European Journal of Social Psychology最新文献

Typically, individuals are motivated to see themselves in a flattering light regarding their physical and personality characteristics. We suggest that visual self-perception is anchored in the true self which is largely the self-enhancing self, and may also reflect the privileged access to one's traits and internal states. Here, we examine the impact and limits of self-enhancement motivation and egocentric bias on individuals’ recognition of variations of their portraits in terms of the Big Five personality dimensions. We predict that individuals recognise themselves better in positively altered portraits, namely, portraits looking more agreeable, conscientious and open. We also predict that self-enhancement is anchored in reality: Individuals recognise themselves less in strongly altered than in slightly or non-altered portraits. In Study 1, we measure the directions of self-recognition distortions by investigating in which random variations of their portraits individuals recognise themselves. In Study 2, relying on a mouse tracking paradigm, we additionally measure the degree of distortion, and the conflict individuals experience during the self-recognition task. Results of both studies mainly demonstrate self-recognition distortions towards agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness and neuroticism. Moreover, results from Study 2 reveal that self-recognition is anchored in reality. Findings of two studies applying different methods convergently show systematic biases in self-recognition regarding the Big Five dimensions, both enriching understanding of the self-enhancement processes and demonstrating that the methods applied might be useful for future research focusing on self-recognition.

Entities of low prevalence are evaluated as more extreme in their characteristics than those of high prevalence. We extended this idea to minorities, which by definition have fewer members than majorities, and found converging evidence for a minority extremity bias (MEB; N = 957). Participants associated the term ‘minority’ (rather than ‘majority’) with higher extremity (Study 1). Minorities were associated with higher extremity than majorities (Study 2). We added a manipulation of the minority size (Study 3, Part 1). Results indicated that the MEB is stronger for very small minorities than for small minorities. Participants assigned extreme behaviour more often to a minority than to a majority (Study 3, Part 2). We extended the MEB to more extreme ratings of minorities on evaluation scales (Study 4). Prevalence of group members correlated negatively with the extremity of group stereotyping (n = 118 groups; Study 5). Participants rated minorities on induced stereotypes more extreme than majorities (Study 6). We discuss the MEB in the context of alternative explanations such as the outgroup extremity effect. Taken together, this research demonstrates the MEB, which is a novel exploration in the realm of group evaluation that contributes to existing literature.

Malnutrition gives rise to stigmatisation worldwide and is a pressing societal issue. Drawing on social representation theory and on the process of othering, a lexicometric analysis of Nepalese press articles (N = 440) was conducted to explore if, and how, Othering of the malnourished is at play and how articles (re)construct the threat of malnutrition. The results indicate that Othering takes different forms depending on the threat the malnourished represent: (a) the malnourished in foreign countries are perceived as suffering from hunger due to a lack of social development and democracy whereas (b) the malnourished in Nepal are perceived as being afflicted because they hold traditional beliefs. However, (c) when the threat can be attributed to natural disasters, no negative attributes were associated with the malnourished in Nepal. This suggests that Othering is neither systematic nor monolithic. These findings illustrate how social psychology can address urgent societal questions while equally offering an opportunity for new theoretical developments.

Even though many studies have examined the link between individuals' perceived general similarity to their romantic partners and their own relationship satisfaction, there are not many studies focusing on the impact of perceived general similarity reported by the partner. The present work uncovers the potential mediating roles of one's and the partner's attributional confidence in the effects of one's and the partner's perceived general similarity on relationship satisfaction. To investigate the mechanisms, two studies were conducted at individual and dyadic levels. A total of 395 individuals (51.4% female) aged 17–67 (M = 22.06, SD = 4.68) in unmarried opposite-gender relationships were recruited in Study 1 and 227 unmarried opposite-gender couples were employed in Study 2. Across two studies, the indirect effect of perceived general similarity on relationship satisfaction via attributional confidence was significant. In particular, the actor effects of perceived general similarity on relationship satisfaction were mediated by the actor effects of attributional confidence. Moreover, the partner effects of perceived general similarity on relationship satisfaction were mediated by partner attributional confidence (i.e., one's partner's perceived general similarity on one's relationship satisfaction via one's partner's attributional confidence). The present findings shed light on the mechanisms through which perceived general similarity fosters relationship satisfaction among opposite-gender relationships.

Touch is a key channel for conveying meaning in social interactions. The affective quality of touch and its effects on well-being are shaped by relational context (relationship between touch giver vs. recipient) and person variables (e.g. adult attachment style). Yet, such effects have not been explored in relation to the meaning ascribed to touch. We used data from the Touch Test, the world's largest touch survey, which included questions on the degree to which people felt and related specific emotions and intentions to imagined gentle stroking touch and hugs. In N = 23,428, we examined how relational context (imagined source of touch) and person variables (gender, recalled positive childhood touch and adult attachment style) were associated with positive (e.g. love, desire, support) and negative (e.g. fear, anger, warning) emotions and intentions related to imagined touch. Love, desire and support were endorsed more when participants had had their partner (vs. someone else) in mind, and women (vs. men) gave lower ratings for desire overall. Gentle stroking touch was most linked with arousal when participants had had their partner in mind. Further, more positive childhood touch and secure and anxious attachment scores were associated with more positive emotions and intentions, while the opposite was found for avoidant attachment scores. Lastly, positive childhood touch and higher anxious attachment scores were related to greater discrimination between distinct emotion and intention categories, while higher attachment avoidance was associated with reduced discriminability. Thus, contextual and person variables matter in shaping the meaning of social touch.

Many relationships within which interpersonal transgressions transpire often involve histories of reciprocal wrongdoing, where each party has occupied both the role of victim and offender. We investigate whether past incidents of being wronged by the victim of a present transgression may dampen offenders’ conciliatory sentiments for their present wrongdoing. Across four studies (combined N = 1037), we find evidence that past victimization experiences within the context of an interpersonal relationship can blur offenders’ construal of their role as offender and elicit feelings of victimhood, allowing them to exonerate themselves and feel less guilt for their present wrongdoing, display less empathy for the present victim, and reduce their willingness to reconcile with the present victim. These findings highlight the importance of taking into account historical transgressions within a relationship as a determinant of relationship repair in the aftermath of present wrongdoings.

Exploring what modulates people's trust in evidence of hiring discrimination is crucial to the deployment of corrective policies. Here, we explore one powerful source of variation in such judgments: moral commitment to gender equality (MCGE), that is, perceptions of the issue as a moral imperative and as identity-defining. Across seven experiments (N = 3579), we examined folk evaluations of scientific reports of hiring discrimination in academia. Participants who were more morally committed to gender equality were more likely to trust rigorous, experimental evidence of gender discrimination against women. This association between moral commitment and research evaluations was not reducible to prior beliefs, and largely explained a sex difference in people's evaluations on the issue. On a darker note, however, MCGE was associated with increased chances of fallaciously inferring discrimination against women from contradictory evidence. Overall, our results suggest that moral convictions amplify people's myside bias, bringing about both benefits and costs in the public consumption of science.

We identified and tested a novel aspect of human resilience: The daily pursuit of maintenance goals. Taking inspiration from archaeological records, which point at routinized cultural practices as a central resilience factor, we tested whether personal routine practices, governed by maintenance goals, serve a similar function to individuals as traditional practices do to societies. Namely, we hypothesized that maintenance striving increases individuals’ resilient responses to stressful events. Confirming this prediction, a longitudinal Study 1 showed that maintenance striving but not avoidance striving, predicted subsequent increases in well-being following the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Study 2 confirmed our predictions on trait resilience and maintenance versus avoidance motivations in the household and relationship life domains in cross-sectional data. These studies contribute to the understanding of resilience by demonstrating the benefits of maintenance goals for both situational and trait-level resilience.

Imagery rescripting (ImRs) is a prominent approach to help individuals alleviate the negative consequences following victimization. In two studies (total N = 641), participants experienced a victimization incident induced by a video. In subsequent audio-guided (ImRs or control) interventions, we examined the impact of imagined (i) victims' active or passive role, (ii) punishment for the offender (yes/no), and (iii) offender moral change (yes/no) on both psychological states and behavioural intentions. Specifically, after the ImRs, participants reported their feelings of empowerment, justice-related satisfaction, positive and negative affect, and intention to act after the intervention. Results revealed that ImRs significantly reduced negative consequences of victimization, with active ImRs surpassing passive ImRs in enhancing victims’ empowerment and positive affect. Notably, neither imagined offender punishment nor moral change affected the efficacy of ImRs. We discuss these findings in light of ImRs as an intervention to address victims’ threatened needs.

Previous research has shown that people judge sacrificing a few people to save a larger number to be morally permissible when the intervention targets the threat but not when it targets the victims. We investigated whether this distinction according to the locus of intervention influences people's evaluations of wartime scenarios and whether such evaluations vary according to different types of victims (e.g., civilians vs. soldiers). We observed a significant effect of locus of intervention in situations in which a smaller number of civilians were sacrificed to save a larger number of civilians (Study 1; N = 142). However, the effect of locus of intervention was less pronounced in scenarios in which soldiers were sacrificed to save civilians (Studies 2 and 3; N = 173 and N = 841). A fourth experiment (N = 477) explored why participants treated soldiers and civilians differently. Participants believed that it is more permissible to sacrifice soldiers because they consent to being harmed.