Pub Date : 2025-08-19DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104819
Zhu Feng (Cynthia) , Jin Wook Chang , Daniel A. Newark
Rapid globalization has prompted many individuals to seek experiences abroad, with many eventually returning to their home country. The present research investigates how these returnees are perceived by their compatriots. Across four studies with U.S. and Chinese samples, we find that returnees' experiences of living abroad lead compatriots to perceive them as having lower home country identification, negatively affecting cognition-based trust in domestic contexts. We also find that signals of strong home country identification help mitigate these consequences, allowing returnees to achieve similar trust levels as non-returnees. These findings reveal how identification concerns can prevent returnees from leveraging their international experiences effectively, highlighting a critical challenge in global talent mobility. Our research provides insights into the challenges returnees face in domestic contexts and clarifies the complex relationship between living abroad, perceived home country identification, and trust.
{"title":"Are you still one of us? When living abroad undermines perceived home country identification and trust from compatriots","authors":"Zhu Feng (Cynthia) , Jin Wook Chang , Daniel A. Newark","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104819","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104819","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Rapid globalization has prompted many individuals to seek experiences abroad, with many eventually returning to their home country. The present research investigates how these returnees are perceived by their compatriots. Across four studies with U.S. and Chinese samples, we find that returnees' experiences of living abroad lead compatriots to perceive them as having lower home country identification, negatively affecting cognition-based trust in domestic contexts. We also find that signals of strong home country identification help mitigate these consequences, allowing returnees to achieve similar trust levels as non-returnees. These findings reveal how identification concerns can prevent returnees from leveraging their international experiences effectively, highlighting a critical challenge in global talent mobility. Our research provides insights into the challenges returnees face in domestic contexts and clarifies the complex relationship between living abroad, perceived home country identification, and trust.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104819"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144864607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-14DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104816
Namrata Goyal , Krishna Savani , Michael W. Morris
People's stances on politicized practices, such as abortion and gun ownership, are increasingly resistant to compromise, making dialogue between opposing sides difficult. Why are some people more prone to refusing to compromise on their stances on politicized practices than others? Five studies (N= 1377) found that high need for closure (NFC) is an antecedent of refusal to compromise. Study 1 found that people scoring higher on dispositional NFC were unwilling to compromise on their stances on gun ownership, hunting, marijuana consumption, and euthanasia, even after controlling for the extremity, importance, intensity, and centrality of each of these attitudes. Study 2 focused on abortion, a practice that is highly politicized in the US. Under time pressure, which reliably heightens NFC, both pro-life and pro-choice participants became more unwilling to compromise on their respective positions on abortion. Study 3 found that the relationship between NFC and refusal to compromise on one's position on several politicized practices was stronger among individuals who prioritized binding moral foundations (which emphasize group cohesion) rather than individualizing moral foundations (which emphasize personal autonomy). Studies 4–5 examined the underlying mechanism using the experimental causal chain method. Time pressure, which reliably heightens NFC, increased people's tendency to use deontological reasoning, a cognitive style that emphasizes rule-based over outcome-based judgments (Study 4), and inducing deontological reasoning heightened resistance to compromising one's positions on several politicized practices (Study 5). Together, these studies uncover a potential psychological mechanism behind political polarization, a highly divisive phenomenon, and identify pathways that could inform efforts to reduce intergroup conflict
{"title":"Why do some people refuse to compromise their positions on politicized practices? The role of need for closure","authors":"Namrata Goyal , Krishna Savani , Michael W. Morris","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104816","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104816","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>People's stances on politicized practices, such as abortion and gun ownership, are increasingly resistant to compromise, making dialogue between opposing sides difficult. Why are some people more prone to refusing to compromise on their stances on politicized practices than others? Five studies (<em>N</em> <em>=</em> 1377) found that high need for closure (NFC) is an antecedent of refusal to compromise. Study 1 found that people scoring higher on dispositional NFC were unwilling to compromise on their stances on gun ownership, hunting, marijuana consumption, and euthanasia, even after controlling for the extremity, importance, intensity, and centrality of each of these attitudes. Study 2 focused on abortion, a practice that is highly politicized in the US. Under time pressure, which reliably heightens NFC, both pro-life and pro-choice participants became more unwilling to compromise on their respective positions on abortion. Study 3 found that the relationship between NFC and refusal to compromise on one's position on several politicized practices was stronger among individuals who prioritized binding moral foundations (which emphasize group cohesion) rather than individualizing moral foundations (which emphasize personal autonomy). Studies 4–5 examined the underlying mechanism using the experimental causal chain method. Time pressure, which reliably heightens NFC, increased people's tendency to use deontological reasoning, a cognitive style that emphasizes rule-based over outcome-based judgments (Study 4), and inducing deontological reasoning heightened resistance to compromising one's positions on several politicized practices (Study 5). Together, these studies uncover a potential psychological mechanism behind political polarization, a highly divisive phenomenon, and identify pathways that could inform efforts to reduce intergroup conflict</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104816"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144830501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-13DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104817
Yatian Lei , Fangfang Wen , Bin Zuo
Previous research on intergroup interactions has offered rich theoretical explanations for how competition and cooperation influence intergroup relations, yet explanations for their contrasting effects on intergroup attitudes remain fragmented. This study investigated the role of self-anchoring in shaping intergroup attitudes during intergroup competition and cooperation. Across three experiments, we demonstrated that self-anchoring serves as a key psychological mechanism through which intergroup interaction influences intergroup attitudes. We examined both cognitive (personality trait similarity) and motivational (approach orientation reflected in psychological overlap) dimensions of self-anchoring. The findings showed that intergroup cooperation enhanced self-anchoring and improved attitudes toward the outgroup, relative to intergroup competition. The parallel mediation models confirmed that both cognitive and motivational dimensions of self-anchoring mediate the effects of intergroup interactions on outgroup attitudes. Further, experimental manipulation of self-anchoring resulted in corresponding changes in intergroup attitudes, confirming its causal role. These results illuminate how self-anchoring processes can explain the divergent effects of intergroup competition and cooperation on intergroup relations.
{"title":"Self-anchoring toward groups shapes changes in intergroup attitudes during intergroup interactions","authors":"Yatian Lei , Fangfang Wen , Bin Zuo","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104817","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104817","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Previous research on intergroup interactions has offered rich theoretical explanations for how competition and cooperation influence intergroup relations, yet explanations for their contrasting effects on intergroup attitudes remain fragmented. This study investigated the role of self-anchoring in shaping intergroup attitudes during intergroup competition and cooperation. Across three experiments, we demonstrated that self-anchoring serves as a key psychological mechanism through which intergroup interaction influences intergroup attitudes. We examined both cognitive (personality trait similarity) and motivational (approach orientation reflected in psychological overlap) dimensions of self-anchoring. The findings showed that intergroup cooperation enhanced self-anchoring and improved attitudes toward the outgroup, relative to intergroup competition. The parallel mediation models confirmed that both cognitive and motivational dimensions of self-anchoring mediate the effects of intergroup interactions on outgroup attitudes. Further, experimental manipulation of self-anchoring resulted in corresponding changes in intergroup attitudes, confirming its causal role. These results illuminate how self-anchoring processes can explain the divergent effects of intergroup competition and cooperation on intergroup relations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104817"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144830502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104806
Teodora Spiridonova , Olga Stavrova , Ilja van Beest
Inoculation – an intervention aimed at informing people of the threat of misinformation and the strategies used to spread it – is an increasingly popular approach for fighting fake news. While studies have shown inoculation to be effective in reducing the credibility of fake news, the evidence on whether it might also lead to undesirable side-effects, such as reduced credibility of true news, is mixed. Further, existing research has only rarely tested inoculation using real-life news, has not accounted for the potential issue of biased stimulus selection, and has not tested the assumed mechanism behind the inoculation's effectiveness: the higher presence of misinformation strategies in fake vs. true news. The present research was designed to fill these gaps. Using a random stimuli approach and a dataset of real-life true and fake news headlines, Study 1 showed that inoculation decreased perceived accuracy (but not trustworthiness) of fake news (without changing the perceived accuracy of true news), and did not render people more cynical. Additionally, Study 2 showed that fake news contained more misinformation strategies than true news, and Study 3 found that the inoculation worked better on headlines that used more (vs. fewer) misinformation strategies. In sum, our findings suggest that inoculation is unlikely to have side effects, yet its effectiveness might be more limited than previously assumed. We thus contribute to the broader literature on reducing misinformation, and research on the effectiveness of the inoculation approach in particular.
{"title":"Does protection come at a cost? A random stimuli approach to investigating the (side-)effects of misinformation inoculations","authors":"Teodora Spiridonova , Olga Stavrova , Ilja van Beest","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104806","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104806","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Inoculation – an intervention aimed at informing people of the threat of misinformation and the strategies used to spread it – is an increasingly popular approach for fighting fake news. While studies have shown inoculation to be effective in reducing the credibility of fake news, the evidence on whether it might also lead to undesirable side-effects, such as reduced credibility of true news, is mixed. Further, existing research has only rarely tested inoculation using real-life news, has not accounted for the potential issue of biased stimulus selection, and has not tested the assumed mechanism behind the inoculation's effectiveness: the higher presence of misinformation strategies in fake vs. true news. The present research was designed to fill these gaps. Using a random stimuli approach and a dataset of real-life true and fake news headlines, Study 1 showed that inoculation decreased perceived accuracy (but not trustworthiness) of fake news (without changing the perceived accuracy of true news), and did not render people more cynical. Additionally, Study 2 showed that fake news contained more misinformation strategies than true news, and Study 3 found that the inoculation worked better on headlines that used more (vs. fewer) misinformation strategies. In sum, our findings suggest that inoculation is unlikely to have side effects, yet its effectiveness might be more limited than previously assumed. We thus contribute to the broader literature on reducing misinformation, and research on the effectiveness of the inoculation approach in particular.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104806"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144813917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104811
Feiteng Long , Zi Ye , Lijuan Luo
Over the past decade, a global rise in protests and social movements has held promise for advancing social change, while also introducing new societal tensions. The current research examined the effects of joint collective action involving both advantaged and disadvantaged group members, compared to collective action by the disadvantaged group alone, on support for social change and intergroup polarisation. Across four studies (two pilot and two preregistered; N = 1707), joint collective action (vs. collective action by the disadvantaged) reliably fostered advantaged group members' support for social change. Among disadvantaged group members, a consistent pattern emerged across studies: joint collective action supported—but not led—by advantaged allies indirectly enhanced support for change and reduced polarisation through increased perceptions of respect, but showed no direct effects on these outcomes. These findings highlight the promise of joint collective action in promoting both social equality and cohesion, while also emphasising the need to address power asymmetries and respect disadvantaged groups' agency in the process.
{"title":"When allies join the fight: How joint collective action shapes social change and intergroup relations","authors":"Feiteng Long , Zi Ye , Lijuan Luo","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104811","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104811","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Over the past decade, a global rise in protests and social movements has held promise for advancing social change, while also introducing new societal tensions. The current research examined the effects of joint collective action involving both advantaged and disadvantaged group members, compared to collective action by the disadvantaged group alone, on support for social change and intergroup polarisation. Across four studies (two pilot and two preregistered; <em>N</em> = 1707), joint collective action (vs. collective action by the disadvantaged) reliably fostered advantaged group members' support for social change. Among disadvantaged group members, a consistent pattern emerged across studies: joint collective action supported—but not led—by advantaged allies indirectly enhanced support for change and reduced polarisation through increased perceptions of respect, but showed no direct effects on these outcomes. These findings highlight the promise of joint collective action in promoting both social equality and cohesion, while also emphasising the need to address power asymmetries and respect disadvantaged groups' agency in the process.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104811"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144810523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-08DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104813
Rachel C. Forbes, Robb Willer, Jennifer E. Stellar
Moral outrage in response to scandals involving powerful figures has become commonplace in modern life. These instances suggest that moral outrage may be disproportionately directed upward toward those with power over others. However, it remains unclear whether this tendency simply reflects the greater incidence and prominence of immoral acts committed by individuals with power or whether it indicates a deeper tendency for powerful perpetrators to elicit greater outrage in observers. In a series of studies, we investigated whether observers' moral outrage was influenced by a perpetrator's power within a social hierarchy. Participants read hypothetical scenarios (Study 1; N = 481), recalled actual transgressions (Study 2; N = 351), witnessed selfish economic behaviour (Study 3; N = 1012), and observed bullying in person (Study 4; N = 177) committed by either more or less powerful perpetrators. Participants consistently experienced greater moral outrage and delivered more severe (anonymous) punishment to powerful perpetrators. Greater reactivity to powerful perpetrators was confined to the domain of morality and specific to the transgressor’s power, rather than their status. This work highlights the importance of social contextual factors like a perpetrators power within a hierarchy when studying moral judgment.
{"title":"Power as a moral magnifier: Moral outrage is amplified when the powerful transgress","authors":"Rachel C. Forbes, Robb Willer, Jennifer E. Stellar","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104813","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104813","url":null,"abstract":"Moral outrage in response to scandals involving powerful figures has become commonplace in modern life. These instances suggest that moral outrage may be disproportionately directed upward toward those with power over others. However, it remains unclear whether this tendency simply reflects the greater incidence and prominence of immoral acts committed by individuals with power or whether it indicates a deeper tendency for powerful perpetrators to elicit greater outrage in observers. In a series of studies, we investigated whether observers' moral outrage was influenced by a perpetrator's power within a social hierarchy. Participants read hypothetical scenarios (Study 1; <ce:italic>N</ce:italic> = 481), recalled actual transgressions (Study 2; <ce:italic>N</ce:italic> = 351), witnessed selfish economic behaviour (Study 3; <ce:italic>N</ce:italic> = 1012), and observed bullying in person (Study 4; <ce:italic>N</ce:italic> = 177) committed by either more or less powerful perpetrators. Participants consistently experienced greater moral outrage and delivered more severe (anonymous) punishment to powerful perpetrators. Greater reactivity to powerful perpetrators was confined to the domain of morality and specific to the transgressor’s power, rather than their status. This work highlights the importance of social contextual factors like a perpetrators power within a hierarchy when studying moral judgment.","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144901370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-07DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104814
Julian Givi, Colleen P. Kirk, Daniel M. Grossman, Constantine Sedikides
People often invite others to join them for social activities. Upon receiving an invitation, an invitee might respond to the inviter with a tentative “maybe.” We examine whether invitees accurately gauge an inviter's preferences when they contemplate replying with a “maybe” (vs. “no”). Across six experiments (five preregistered), we show that invitees often overestimate the likelihood that an inviter would prefer a “maybe” response over a direct “no,” because they underestimate how much more disrespected an inviter feels upon receiving a “maybe” (vs. “no”). We also demonstrate that these mispredictions arise, in part, due to motivated reasoning. Invitees think that replying with a “maybe” (vs. “no”) aligns with what an inviter would find desirable, in part because a “maybe” response serves the invitee's own interests more than a direct decline does. Finally, we illustrate that partly due to their flawed predictions, invitees are more likely to respond with a “maybe” (vs. “no”) even though an inviter would prefer greater decisiveness. The findings contribute to the emerging social psychology of invitations.
{"title":"Maybe don't say “maybe”: How and why invitees fail to realize that they should not respond to invitations with a “maybe”","authors":"Julian Givi, Colleen P. Kirk, Daniel M. Grossman, Constantine Sedikides","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104814","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104814","url":null,"abstract":"People often invite others to join them for social activities. Upon receiving an invitation, an invitee might respond to the inviter with a tentative “maybe.” We examine whether invitees accurately gauge an inviter's preferences when they contemplate replying with a “maybe” (vs. “no”). Across six experiments (five preregistered), we show that invitees often overestimate the likelihood that an inviter would prefer a “maybe” response over a direct “no,” because they underestimate how much more disrespected an inviter feels upon receiving a “maybe” (vs. “no”). We also demonstrate that these mispredictions arise, in part, due to motivated reasoning. Invitees think that replying with a “maybe” (vs. “no”) aligns with what an inviter would find desirable, in part because a “maybe” response serves the invitee's own interests more than a direct decline does. Finally, we illustrate that partly due to their flawed predictions, invitees are more likely to respond with a “maybe” (vs. “no”) even though an inviter would prefer greater decisiveness. The findings contribute to the emerging social psychology of invitations.","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"104814"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144898290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-06DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104809
Lan Anh N. Ton , Rosanna K. Smith , Ernest Baskin
Although individuals have no control over what they are endowed with at birth, those from privileged origins, such as being born into wealth, are often viewed negatively. This article examines how information about an individual's privilege at birth influences assessments of their authenticity and what they create. We theorize that a privileged origin dilutes the connection between an individual and their creation by introducing attributional ambiguity as to whether the creation is a true reflection of the individual or due to the advantages from the privilege. This diluted connection lowers the individual's perceived authenticity and assessments of the creation. Across Studies 1 and 2, we find individuals born with high privilege, in the form of either wealth or beauty, are seen as less authentic than those born with low or moderate privilege, which decreases evaluations of what they create. Study 3 tested the attributional process underlying these decreased evaluations, finding that high privilege decreases attributions of the creation to the individual, lowering the individual's perceived authenticity. Study 4 showed that these effects persisted even when the high-privilege individual acknowledged their privilege. Study 5 revealed that these effects attenuate when the high-privilege individual possesses mixed privilege (i.e., high wealth but low beauty or low wealth but high beauty). These findings highlight the reputational challenge faced by individuals born into privilege and offer theoretical insight into the negative authenticity judgments associated with privileged origins.
{"title":"Privileged origins taint perceived authenticity","authors":"Lan Anh N. Ton , Rosanna K. Smith , Ernest Baskin","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104809","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104809","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although individuals have no control over what they are endowed with at birth, those from privileged origins, such as being born into wealth, are often viewed negatively. This article examines how information about an individual's privilege at birth influences assessments of their authenticity and what they create. We theorize that a privileged origin dilutes the connection between an individual and their creation by introducing attributional ambiguity as to whether the creation is a true reflection of the individual or due to the advantages from the privilege. This diluted connection lowers the individual's perceived authenticity and assessments of the creation. Across Studies 1 and 2, we find individuals born with high privilege, in the form of either wealth or beauty, are seen as less authentic than those born with low or moderate privilege, which decreases evaluations of what they create. Study 3 tested the attributional process underlying these decreased evaluations, finding that high privilege decreases attributions of the creation to the individual, lowering the individual's perceived authenticity. Study 4 showed that these effects persisted even when the high-privilege individual acknowledged their privilege. Study 5 revealed that these effects attenuate when the high-privilege individual possesses mixed privilege (i.e., high wealth but low beauty or low wealth but high beauty). These findings highlight the reputational challenge faced by individuals born into privilege and offer theoretical insight into the negative authenticity judgments associated with privileged origins.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104809"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144780392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-08-04DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104812
Yidan Yin , Gil Appel , Cheryl Jan Wakslak
People face a myriad of daily decisions about how to communicate, especially in today's digital world. We consider the decision to use exclamation points as a window into how men and women navigate the mundane choices that guide so much of their day to day communication. Across five studies, our findings suggest that exclamation point usage is associated more with women than with men, that these normative expectations are impactful, and that women – who are more sensitive to potential downstream impression formation implications of using exclamation points – think about this issue more than men and are more uncertain of their exclamation point usage. We further find that the decision to use exclamations does indeed shape social perception, leading to more positive impressions overall but also some negative concerns; however, we do not find evidence that these effects are moderated by communicator gender. Our findings provide insight into how men and women engage in everyday communication in the face of normative expectations related to gender and shed light on the unexpected burdens that this can create.
{"title":"Nice to meet you.(!) Gendered norms in punctuation usage","authors":"Yidan Yin , Gil Appel , Cheryl Jan Wakslak","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104812","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104812","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>People face a myriad of daily decisions about how to communicate, especially in today's digital world. We consider the decision to use exclamation points as a window into how men and women navigate the mundane choices that guide so much of their day to day communication. Across five studies, our findings suggest that exclamation point usage is associated more with women than with men, that these normative expectations are impactful, and that women – who are more sensitive to potential downstream impression formation implications of using exclamation points – think about this issue more than men and are more uncertain of their exclamation point usage. We further find that the decision to use exclamations does indeed shape social perception, leading to more positive impressions overall but also some negative concerns; however, we do not find evidence that these effects are moderated by communicator gender. Our findings provide insight into how men and women engage in everyday communication in the face of normative expectations related to gender and shed light on the unexpected burdens that this can create.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104812"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144766795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2025-07-31DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104810
Trystan Loustau, Helen Padilla Fong, Liane Young
When people learn of a transgressive act, their judgments of moral wrongness and assignments of punishment often reflect intergroup bias; they respond more harshly to outgroup transgressions than ingroup transgressions. Prior work shows that individuals with stronger ingroup identity exhibit greater intergroup bias. In the present work, we investigated how social identity complexity, the relationships between one's ingroup identity and their other social identities, influence this bias. Individuals with tightly overlapping identities, indicative of low identity complexity, tend to display greater outgroup prejudice. Across four studies (N = 2215), we found that individuals with high social identity complexity judge outgroup transgressors less harshly. These effects were driven by more individualized impressions of transgressors, weaker ingroup attachment, and reduced group conflict avoidance, suggesting that social identity complexity mitigates cognitive and motivational bases of intergroup bias.
{"title":"Social identity complexity mitigates outgroup derogation in moral judgment","authors":"Trystan Loustau, Helen Padilla Fong, Liane Young","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104810","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104810","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>When people learn of a transgressive act, their judgments of moral wrongness and assignments of punishment often reflect intergroup bias; they respond more harshly to outgroup transgressions than ingroup transgressions. Prior work shows that individuals with stronger ingroup identity exhibit greater intergroup bias. In the present work, we investigated how social identity complexity, the relationships between one's ingroup identity and their other social identities, influence this bias. Individuals with tightly overlapping identities, indicative of low identity complexity, tend to display greater outgroup prejudice. Across four studies (<em>N</em> = 2215), we found that individuals with high social identity complexity judge outgroup transgressors less harshly. These effects were driven by more individualized impressions of transgressors, weaker ingroup attachment, and reduced group conflict avoidance, suggesting that social identity complexity mitigates cognitive and motivational bases of intergroup bias.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104810"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144739298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号