Journal of Experimental Social Psychology最新文献

How does self-esteem influence cooperative behavior in the face of social dilemmas? The findings of previous studies are inconsistent and ignore the distinction between giving and taking dilemmas. This study examined the relationship between self-esteem and cooperative behavior in giving and taking dilemmas. The results revealed that self-esteem positively predicted cooperative behavior in giving dilemmas but negatively predicted cooperative behavior in taking dilemmas (Study 1). This can be attributed to differential account attention and pathways to perceived competence. In the giving dilemma, individuals paid more attention to the public account and perceived giving more as more competent, whereas in the taking dilemma, individuals paid more attention to personal accounts and perceived taking more as more competent (Study 2). Changing account attention (by framing the giving-some, keeping-some, leaving-some, and taking-some dilemmas; Study 3) and the pathways to perceived competence (by associating contributing to the public interest with competence versus pursuing a personal interest with competence; Study 4) influenced the effect of self-esteem on cooperative behavior between the two dilemmas. These findings have implications for reconciling previous inconsistencies and understanding the mechanisms underlying the dual effect of self-esteem on cooperation; they also provide references for cooperative nudges for individuals with differing degrees of self-esteem.

It seems a foregone conclusion that face mask-wearing hinders the interpretation of facial expressions, increasing the risk of interpersonal miscommunication. This research identifies a notable counter-case to this apparent truism. In multiple experiments, perceivers were more accurate distinguishing between genuine and fake smiles when the mouth region was concealed under a mask versus exposed. Masks improved accuracy by shielding perceivers from the undue influence of non-diagnostic cues hidden behind masks. However, perceivers were unaware of the advantage bestowed by masks, holding, instead, the misbelief that masks severely obscure the distinction between genuine and fake smiles. Furthermore, these patterns proved to be culturally invariant rather than culturally contingent, holding true for both Westerners and Easterners.

Gossip harms power. Across 6 pre-registered primary studies and 7 pre-registered supplemental studies, we demonstrate that a reputation for engaging in negative gossip (sharing negatively-valanced information about an absent target) reduces expert power (power derived from being regarded as a superior source of expertise). A reputation for engaging in negative gossip harms expert power in two ways: (1) it reduces the likelihood that others will ask experts for advice, even when experts are clearly competent, and (2) it harms perceptions of the experts' competence. We also find that reputations for general, neutral, and sometimes even positive gossip reduce the likelihood that experts are asked for advice. Our results advance our understanding of who gains power in organizations and highlight an important cost of gossip for both individuals and their organizations. Our findings also underscore the important relationship between advice and power. Whether or not and from whom individuals seek advice determines who is accorded power.

Gossip, the exchange of information about absent others, is ingrained in the system of indirect reciprocity, in which participating members selectively interact and cooperate with others with a good reputation. Previous psychological theorizing suggests that indirect reciprocity is perceived to be bounded by group membership. We aimed to examine whether the group-bounded indirect reciprocity perspective explains intergroup gossip. We thus explored how group membership shapes the expectations about how gossip is used and willingness to gossip within and across group boundaries. We conducted three studies (total N = 986) and re-analyzed a published dataset (N = 690) and comprehensively investigated how willing people expect others to be to engage in within- and between-group gossip as well as how willing they themselves are to engage in both types of gossip, in minimal and university contexts. We found that consistent with the group-bounded indirect reciprocity perspective, people expected within group gossip to be more likely than intergroup gossip. In addition, in the minimal group context, we found that people were, in general, more willing to gossip towards in-group members rather than out-group members. However, in the university context, they were more willing to gossip about in-group and out-group members towards out-group and in-group members, respectively, suggesting that people may utilize intergroup gossip for strategic reasons. Our research was the first to experimentally elucidate the role of group membership in shaping expectations about gossip and willingness to gossip, and offers a promising starting point for future work on intergroup gossip and indirect reciprocity.

Prior research has extensively studied workplace group dynamics within the gossip triad (i.e., sender, receiver, and target). This research shifts the focus to third-party observers outside the gossip triad, examining how they evaluate gossipers and non-gossipers, and whom they turn to for advice. Across five pre-registered experiments (N = 1400), the present work builds on an integrative definition of gossip and provides a functionalist account of observers' nuanced evaluation of gossipers' personality from a global perspective. Observers perceive gossipers as less moral and competent, but more sociable, than non-gossipers (Experiment 1). Consequently, observers are less likely to seek advice from gossipers (vs. non-gossipers) for tasks requiring high morality (e.g., enforcing ethical conduct; Experiment 2a) and high competence (e.g., managing excess inventory; Experiment 2b), yet more likely to do so for tasks requiring high sociability (e.g., organizing a welcome lunch; Experiment 2c). A moderation-of-process approach shows that incidental cues signaling morality, competence, and sociability influence observers' evaluations of and advice-seeking from gossipers (versus non-gossipers) on relevant tasks (Experiments 2a–2c). These findings remain robust in an incentive-compatible setting (Experiment 3). This research advances our understanding of observers' evaluation of gossipers and its implications for workplace advice seeking.

People tend to underestimate how much income inequality exists. Much research has attributed this widespread underestimation to differential access to information, variance in exposure to inequality, or motivated attention to different aspects of inequality. In our research, we suggest that the motivation to believe that the current socioeconomic system is fair and legitimate (i.e., system justification) can shape how much inequality people see in the first place, leading them to perceive otherwise identical income gaps as smaller in magnitude. Across eight studies (N = 4113, including a pre-registered sample representative of the U.S. population on key benchmarks), we provide correlational and experimental evidence for a causal association between system justification and perceptions of the magnitude of income gaps. We examine the mediating role of fairness judgments and test this mechanism against other mediators. We also manipulate system justification mindset to test for its causal effect on perceptions of the magnitude of identical income gaps. We contrast the predictive ability of system justification with that of a related motive—social dominance orientation, showing preliminary evidence that system justification is a better predictor of how much inequality people perceive in contexts that do not overlay the economic inequality with intergroup inequality (e.g., racial inequality). Finally, across three of these studies, we assess policy related downstream consequences of the effect of system justification on perceived magnitude of inequality, providing evidence that this effect uniquely contributes to decreased support for redistributive policies.

In a world barreling down into a worsening climate crisis, negative persuasive attacks to necessary climate policies are major threats to the public's support of governmental mandates to mitigate climate change. To protect against such attacks, here we introduce and investigate the effect and the treatment heterogeneity of the trust inoculation, a psychological inoculation strategy designed around the influence of trust as a key social dimension of persuasion. Across three preregistered studies, in one Swiss state (N = 389), in seven European countries (N = 2805), and in the United States (N = 3586), and in a mega-analysis (N = 6697), we provide evidence that inoculating citizens with the trustworthiness of key energy stakeholders protects citizens' support for renewable energy against multiple negative persuasive attacks (δ = 0.16). Whereas baseline trust in key energy stakeholders did not moderate the effects, the trust inoculation selectively protected the citizens most susceptible to negative persuasive attacks, i.e., participants with high biospheric values. Study 3 showed that the trust inoculation, rather than a simple trust message, is responsible for the protection from incoming persuasive attacks. Our findings demonstrate that the trust inoculation may serve as an easily implementable, and scalable umbrella strategy to engender a modest but significant protection for governmental mandates against multiple negative persuasive attacks.

Ethical behavior within groups is shaped by various situational and social factors, including hierarchy and power asymmetries. We present three preregistered studies (N_total = 1253) examining the social dynamics that affect ethical decision-making in hierarchical dyads, employing two novel collaborative cheating tasks. In the first two studies, we find evidence that individuals mutually influenced each other's honesty across repeated interactions, even though they had different power over the outcomes. In addition, the degree and direction of these influences were moderated by the ethical make-up of these dyads. Moreover, there were congruency effects for character judgments, wherein dyads engaging in collaborative cheating behaviors tended to evaluate each other positively, particularly in terms of competence and closeness. In a third study, manipulating whether ignoring cheating is beneficial to an observer or not, we find that observers were less inclined to verify (vs. rely on) potentially dishonest reports when they themselves benefitted from dishonest reporting. In addition, individuals benefiting from dishonest behavior formed close bonds with them, evaluating them positively and contributing more money in a subsequent public goods game. This research illuminates the intricate interplay of social dynamics, ethical orientations, and motivations in hierarchical relationships, offering insights for understanding and managing ethical decision-making in various contexts.

Multiracial individuals commonly experience instances of identity denial, in which their racial identities are questioned, invalidated and/or rejected by others. The present research examined majority-minority Multiracials' forecasted and actual responses to identity denial experiences, specifically investigating whether the race of the denied identity (White vs racial minority) and race of the identity denial perpetrator (White vs racial minority) differentially impact the experience of identity denial. In Study 1, participants (N = 247) who imagined having their racial minority (vs White) identity denied forecasted stronger negative affective responses and likelihood of identity reassertion, irrespective of the racial identity of the denial perpetrator. Study 2 found participants (N = 85) whose racial minority identity was experimentally denied reported stronger active negative affect (e.g., anger) and were more likely to reassert their identity. Additionally, Study 2 examined three racial identity-specific processes – self-presentation, self-perception and self-identification – impacted by identity denial experiences. Multiracials whose racial minority identity was denied by a White perpetrator perceived their own racial identity, presented their racial identity to others and shifted their racial self-identification in alignment with their racially minoritized identity. The opposite pattern occurred among Multiracial individuals whose racial minority identity was denied by a racial minority perpetrator. The findings imply the specific components of an identity denial experience (race of denied identity and race of denial perpetrator) are important for predicting how Multiracials experience and respond to instances of identity denial.

In daily life, various activities are undertaken either alone or with companions, and some of these activities involve a degree of risk. Beyond our concern for our own safety, we also care about other's safety. The current research investigates the influence of self-presence on how we perceive risk for the other. Across six studies (including two preregistered studies), we consistently found that when individuals were present (vs. absent), they were inclined to perceive their friend as safer when exposed to the same source of risk. This difference in perception can be attributed to individuals believing they have greater control over probabilistic events and experiencing lower levels of anxiety when accompanying their friend. Importantly, this perception bias could not be explained by the number of individuals engaging in risky behavior or the extension of optimistic bias. Furthermore, the self-presence effect did not exist among friends characterized by close relationships. These findings reveal a potent source of risk perception bias based solely on the presence of self.