Pub Date : 2025-09-29DOI: 10.1177/10888683251345049
Yuhui Du,Mingjie Zhou,Yiming Jing
Academic AbstractAuthenticity, a key concept in dominant Western psychological approaches, has been less studied from the Majority World perspectives. In this article, we draw upon the Chinese cultural ideal of Outside Roundness and Inside Squareness to fill this gap. After illuminating the cultural and psychological meanings of this indigenous concept, we propose an integrated framework that characterizes authentic self-functioning along two continuous dimensions: Outside Roundness versus Outside Squareness, reflecting the degree of seeking interpersonal harmony, moderation, and flexibility, and Inside Squareness versus Inside Roundness, indicating the degree of ethical self-consciousness and moral adherence. We illustrate how this framework can characterize different modes of authenticity and examine their variability in the Chinese context, and discuss its implications for Chinese psychology, dominant Western psychological approaches, and global (cross-cultural) psychology in authenticity research.Public AbstractHave you ever contemplated how the authentic self manifests within different cultures? In China, a Confucian philosophical concept, known as Outside Roundness and Inside Squareness, merges the perspectives of maintaining moral integrity and interpersonal harmony to articulate the nuances of authentic self-functioning. Imagine an individual who skillfully maneuvers through social situations (Outside Roundness) while steadfastly upholding his/her moral principles (Inside Squareness). This encapsulates the prominent attributes of authenticity as conveyed through the influential Confucian narratives. Our research offers an in-depth cultural and psychological exploration of this concept, and introduces a framework to characterize Chinese authenticity and its diverse expressions. These analyses deepen our appreciation for both the diverse and shared aspects of humanity, thereby contributing to the evolution of a more inclusive global psychology.
{"title":"Outside Roundness and Inside Squareness: A Framework for Characterizing Authenticity Through the Lens of Confucianism.","authors":"Yuhui Du,Mingjie Zhou,Yiming Jing","doi":"10.1177/10888683251345049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251345049","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractAuthenticity, a key concept in dominant Western psychological approaches, has been less studied from the Majority World perspectives. In this article, we draw upon the Chinese cultural ideal of Outside Roundness and Inside Squareness to fill this gap. After illuminating the cultural and psychological meanings of this indigenous concept, we propose an integrated framework that characterizes authentic self-functioning along two continuous dimensions: Outside Roundness versus Outside Squareness, reflecting the degree of seeking interpersonal harmony, moderation, and flexibility, and Inside Squareness versus Inside Roundness, indicating the degree of ethical self-consciousness and moral adherence. We illustrate how this framework can characterize different modes of authenticity and examine their variability in the Chinese context, and discuss its implications for Chinese psychology, dominant Western psychological approaches, and global (cross-cultural) psychology in authenticity research.Public AbstractHave you ever contemplated how the authentic self manifests within different cultures? In China, a Confucian philosophical concept, known as Outside Roundness and Inside Squareness, merges the perspectives of maintaining moral integrity and interpersonal harmony to articulate the nuances of authentic self-functioning. Imagine an individual who skillfully maneuvers through social situations (Outside Roundness) while steadfastly upholding his/her moral principles (Inside Squareness). This encapsulates the prominent attributes of authenticity as conveyed through the influential Confucian narratives. Our research offers an in-depth cultural and psychological exploration of this concept, and introduces a framework to characterize Chinese authenticity and its diverse expressions. These analyses deepen our appreciation for both the diverse and shared aspects of humanity, thereby contributing to the evolution of a more inclusive global psychology.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"96 1","pages":"361-370"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145182715","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-29DOI: 10.1177/10888683251345050
Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi,Daphna Oyserman
Honor is universally comprehensible, varies regionally in frequency, chronicity, and intensity, and looks different at each time and place. We use culture-as-situated-cognition theory (CSCT), an integrating situated social cognition account of culture, to understand why. Human culture addresses recurrent problems; how frequently, chronically, and intensely each comes to mind depends on their ecological niche; the practices addressing them vary in time and place. We articulate the costly morality theory of honor (CMTH) within CSCT to distinguish honor from related constructs by theorizing two axes (morality-immorality and costly-cost-free) at each of CSCT's three levels. In our formulation, honor is costly morality, resolving the recurrent problem of regulating relationships through costly signals of trustworthiness (human-universal). Societies embedded in harsher ecological niches require more cost to find a signal to be honest and focus on particular relational aspects of morality (niche-linked). Honor specifies how to be a person in the world (time-and-place-specific).Public AbstractPeople have an everyday understanding of honor, what it is, and who has it, but what they mean can be hard to put into words, and what actions in service of honor look like vary across times and societies. We build on culture-as-situated-cognition theory, which accounts for honor's importance in human culture, its variable centrality across societies, and differing specific norms and practices connected to it within societies, to posit that honor entails moral action, a duty of care, that is costly to the actor. We apply our honor-as-costly-morality theory to distinguish honor from related ideas in the hope that our framework helps people better understand and communicate across time-and-place divides, even while disagreeing on to whom and in what way the duty of care extends.
{"title":"Costly Morality Theory of Honor: An Evolutionary, Culture-as-Situated-Cognition Perspective.","authors":"Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi,Daphna Oyserman","doi":"10.1177/10888683251345050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251345050","url":null,"abstract":"Honor is universally comprehensible, varies regionally in frequency, chronicity, and intensity, and looks different at each time and place. We use culture-as-situated-cognition theory (CSCT), an integrating situated social cognition account of culture, to understand why. Human culture addresses recurrent problems; how frequently, chronically, and intensely each comes to mind depends on their ecological niche; the practices addressing them vary in time and place. We articulate the costly morality theory of honor (CMTH) within CSCT to distinguish honor from related constructs by theorizing two axes (morality-immorality and costly-cost-free) at each of CSCT's three levels. In our formulation, honor is costly morality, resolving the recurrent problem of regulating relationships through costly signals of trustworthiness (human-universal). Societies embedded in harsher ecological niches require more cost to find a signal to be honest and focus on particular relational aspects of morality (niche-linked). Honor specifies how to be a person in the world (time-and-place-specific).Public AbstractPeople have an everyday understanding of honor, what it is, and who has it, but what they mean can be hard to put into words, and what actions in service of honor look like vary across times and societies. We build on culture-as-situated-cognition theory, which accounts for honor's importance in human culture, its variable centrality across societies, and differing specific norms and practices connected to it within societies, to posit that honor entails moral action, a duty of care, that is costly to the actor. We apply our honor-as-costly-morality theory to distinguish honor from related ideas in the hope that our framework helps people better understand and communicate across time-and-place divides, even while disagreeing on to whom and in what way the duty of care extends.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"106 1","pages":"409-420"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145182712","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-29DOI: 10.1177/10888683251350913
Ligia C Oliveira-Silva,Daniela P Fernandéz,Victor Sojo,Alexandra N Fisher,Michelle K Ryan
Academic AbstractAlthough gender equity is acknowledged as a global objective, existing progress parameters and interventions predominantly align with Western contexts and academic traditions, which often overlook the complex realities of the Majority World. This paper provides a critique of the dominance of such approaches and highlights the challenges of applying them universally. We examine the limitations of prevailing gender equity scholarship, including how a lack of diversity in general and intersectionality in particular, methodological biases, and individual-level solutions may inadvertently perpetuate inequities. We propose alternatives based on Latin American theory and practice to design decolonial and intersectional interventions for gender equity. Finally, we call for a systemic change by introducing the 5S framework, which advocates for interventions that (a) challenge the status quo, (b) focus on systemic changes, (c) are sensitive to social context, (d) are sustainable, and (e) are supported by evidence.Public AbstractGender equity is a global priority, but many strategies and solutions often ignore the unique challenges faced by people in different cultural and social contexts around the world. This paper explores why these one-size-fits-all approaches do not work and highlights the need for more inclusive, collaborative solutions. We examine core limitations such as the lack of focus on how gender intersects with race, class, and other factors, and the tendency to place the responsibility for change on individuals rather than addressing larger social and systemic problems. To tackle these challenges, we propose the 5S framework, which emphasizes interventions that: challenge the status quo, focus on systemic changes, are sensitive to social context, are sustainable, and are supported by evidence. Instead of offering fixed answers, we encourage collaborative and culturally sensitive efforts to create fairer and more effective ways to promote gender equity worldwide.
{"title":"Decolonizing Interventions for Workplace Gender Equity: An Intersectional and Latin American Lens.","authors":"Ligia C Oliveira-Silva,Daniela P Fernandéz,Victor Sojo,Alexandra N Fisher,Michelle K Ryan","doi":"10.1177/10888683251350913","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251350913","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractAlthough gender equity is acknowledged as a global objective, existing progress parameters and interventions predominantly align with Western contexts and academic traditions, which often overlook the complex realities of the Majority World. This paper provides a critique of the dominance of such approaches and highlights the challenges of applying them universally. We examine the limitations of prevailing gender equity scholarship, including how a lack of diversity in general and intersectionality in particular, methodological biases, and individual-level solutions may inadvertently perpetuate inequities. We propose alternatives based on Latin American theory and practice to design decolonial and intersectional interventions for gender equity. Finally, we call for a systemic change by introducing the 5S framework, which advocates for interventions that (a) challenge the status quo, (b) focus on systemic changes, (c) are sensitive to social context, (d) are sustainable, and (e) are supported by evidence.Public AbstractGender equity is a global priority, but many strategies and solutions often ignore the unique challenges faced by people in different cultural and social contexts around the world. This paper explores why these one-size-fits-all approaches do not work and highlights the need for more inclusive, collaborative solutions. We examine core limitations such as the lack of focus on how gender intersects with race, class, and other factors, and the tendency to place the responsibility for change on individuals rather than addressing larger social and systemic problems. To tackle these challenges, we propose the 5S framework, which emphasizes interventions that: challenge the status quo, focus on systemic changes, are sensitive to social context, are sustainable, and are supported by evidence. Instead of offering fixed answers, we encourage collaborative and culturally sensitive efforts to create fairer and more effective ways to promote gender equity worldwide.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"61 1","pages":"339-351"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145182705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-29DOI: 10.1177/10888683251349384
Minjoo Joo,Ben C P Lam
Academic AbstractThis paper challenges Western-centric models of relationship quality that deem satisfaction, steadiness in aspects of relationships (i.e., stability), and romantic dyads as ideal by incorporating naïve dialecticism rooted in East Asian philosophies. Naïve dialecticism encompasses the tolerance of contradictions, the anticipation of change, and holism. By examining how these principles manifest in relationship processes and functioning that diverge from Western models, we offer a new framework for conceptualizing relationship flourishing. Specifically, we propose that accepting contradictions, embracing change, and recognizing relationships as embedded within broader sociocultural and institutional contexts could facilitate a more inclusive understanding of what constitutes a "good" relationship. Our paper highlights the value of incorporating cultural theories into relationship science, provides actionable suggestions for researchers, and outlines how this perspective can inform emerging areas of research such as intercultural relationships and singlehood.Public AbstractThis paper redefines what makes a romantic relationship "good" by integrating East Asian philosophies, which value contradictions, embrace change, and emphasize interconnectedness. While many Western ideals of close relationships focus mainly on satisfaction, steadiness in aspects of relationships (i.e., stability), and one-on-one relationship with the romantic partner, we suggest that embracing goods and bads, ups and downs, and recognizing relationships as embedded within broader sociocultural and institutional contexts could facilitate a more inclusive understanding of what constitutes a "good relationship." By adopting these insights, we can better understand and support the relationship well-being of various groups, especially those more prone to the influence of East Asian culture. This approach not only promotes a culturally sensitive understanding of relationship functioning but also provides insights for navigating new forms of relationships, such as intercultural relationships and singlehood.
{"title":"Naïve Dialecticism and Conceptions of Relationship Flourishing From an East Asian Perspective.","authors":"Minjoo Joo,Ben C P Lam","doi":"10.1177/10888683251349384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251349384","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractThis paper challenges Western-centric models of relationship quality that deem satisfaction, steadiness in aspects of relationships (i.e., stability), and romantic dyads as ideal by incorporating naïve dialecticism rooted in East Asian philosophies. Naïve dialecticism encompasses the tolerance of contradictions, the anticipation of change, and holism. By examining how these principles manifest in relationship processes and functioning that diverge from Western models, we offer a new framework for conceptualizing relationship flourishing. Specifically, we propose that accepting contradictions, embracing change, and recognizing relationships as embedded within broader sociocultural and institutional contexts could facilitate a more inclusive understanding of what constitutes a \"good\" relationship. Our paper highlights the value of incorporating cultural theories into relationship science, provides actionable suggestions for researchers, and outlines how this perspective can inform emerging areas of research such as intercultural relationships and singlehood.Public AbstractThis paper redefines what makes a romantic relationship \"good\" by integrating East Asian philosophies, which value contradictions, embrace change, and emphasize interconnectedness. While many Western ideals of close relationships focus mainly on satisfaction, steadiness in aspects of relationships (i.e., stability), and one-on-one relationship with the romantic partner, we suggest that embracing goods and bads, ups and downs, and recognizing relationships as embedded within broader sociocultural and institutional contexts could facilitate a more inclusive understanding of what constitutes a \"good relationship.\" By adopting these insights, we can better understand and support the relationship well-being of various groups, especially those more prone to the influence of East Asian culture. This approach not only promotes a culturally sensitive understanding of relationship functioning but also provides insights for navigating new forms of relationships, such as intercultural relationships and singlehood.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"96 1","pages":"383-395"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145182713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-29DOI: 10.1177/10888683251346521
Ronaldo Pilati,Ronald Fischer
We use the example of Brazilian jeitinho to showcase the advantages of considering culture-specific behavioral syndromes as locally meaningful sets of behavior, which recombine potentially universal psychological dynamics in culturally unique ways. This perspective allows for both universality and culture specificity in understanding human behavior. We discuss these points using jeitinho as an example. Anthropological and sociological work has demonstrated the importance of jeitinho as a Brazilian problem-solving strategy, which was treated as a single or homogenous construct. Psychological studies have identified distinct components that can be systematically linked to personality, values, and social attitudes. We describe our new theoretical approach focusing on culture-specific behavioral syndromes, in which possibly universal psychological characteristics are assembled and activated flexibly in culture-specific ways to address locally salient problems. We discuss how this novel combination of theoretical and mixed-method perspectives can advance a more situationally grounded social psychology.Public AbstractOver the decades, research in social psychology has demonstrated that cultural factors are fundamental to understanding human social behavior, but relatively little progress has been made to advance our understanding of how culture functions. We report insights gained from an interdisciplinary research program describing a cultural syndrome typical of Brazilian culture, the Brazilian jeitinho (literally translated as the Brazilian little way). Using this example, we demonstrate that it is possible to study culture-specific behaviors and link them to psychological factors presumed to be applicable to all of humanity, and by doing so, we can better understand behavior in context. This approach combines different theoretical lenses that have mainly been used independently in psychology in an integrative way that can advance a more global social psychology, making human behavior understandable across different cultural contexts.
{"title":"Contextualizing Social Psychology Through Cultural Syndromes: The Case of Brazilian Jeitinho.","authors":"Ronaldo Pilati,Ronald Fischer","doi":"10.1177/10888683251346521","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251346521","url":null,"abstract":"We use the example of Brazilian jeitinho to showcase the advantages of considering culture-specific behavioral syndromes as locally meaningful sets of behavior, which recombine potentially universal psychological dynamics in culturally unique ways. This perspective allows for both universality and culture specificity in understanding human behavior. We discuss these points using jeitinho as an example. Anthropological and sociological work has demonstrated the importance of jeitinho as a Brazilian problem-solving strategy, which was treated as a single or homogenous construct. Psychological studies have identified distinct components that can be systematically linked to personality, values, and social attitudes. We describe our new theoretical approach focusing on culture-specific behavioral syndromes, in which possibly universal psychological characteristics are assembled and activated flexibly in culture-specific ways to address locally salient problems. We discuss how this novel combination of theoretical and mixed-method perspectives can advance a more situationally grounded social psychology.Public AbstractOver the decades, research in social psychology has demonstrated that cultural factors are fundamental to understanding human social behavior, but relatively little progress has been made to advance our understanding of how culture functions. We report insights gained from an interdisciplinary research program describing a cultural syndrome typical of Brazilian culture, the Brazilian jeitinho (literally translated as the Brazilian little way). Using this example, we demonstrate that it is possible to study culture-specific behaviors and link them to psychological factors presumed to be applicable to all of humanity, and by doing so, we can better understand behavior in context. This approach combines different theoretical lenses that have mainly been used independently in psychology in an integrative way that can advance a more global social psychology, making human behavior understandable across different cultural contexts.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"3 1","pages":"326-338"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145182718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-15DOI: 10.1177/10888683251360469
Sara Emily Burke,Alexandria Jaurique,Benjamin M Valen,Natalie M Wittlin,Mackenzie L McDonald,Marianne LaFrance
Academic AbstractThe present review examines bias against transgender women and men and bias against people with nonbinary gender identities. A central contention is that many people hold false beliefs about transgender men's and women's membership in the categories "male" and "female," and, separately, view nonbinary gender identities themselves as illegitimate. Both discounting transgender men's and women's membership in the categories "male" and "female" and discounting the validity of nonbinary gender identities are forms of bias, and studying them will be essential to build a more nuanced understanding of stereotyping and prejudice. The authors review the literature on bias against transgender people and bias against nonbinary people, discuss the methodological and theoretical challenges in studying these biases, propose an approach for interpreting results in light of common (mis)categorization processes, and consider avenues for future research.Public AbstractThis article reviews research about bias against transgender women and men and bias against people with nonbinary gender identities. Many people hold false beliefs about transgender men's and women's membership in the categories "male" and "female." Also, many people view nonbinary gender identities as illegitimate. Both discounting transgender men's and women's membership in the categories "male" and "female" and discounting the validity of nonbinary gender identities are forms of bias. Thoroughly investigating these forms of bias will help researchers build a more a nuanced understanding of the biases that target transgender and nonbinary people. This observation helps put much of the past research in context, and it could make future research stronger by distinguishing between kinds of bias and encouraging more precise measurement and experimentation.
{"title":"Forms of Psychological Bias Against Transgender Women and Men and People With Nonbinary Gender Identities.","authors":"Sara Emily Burke,Alexandria Jaurique,Benjamin M Valen,Natalie M Wittlin,Mackenzie L McDonald,Marianne LaFrance","doi":"10.1177/10888683251360469","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251360469","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractThe present review examines bias against transgender women and men and bias against people with nonbinary gender identities. A central contention is that many people hold false beliefs about transgender men's and women's membership in the categories \"male\" and \"female,\" and, separately, view nonbinary gender identities themselves as illegitimate. Both discounting transgender men's and women's membership in the categories \"male\" and \"female\" and discounting the validity of nonbinary gender identities are forms of bias, and studying them will be essential to build a more nuanced understanding of stereotyping and prejudice. The authors review the literature on bias against transgender people and bias against nonbinary people, discuss the methodological and theoretical challenges in studying these biases, propose an approach for interpreting results in light of common (mis)categorization processes, and consider avenues for future research.Public AbstractThis article reviews research about bias against transgender women and men and bias against people with nonbinary gender identities. Many people hold false beliefs about transgender men's and women's membership in the categories \"male\" and \"female.\" Also, many people view nonbinary gender identities as illegitimate. Both discounting transgender men's and women's membership in the categories \"male\" and \"female\" and discounting the validity of nonbinary gender identities are forms of bias. Thoroughly investigating these forms of bias will help researchers build a more a nuanced understanding of the biases that target transgender and nonbinary people. This observation helps put much of the past research in context, and it could make future research stronger by distinguishing between kinds of bias and encouraging more precise measurement and experimentation.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"311 1","pages":"10888683251360469"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145059008","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-09-01DOI: 10.1177/10888683251362280
Ed O’Brien
Academic Abstract Why do people struggle to make positive impressions? Indeed, there are now many documented impression mis management effects across the psychological literature, highlighting many ways in which actors make negative impressions on observers despite intending to make positive ones. In this article, we use the process model of egocentrism (i.e., people’s tendencies to take others’ perspectives by first anchoring on—then insufficiently adjusting from—their own perspective) to integrate and understand actors’ errors under a single parsimonious conceptual framework. We then use this framework to advance the literature, highlighting how the same logic of egocentric anchoring and adjustment can help shine novel light on the challenge of temporal impression management—that is, how present actors may mistakenly behave in ways that future observers deem negative, even if present observers deem them positive (i.e., one’s actions “aging poorly”). We review and integrate diverse support for these ideas and highlight novel research directions. Public Abstract This article highlights how people over-attend to their own present states when trying to make positive impressions on others, explaining why people struggle to make them. This problem grows worse over time, leading people to neglect how their present actions might “age poorly” into the future. Strategies that target people’s temporal thinking can therefore help people better navigate today’s rapidly changing informational landscape. Indeed, the notion of “aging poorly” is of increasing real-world relevance and concern (e.g., in today’s online contexts, whereby actors leave concrete digital footprints of their present actions for future observers to discover and judge anew)—this article provides a framework for understanding these issues (e.g., who is more vs. less prone to acting in ways that “age poorly,” and when and why is this the case?) and generates a research agenda for studying them, which includes how actors can better navigate their temporal impressions moving forward.
{"title":"One’s Actions “Aging Poorly”: An Integrative Egocentric Framework for Understanding Impression Management Errors and the Challenge of Temporal Impression Management","authors":"Ed O’Brien","doi":"10.1177/10888683251362280","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251362280","url":null,"abstract":"Academic Abstract Why do people struggle to make positive impressions? Indeed, there are now many documented impression <jats:italic>mis</jats:italic> management effects across the psychological literature, highlighting many ways in which actors make negative impressions on observers despite intending to make positive ones. In this article, we use the process model of egocentrism (i.e., people’s tendencies to take others’ perspectives by first anchoring on—then insufficiently adjusting from—their own perspective) to integrate and understand actors’ errors under a single parsimonious conceptual framework. We then use this framework to advance the literature, highlighting how the same logic of egocentric anchoring and adjustment can help shine novel light on the challenge of <jats:italic>temporal</jats:italic> impression management—that is, how present actors may mistakenly behave in ways that future observers deem negative, even if present observers deem them positive (i.e., one’s actions “aging poorly”). We review and integrate diverse support for these ideas and highlight novel research directions. Public Abstract This article highlights how people over-attend to their own present states when trying to make positive impressions on others, explaining why people struggle to make them. This problem grows worse over time, leading people to neglect how their present actions might “age poorly” into the future. Strategies that target people’s temporal thinking can therefore help people better navigate today’s rapidly changing informational landscape. Indeed, the notion of “aging poorly” is of increasing real-world relevance and concern (e.g., in today’s online contexts, whereby actors leave concrete digital footprints of their present actions for future observers to discover and judge anew)—this article provides a framework for understanding these issues (e.g., who is more vs. less prone to acting in ways that “age poorly,” and when and why is this the case?) and generates a research agenda for studying them, which includes how actors can better navigate their temporal impressions moving forward.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144923926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-25DOI: 10.1177/10888683251364486
Stephen Baffour Adjei, Pegah Nejat, Amber Gayle Thalmayer, Jonathan M. Adler
This article is temporarily under embargo.
这种商品暂时处于禁运状态。
{"title":"Highlighting Personality and Social Psychological Theories From Majority World Contexts: Introduction to the Special Issue","authors":"Stephen Baffour Adjei, Pegah Nejat, Amber Gayle Thalmayer, Jonathan M. Adler","doi":"10.1177/10888683251364486","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251364486","url":null,"abstract":"This article is temporarily under embargo.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144899780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-11DOI: 10.1177/10888683251352048
L Taylor Phillips,Stephanie J Tepper,Daniela Goya-Tocchetto,Shai Davidai,Nailya Ordabayeva,M Usman Mirza,Barnabas Szaszi,Martin V Day,Oliver P Hauser,Jon M Jachimowicz
Academic AbstractPeople's perceptions of economic inequality are important predictors of their political attitudes and behaviors. Scholars across the social sciences have worked to understand people's (mis)perceptions of inequality. Yet, scholars currently lack a common framework for integrating emerging findings and conceptualizing how these perceptions are formed. Here, we propose an integrative framework to help researchers highlight the psychological processes underlying how inequality is perceived. We draw on theories of perception, cognition, developmental, and social psychology to identify five interlinked, iterative components of the inequality perception process: (a) access to inequality cues, (b) attention to these cues, (c) comprehension of these cues, (d) motivated processing of these cues, and (e) meaningful summary representation of inequality. Our framework provides a roadmap for integrating research across disparate fields, making sense of current findings, and identifying novel challenges to advance future research.Public AbstractHow much inequality people perceive better predicts their political action than do official measures of inequality (e.g., economic indicators like the Gini coefficient). While scholars across the social sciences are working to understand these (mis)perceptions of inequality, the literature lacks agreement on measurements of inequality perceptions and, as a result, on whether people under or overestimate inequality. By providing an integrative psychological framework for inequality perceptions that focuses on the processes underlying how people form these perceptions and what they mean to them we shed light on when and why people perceive more or less inequality. Our framework outlines the psychological processes underlying perceptions of inequality and helps scholars value the information and insight people's own perceptions provide for addressing inequality in communities.
{"title":"Inequality in People's Minds: An Integrative Psychological Framework of Perceptions of Economic Inequality.","authors":"L Taylor Phillips,Stephanie J Tepper,Daniela Goya-Tocchetto,Shai Davidai,Nailya Ordabayeva,M Usman Mirza,Barnabas Szaszi,Martin V Day,Oliver P Hauser,Jon M Jachimowicz","doi":"10.1177/10888683251352048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251352048","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractPeople's perceptions of economic inequality are important predictors of their political attitudes and behaviors. Scholars across the social sciences have worked to understand people's (mis)perceptions of inequality. Yet, scholars currently lack a common framework for integrating emerging findings and conceptualizing how these perceptions are formed. Here, we propose an integrative framework to help researchers highlight the psychological processes underlying how inequality is perceived. We draw on theories of perception, cognition, developmental, and social psychology to identify five interlinked, iterative components of the inequality perception process: (a) access to inequality cues, (b) attention to these cues, (c) comprehension of these cues, (d) motivated processing of these cues, and (e) meaningful summary representation of inequality. Our framework provides a roadmap for integrating research across disparate fields, making sense of current findings, and identifying novel challenges to advance future research.Public AbstractHow much inequality people perceive better predicts their political action than do official measures of inequality (e.g., economic indicators like the Gini coefficient). While scholars across the social sciences are working to understand these (mis)perceptions of inequality, the literature lacks agreement on measurements of inequality perceptions and, as a result, on whether people under or overestimate inequality. By providing an integrative psychological framework for inequality perceptions that focuses on the processes underlying how people form these perceptions and what they mean to them we shed light on when and why people perceive more or less inequality. Our framework outlines the psychological processes underlying perceptions of inequality and helps scholars value the information and insight people's own perceptions provide for addressing inequality in communities.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"15 1","pages":"10888683251352048"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144812976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-01Epub Date: 2024-11-16DOI: 10.1177/10888683241287570
Karim Bettache
This article critically examines the pervasive yet often-neglected influence of capitalism on psychological processes and human behavior. While capitalist ideologies like neoliberalism have entered the mainstream in psychology, there remains a lack of deeper engagement with the foundations of capitalism. The article argues that capitalism generates distinct cultural syndromes that emerged from the unique historical experiences of Western societies and are deeply rooted in the core principles of capitalism: profit motive, market competition, and private property ownership. The article then argues that these principles manifest as capitalist cultural syndromes termed the "gain primacy," "zero-sum rivalry," and "ownership" syndromes, which collectively drive a self-enhancement agenda resulting in an overarching "individualist syndrome." It then explores how these syndromes maintain and reproduce social inequalities. By adopting a critical-historical approach, this article situates its analysis within a broader critique of capitalism, aiming to illuminate its impact on human thought, behavior, and well-being.Public AbstractOur thoughts, behaviors, and well-being are deeply influenced by the economic system we live in-capitalism. While psychologists have explored capitalist ideologies like neoliberalism, they often overlook capitalism's core foundations driving inequality. This work argues that capitalism, rooted in Western colonial history, generates powerful cultural narratives prioritizing profit, competition, and private ownership. These capitalist principles manifest as pervasive societal mindsets obsessed with personal gain, viewing life as a zero-sum rivalry, and deriving self-worth from possessions. Collectively, they breed an individualistic syndrome of selfish striving at the expense of community. By understanding how these capitalist cultural forces psychologically shape us, maintaining oppressive societal hierarchies, we can reimagine economic systems that truly uplift the human spirit across all peoples and the planet we share. Unveiling capitalism's influence is crucial to recover from its alienating effects and envision liberating alternatives.
{"title":"Where Is Capitalism? Unmasking Its Hidden Role in Psychology.","authors":"Karim Bettache","doi":"10.1177/10888683241287570","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241287570","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article critically examines the pervasive yet often-neglected influence of capitalism on psychological processes and human behavior. While capitalist ideologies like neoliberalism have entered the mainstream in psychology, there remains a lack of deeper engagement with the foundations of capitalism. The article argues that capitalism generates distinct cultural syndromes that emerged from the unique historical experiences of Western societies and are deeply rooted in the core principles of capitalism: profit motive, market competition, and private property ownership. The article then argues that these principles manifest as capitalist cultural syndromes termed the \"gain primacy,\" \"zero-sum rivalry,\" and \"ownership\" syndromes, which collectively drive a self-enhancement agenda resulting in an overarching \"individualist syndrome.\" It then explores how these syndromes maintain and reproduce social inequalities. By adopting a critical-historical approach, this article situates its analysis within a broader critique of capitalism, aiming to illuminate its impact on human thought, behavior, and well-being.Public AbstractOur thoughts, behaviors, and well-being are deeply influenced by the economic system we live in-capitalism. While psychologists have explored capitalist ideologies like neoliberalism, they often overlook capitalism's core foundations driving inequality. This work argues that capitalism, rooted in Western colonial history, generates powerful cultural narratives prioritizing profit, competition, and private ownership. These capitalist principles manifest as pervasive societal mindsets obsessed with personal gain, viewing life as a zero-sum rivalry, and deriving self-worth from possessions. Collectively, they breed an individualistic syndrome of selfish striving at the expense of community. By understanding how these capitalist cultural forces psychologically shape us, maintaining oppressive societal hierarchies, we can reimagine economic systems that truly uplift the human spirit across all peoples and the planet we share. Unveiling capitalism's influence is crucial to recover from its alienating effects and envision liberating alternatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"215-249"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142644997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","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：