorolla","doi":"10.32872/spb.13053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.13053","url":null,"abstract":"Moral reframing is a communication technique that involves persuading an audience to support an issue they typically oppose on ideological grounds by appealing to concepts and values that align with their moral concerns. Overall, previous research has found that moral reframing can encourage attitude change more so than non-reframed messages. One pending question, though, is whether people would or would not use this technique in the first place (e.g., because it requires embracing values that one might not endorse). This online study (N = 249) tested the willingness of US-based liberals to use a message appealing to conservative values (morally reframed), vs. one appealing to liberal values (not morally reframed), to persuade a hypothetical conservative audience to be more pro-environmental. Reasons behind message choice and feelings about both messages were measured. Results showed that most participants chose to use the morally reframed message (73%). This choice was justified by the message’s perceived effectiveness, while rejecting it was justified by the need to feel true to one’s own beliefs and values. However, regardless of actual message choice, participants overall reported more positive and less negative integrity feelings for the message that was not morally reframed.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"113 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141674210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Four pre-registered experiments (N total = 2,039) investigated how people morally evaluate avengers who experience hedonic pleasure (vs. displeasure) after taking revenge and whether avengers themselves pick up on these moral evaluations by third parties. Victims who took revenge were judged as more immoral than victims who did not take revenge, especially when they felt pleasure from doing so (Study 1). Conversely, participants anticipated that others would perceive them as more competent (but not less moral) when imagining them showing visible signs of pleasure (vs. displeasure) about taking revenge (Study 2). Furthermore, showing signs of pleasure from taking revenge was attributed to greater competence than showing signs of displeasure from taking revenge (Study 3). On the other hand, feeling good about revenge was attributed to lower morality than feeling bad about taking revenge (Study 4).
{"title":"Feeling bad about feeling good? how avengers and observers evaluate the hedonic pleasure of taking revenge","authors":"Karolina Dyduch-Hazar, Mario Gollwitzer","doi":"10.32872/spb.12477","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.12477","url":null,"abstract":"Four pre-registered experiments (N total = 2,039) investigated how people morally evaluate avengers who experience hedonic pleasure (vs. displeasure) after taking revenge and whether avengers themselves pick up on these moral evaluations by third parties. Victims who took revenge were judged as more immoral than victims who did not take revenge, especially when they felt pleasure from doing so (Study 1). Conversely, participants anticipated that others would perceive them as more competent (but not less moral) when imagining them showing visible signs of pleasure (vs. displeasure) about taking revenge (Study 2). Furthermore, showing signs of pleasure from taking revenge was attributed to greater competence than showing signs of displeasure from taking revenge (Study 3). On the other hand, feeling good about revenge was attributed to lower morality than feeling bad about taking revenge (Study 4).","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"106 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140225018","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Marion Chipeaux, C. Kulich, Vincenzo Iacoviello, E. Politi, F. Lorenzi-Cioldi
Socially mobile minority members (i.e., those who acquire a higher status membership) adjust their social identities, and eventually show negative attitudes towards minorities, as compared to non-mobile members. We examined whether these changes could be understood as the result of individual mobility achievements, or if they already occur at an earlier stage of the mobility process, when individuals are motivated and thus psychologically anticipate achieving mobility. In two studies, we looked at Portuguese immigrants in Switzerland (Ns = 180 and 241) at three mobility stages, that is, (1) Swiss naturalized Portuguese immigrants (socially mobile), (2) non-naturalized Portuguese who strongly wished to be naturalized (high anticipators), and (3) those who wished it less (low anticipators). First, we hypothesized a progressive assimilation to (distancing from) the Swiss (Portuguese) identity and culture (from the low anticipators to the high anticipators to the mobile). As expected, increasing levels of individual mobility were associated with stronger identification with Swiss identity and adoption of the Swiss culture. Conversely, increasing levels of individual mobility were associated with gradual distancing from the Portuguese culture, but against expectations, not with disidentification from the Portuguese identity. Second, we investigated how individual mobility stages were associated with a progressive deterioration of inter-minority relations. Results showed that increasing levels of individual mobility were not associated with more negative attitudes toward immigration (Study 1) but with less collective action intentions (Study 2). We discuss the consequences of anticipated and achieved individual mobility on asymmetric intergroup relations and support for social change.
{"title":"Anticipated and achieved individual mobility amongst Portuguese immigrants in Switzerland: Social identity adjustment and inter-minority relations","authors":"Marion Chipeaux, C. Kulich, Vincenzo Iacoviello, E. Politi, F. Lorenzi-Cioldi","doi":"10.32872/spb.9465","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.9465","url":null,"abstract":"Socially mobile minority members (i.e., those who acquire a higher status membership) adjust their social identities, and eventually show negative attitudes towards minorities, as compared to non-mobile members. We examined whether these changes could be understood as the result of individual mobility achievements, or if they already occur at an earlier stage of the mobility process, when individuals are motivated and thus psychologically anticipate achieving mobility. In two studies, we looked at Portuguese immigrants in Switzerland (Ns = 180 and 241) at three mobility stages, that is, (1) Swiss naturalized Portuguese immigrants (socially mobile), (2) non-naturalized Portuguese who strongly wished to be naturalized (high anticipators), and (3) those who wished it less (low anticipators). First, we hypothesized a progressive assimilation to (distancing from) the Swiss (Portuguese) identity and culture (from the low anticipators to the high anticipators to the mobile). As expected, increasing levels of individual mobility were associated with stronger identification with Swiss identity and adoption of the Swiss culture. Conversely, increasing levels of individual mobility were associated with gradual distancing from the Portuguese culture, but against expectations, not with disidentification from the Portuguese identity. Second, we investigated how individual mobility stages were associated with a progressive deterioration of inter-minority relations. Results showed that increasing levels of individual mobility were not associated with more negative attitudes toward immigration (Study 1) but with less collective action intentions (Study 2). We discuss the consequences of anticipated and achieved individual mobility on asymmetric intergroup relations and support for social change.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"8 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140227489","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Guilt, on the one hand, can be unpleasant and exhausting. On the other hand, it can also motivate individuals to, for example, make amends and repair broken social relationships. To understand this dual nature of guilt, this research turns to the concept of mimicry. Mimicry is defined as the unconscious imitation of behaviors and is widely recognized as a 'social glue' that plays a crucial role in forming and maintaining social relationships. A key question is whether mimicry could serve as an appliance for the sake of guilt release. A series of six studies (N = 414) reveals the opposite pattern: participants who were mimicked (compared to non-mimicked) felt more guilty. This outcome suggests that while mimicry generally fosters social connections, its interplay with emotions like guilt can be complex.
{"title":"The impact of mimicry behavior on guilt","authors":"Paweł Muniak, Wojciech Kulesza","doi":"10.32872/spb.12697","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.12697","url":null,"abstract":"Guilt, on the one hand, can be unpleasant and exhausting. On the other hand, it can also motivate individuals to, for example, make amends and repair broken social relationships. To understand this dual nature of guilt, this research turns to the concept of mimicry. Mimicry is defined as the unconscious imitation of behaviors and is widely recognized as a 'social glue' that plays a crucial role in forming and maintaining social relationships. A key question is whether mimicry could serve as an appliance for the sake of guilt release. A series of six studies (N = 414) reveals the opposite pattern: participants who were mimicked (compared to non-mimicked) felt more guilty. This outcome suggests that while mimicry generally fosters social connections, its interplay with emotions like guilt can be complex.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"31 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140249093","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kaelyn Ireland, Logan Turner, Grace Bowe, Jessica Bray, Brooke Cassanova, CaSaundra White, Steven Peek, Diana Riser, Katherine R. G. White
People tend to be more resistant to criticism of their own group when it is given by outgroup members as opposed to ingroup members because they view the criticism as less constructive and legitimate when delivered by an outsider—a phenomenon known as the intergroup sensitivity effect, or ISE. The present study (N = 827) examines the effectiveness of two rhetorical techniques—balanced criticism (delivering criticism of one’s own group in addition to the target group) and buttering up (delivering praise alongside criticism) in reducing the ISE among European Americans, African Americans, and Latino Americans. The impact of criticism on intentions to engage in corrective behavior was also explored. Participants read a fictitious interview excerpt containing criticism of their racial group delivered by a racial ingroup or outgroup member and then rated the critic and their statement on several dimensions. We found buttering up reduces the ISE among European Americans and Latino Americans, but not African Americans, while critiquing one’s own racial group alongside the target group is ineffective in reducing the ISE for the three examined groups. Additionally, we found African Americans were more willing to engage in corrective behavior to address criticism directed toward their racial group than their European American or Latino American counterparts. However, contrary to previous research, the group membership of the critic did not affect participants’ willingness to engage in corrective action. These findings contribute to our understanding of interracial dynamics in the United States and illuminate how to facilitate interracial criticism.
相对于内群体成员而言，当外群体成员对本群体提出批评时，人们往往会更加抵触，因为他们认为由外人提出的批评更缺乏建设性和合理性--这种现象被称为群体间敏感效应（ISE）。本研究（N = 827）探讨了两种修辞技巧--均衡批评（除了对目标群体的批评外，还对自己的群体提出批评）和赞美（在批评的同时提出赞美）--在减少欧裔美国人、非裔美国人和拉丁裔美国人的 ISE 方面的效果。我们还探讨了批评对纠正行为意图的影响。参与者阅读了一段虚构的访谈节选，其中包含由种族内群体或种族外群体成员对其种族群体的批评，然后从几个维度对批评者及其言论进行评分。我们发现，对欧洲裔美国人和拉丁裔美国人来说，"拍马屁 "能降低他们的ISE，但对非洲裔美国人来说，"拍马屁 "并不能降低他们的ISE，而在批评目标群体的同时批评自己的种族群体，则不能有效地降低三个受试群体的ISE。此外，我们发现非裔美国人比他们的欧洲裔美国人或拉丁裔美国人更愿意采取纠正行为来应对针对他们种族群体的批评。然而，与以往的研究相反，批评者的群体成员身份并不影响参与者采取纠正行为的意愿。这些发现有助于我们了解美国的种族间动态，并阐明了如何促进种族间批评。
{"title":"They have a point: Testing strategies to improve receptivity to interracial criticism and promote behavioral change","authors":"Kaelyn Ireland, Logan Turner, Grace Bowe, Jessica Bray, Brooke Cassanova, CaSaundra White, Steven Peek, Diana Riser, Katherine R. G. White","doi":"10.32872/spb.7089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.7089","url":null,"abstract":"People tend to be more resistant to criticism of their own group when it is given by outgroup members as opposed to ingroup members because they view the criticism as less constructive and legitimate when delivered by an outsider—a phenomenon known as the intergroup sensitivity effect, or ISE. The present study (N = 827) examines the effectiveness of two rhetorical techniques—balanced criticism (delivering criticism of one’s own group in addition to the target group) and buttering up (delivering praise alongside criticism) in reducing the ISE among European Americans, African Americans, and Latino Americans. The impact of criticism on intentions to engage in corrective behavior was also explored. Participants read a fictitious interview excerpt containing criticism of their racial group delivered by a racial ingroup or outgroup member and then rated the critic and their statement on several dimensions. We found buttering up reduces the ISE among European Americans and Latino Americans, but not African Americans, while critiquing one’s own racial group alongside the target group is ineffective in reducing the ISE for the three examined groups. Additionally, we found African Americans were more willing to engage in corrective behavior to address criticism directed toward their racial group than their European American or Latino American counterparts. However, contrary to previous research, the group membership of the critic did not affect participants’ willingness to engage in corrective action. These findings contribute to our understanding of interracial dynamics in the United States and illuminate how to facilitate interracial criticism.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"46 15","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139612260","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Florian van Leeuwen, C. V. van Lissa, Trisevgeni Papakonstantinou, Michael Bang Petersen, Oliver Scott Curry
What is the relation between morality and politics? If morality is a collection of cooperative rules, and politics is conflict over which cooperative projects to pursue, then they should be correlated. We examined the relation between moral values and political orientation in samples of participants from the USA (N = 518), Denmark (N = 552), the Netherlands (N = 353), and an international online population (N = 1,337). Political conservatism was consistently related to deference values. We also found some support for the hypotheses that political orientation has distinct relations with family values and group values, and has distinct relations with fairness values and reciprocity values. However, for most hypotheses the results showed no support, largely due to poor model fit or measurement error associated with the political scales. The results suggest that improved measurement of political preferences will help understand the relation between morality and politics.
{"title":"Morality as cooperation, politics as conflict","authors":"Florian van Leeuwen, C. V. van Lissa, Trisevgeni Papakonstantinou, Michael Bang Petersen, Oliver Scott Curry","doi":"10.32872/spb.10157","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.10157","url":null,"abstract":"What is the relation between morality and politics? If morality is a collection of cooperative rules, and politics is conflict over which cooperative projects to pursue, then they should be correlated. We examined the relation between moral values and political orientation in samples of participants from the USA (N = 518), Denmark (N = 552), the Netherlands (N = 353), and an international online population (N = 1,337). Political conservatism was consistently related to deference values. We also found some support for the hypotheses that political orientation has distinct relations with family values and group values, and has distinct relations with fairness values and reciprocity values. However, for most hypotheses the results showed no support, largely due to poor model fit or measurement error associated with the political scales. The results suggest that improved measurement of political preferences will help understand the relation between morality and politics.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"23 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139613746","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A decade ago, replications were typically not conducted and appreciated in social psychology, although replications play a central role in ensuring trust in scientific fields. Without systematic replication efforts, it is not clear whether findings are trustworthy. As journals can function as gatekeepers for publications, they can influence whether researchers conduct (and publish) replications. Yet, the scholarly culture in social psychology might have changed over the last decade because numerous highly visible studies did not replicate past findings. In light of these insights and the resulting learning opportunities for the field, we predicted an increase in the expressed support for replications in the policies of social psychology journals from 2015 (i.e., the year the replication problem became widely known) to 2022. We coded whether and how replications were mentioned in the author guidelines on the websites of social psychology journals (N = 51). As expected, replications were welcomed more often in 2022 (25%) than they were in 2015 (12%), but they were not mentioned on the websites of most journals (71% in 2022 vs. 82% in 2015). An exploratory analysis suggested that journals that expressed support for replications on their websites were also more likely to publish articles about replication. Further, exploratory analyses of the journals’ TOP factors indicated similar rates of support for replications as for other rigor and transparency promoting policies. In sum, our findings suggest that appreciation for replication has increased, but is not yet part of mainstream culture in social psychology.
{"title":"Are replications mainstream now? A comparison of support for replications expressed in the policies of social psychology journals in 2015 and 2022","authors":"Ann-Kathrin Torka, J. Mazei, J. Hüffmeier","doi":"10.32872/spb.9695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.9695","url":null,"abstract":"A decade ago, replications were typically not conducted and appreciated in social psychology, although replications play a central role in ensuring trust in scientific fields. Without systematic replication efforts, it is not clear whether findings are trustworthy. As journals can function as gatekeepers for publications, they can influence whether researchers conduct (and publish) replications. Yet, the scholarly culture in social psychology might have changed over the last decade because numerous highly visible studies did not replicate past findings. In light of these insights and the resulting learning opportunities for the field, we predicted an increase in the expressed support for replications in the policies of social psychology journals from 2015 (i.e., the year the replication problem became widely known) to 2022. We coded whether and how replications were mentioned in the author guidelines on the websites of social psychology journals (N = 51). As expected, replications were welcomed more often in 2022 (25%) than they were in 2015 (12%), but they were not mentioned on the websites of most journals (71% in 2022 vs. 82% in 2015). An exploratory analysis suggested that journals that expressed support for replications on their websites were also more likely to publish articles about replication. Further, exploratory analyses of the journals’ TOP factors indicated similar rates of support for replications as for other rigor and transparency promoting policies. In sum, our findings suggest that appreciation for replication has increased, but is not yet part of mainstream culture in social psychology.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139263969","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
L. Satchell, Bastian Jaeger, Alex Jones, Beatriz López, Christoph Schild
‘First impressions’ are a popular topic in social psychology. They are researched because the initial judgments of others are consequential in everyday life (such as job interviews, first dates, justice outcomes). In the context of broader concerns about the credibility of psychological science, first impressions research has developed commendable initiatives for improving reliability (open stimulus databases, international collaborations, replication studies and reanalyses). However, these initiatives can impact the validity of studying how people form first impressions. There is a long history of critiquing the usefulness of passive-observer judgments of controlled, reduced, presentations of people—and these concerns are still relevant today. Here, we highlight the praiseworthy practices improving reliability in first impressions research, before moving on to identify persistent methodological concerns in the field. This includes inadequate stimulus sampling and diversity, constrained participant response options, limited consideration of study context, and limitations of atomised presentations of target people. We identify how these methodological limitations impact theory development, how we might be over/underestimating everyday experience, and even misunderstanding social differences in autism and mental health. Finally, we identify opportunities for methodological reform, focusing on codifying instead of controlling interactions, promoting inductive, participant-led, methodologies, and asking for stronger theory development and clarity on ‘can’ vs. ‘do’ research questions. Overall, we praise reforms for improving the reliability of first impressions research, but improvements to making scientific predictions about first impressions require renewed consideration of validity.
{"title":"Beyond reliability in first impressions research: Considering validity and the need to “Mix it up with folks”","authors":"L. Satchell, Bastian Jaeger, Alex Jones, Beatriz López, Christoph Schild","doi":"10.32872/spb.10211","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.10211","url":null,"abstract":"‘First impressions’ are a popular topic in social psychology. They are researched because the initial judgments of others are consequential in everyday life (such as job interviews, first dates, justice outcomes). In the context of broader concerns about the credibility of psychological science, first impressions research has developed commendable initiatives for improving reliability (open stimulus databases, international collaborations, replication studies and reanalyses). However, these initiatives can impact the validity of studying how people form first impressions. There is a long history of critiquing the usefulness of passive-observer judgments of controlled, reduced, presentations of people—and these concerns are still relevant today. Here, we highlight the praiseworthy practices improving reliability in first impressions research, before moving on to identify persistent methodological concerns in the field. This includes inadequate stimulus sampling and diversity, constrained participant response options, limited consideration of study context, and limitations of atomised presentations of target people. We identify how these methodological limitations impact theory development, how we might be over/underestimating everyday experience, and even misunderstanding social differences in autism and mental health. Finally, we identify opportunities for methodological reform, focusing on codifying instead of controlling interactions, promoting inductive, participant-led, methodologies, and asking for stronger theory development and clarity on ‘can’ vs. ‘do’ research questions. Overall, we praise reforms for improving the reliability of first impressions research, but improvements to making scientific predictions about first impressions require renewed consideration of validity.","PeriodicalId":32922,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychological Bulletin","volume":"1209 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139265398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：