Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology最新文献

Schisms occur when a faction breaks away from their parent group to create or to join an already existing group. However, previous researchers who have examined schisms have primarily focused on people's individual intentions to exit their group. This poses two questions: first, does a schism involve both breaking away from a parent group and forming a new group? And second, are the psychological processes that predict individual exit intentions also predicting people's support of schisms, or are there distinct psychological processes involved in a schism? Study 1 (N = 284) confirmed that a schism consists of two subcomponents: subgroup exit and superordinate formation. Study 2 (N = 261) showed that the psychological processes related to individual exit intentions are distinct from those processes related to schisms. Results suggest that support for schisms is distinct from individual exit intentions and that there are unique psychological predictors of schisms.

Accomplishing goals with others can be troublesome. Some people may work extra hard while others do much less. When does this workload asymmetry occur? The present research investigates the role of perceived partners’ self-control in workload distribution. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that high self-control individuals work harder and compensate when they work together with low self-control partners. Results from two studies indicate that high self-control individuals are sensitive to their partners’ level of self-control and adjust their behavior accordingly (i.e., exerting extra effort) when working with them.

We examine how worldview differences affect the construal of depression. Two suffering construals are identified: redemptive construals, which emphasize the growth-oriented teleological purpose of depression, and biomedical construals, which emphasize a restorative teleology whereby depression should be pharmacologically treated to return individuals to normal functioning. Due to their assumptions about human nature, we anticipated that humanistic and normativistic worldviews would be associated with redemptive and biomedical construals, respectively. Four studies examined whether these associations are (a) cross-sectionally evident, (b) causal in nature, and (c) impacted by perceived risk for depression. Humanism was positively and causally associated with redemptive construals; this association was strengthened by perceived personal risk for depression. Normativism was consistently positively associated with biomedical construals, except when participants anticipated an assessment of their risk for depression. Furthermore, in one study (Study 1B), normativism was associated with fear-based stigma of a depressed individual (being more likely to view this person as dangerous because of their condition). These results provide initial evidence for our novel theoretical framework, which, in distinction to prior theory and research, highlights the importance of (a) assessing worldview beyond political orientation in explaining depression attitudes and (b) lay teleologies, as distinct from “folk etiologies,” of mental illness. Redemptive and biomedical construals have different implications for phenomena such as treatment adherence and stigma.

Resistance to Persuasion (RP) is an important construct allowing to understand attitude change (or its absence) after persuasive attempts. Theorized as an individual attribute, no research has yet investigated the potential presence of prescriptive norms of judgment surrounding the display of RP by individuals. In line with the prevalence of individualistic values within occidental societies—where individuals are expected to be self-determined, autonomous, self-reliant, confident, and skillful—the present contribution therefore investigated whether displaying RP was subjected to social valorization. A first study, using a self-presentation paradigm (within subjects, N = 106), showed that displaying RP conveyed a negative image of oneself. A second study, using a social judgment task (between subjects, N = 189), showed that targets displaying high RP were seen as less warm but more competent than targets displaying low RP. This effect was conceptually replicated in a third study using a different social judgment task (between subjects, N = 219). These results are interpreted in terms of social power and resistance to social influence. Practical implications are then discussed from two important perspectives: (a) the potential usefulness of power priming as a way to increase RP; (b) social norms surrounding RP as crucial moderators of intervention outcomes (e.g., focusing on critical thinking promotion). The existence of social valorization of not being resistant could be leveraged and could be crucial for applied psychologists, especially to optimize interventions aiming to fight against the spread of conspiracy theories and fake news among the public.

We investigated intergroup contact's cognitively liberalizing function by testing it's association with socio-cognitive skills (perspective-taking and empathy skills, and cognitive flexibility) and group-based ideologies (ethnocentrism and social dominance orientation [SDO]) among a majority (Turks) and minority (Kurds) status group (total N = 483). We further examined whether these relationships were provided by contact's primary intergroup function—more positive attitudes toward the contacted group. Multigroup structural equation modeling analyses demonstrated that high quality cross-group friendships were directly and negatively related to both ethnocentrism and SDO among the minority group. These associations were mediated by positive outgroup attitudes among the majority group. For both groups, perspective-taking and empathy were significantly predicted by lower levels of ethnocentrism and SDO. Contact also indirectly led to higher cognitive flexibility among both groups. Findings highlight the need to explore more extensively contact's psychological outcomes at the individual level, beyond changing outgroup attitudes.

Descriptive norms guide social behavior by informing what other people do. In a conceptual proposition, we suggest that descriptive norms also could signal what other people don’t do. Building on the evolutionary predisposition to more urgently attend to negative than positive information, we hypothesize that people are more strongly influenced by choices that other people avoid, than by choices that other people choose. Descriptive data in three experiments consistently demonstrated that more participants conformed to information about what other people don’t do (i.e., the don’t-norm) than information about what other people do (i.e., the do-norm). We found that don’t-norms more strongly influenced pro-environmental choices related to both energy efficiency (Experiment 1) and sustainable food consumption (Experiments 2 and 3). The increased influence of the don’t-norm were supported in two cultures (Sweden and USA), in two decision contexts (accepting and rejecting), and when using two wordings (want vs. avoid and preferred vs. unpreferred). These results suggest that descriptive do- and don’t-norms are conceptually distinct and that don’t-norms exert stronger influential power.

The bodies of research on intergroup contact and on collective action have historically remained separate in their pursuit to understand how to promote social equality. In recent years, however, researchers have begun to explore the extent to which contact and collective action work together or against each other in the pursuit of social change. To date, there is mixed evidence on the relation between these two constructs, with some suggesting that intergroup contact can have ironic effects by reducing the likelihood that disadvantaged group members will engage in collective action in favor of their own group. The goal of this Special Issue is to better understand the effect that intergroup contact can have on collective action and ignite a new body of research that directly considers the relation between the two. The papers comprising this Special Issue offer unique and yet complementary perspectives, highlighting the importance of moving beyond dyadic relations, the need to consider intergroup friendships and social embeddedness, the value of promoting inclusive identities and how support for collective action not only differs by group status but is also influenced by individual differences. Together, the papers offer theoretical and methodological suggestions to move research in this important field forward.

Although politeness is an important concern in communications across cultures, a prevalent assumption in psychology is that East Asians are more inclined to be polite than members of other cultural groups due to prevalent cultural norms. Yet, evidence for this assumption is mixed. The present research examined this issue by considering the role of social hierarchy in interpersonal communications of Korean and British participants (N = 220) using an experimental task that involved writing an email to decline a request made by a junior or a senior person. The results showed that Korean participants’ emails were more polite when addressing a senior colleague compared with a junior colleague in work contexts. In contrast, recipient status did not impact British participants’ politeness. Crucially, cultural differences in politeness only emerged when participants addressed a senior colleague, but not when participants addressed a junior colleague. We discuss the implications of these findings and directions for future research.