Journal of Experimental Social Psychology最新文献_第6页

On the relation between boredom and social behavior: A registered report 无聊与社会行为的关系：一篇注册报告

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-08-23 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104804

Thekla Müller-Boysen , Sergio Pirla , Stefan Pfattheicher

Boredom plays an essential role in everyday life and is a powerful motivator. This registered report investigated the interpersonal consequences of boredom. We recruited participants online (N = 3568) and ran one experiment manipulating boredom with three variations of behavioral options as dependent variables: 1) prosocial and non-social, 2) antisocial and non-social, and 3) prosocial, antisocial, and non-social. First, we tested whether boredom increases the likelihood of individuals engaging in any type of behavior, including both social and non-social alternatives. We found no significant main effect of boredom on behavior. Second, we tested whether boredom increases the likelihood of individuals engaging in prosocial or antisocial behavior. No clear evidence emerged for a total effect of boredom on prosocial or antisocial behavior. Moderation analyses revealed no significant effect of the prosocial personality trait Honestly-Humility, and the antisocial personality trait D. In addition, mediation analyses showed that boredom reduces individuals' sense of agency, which in turn is associated with increased prosocial and antisocial behavior; boredom also reduces a sense of meaning, which in turn relates to increased prosocial behavior when only this social option is presented. Overall, this study examined the motivational aspect of boredom with regard to social behavior and the role of personality traits as moderators and lack of agency and meaning as mediators.

无聊在日常生活中扮演着重要的角色，是一种强大的动力。这篇注册报告调查了无聊对人际关系的影响。我们在网上招募了3568名参与者，并进行了一项实验，以三种不同的行为选择作为因变量来操纵无聊：1)亲社会和非社会，2)反社会和非社会，3)亲社会、反社会和非社会。首先，我们测试了无聊是否会增加个体参与任何类型行为的可能性，包括社交和非社交选择。我们发现无聊对行为没有显著的主要影响。其次，我们测试了无聊是否会增加个体从事亲社会或反社会行为的可能性。没有明确的证据表明无聊对亲社会或反社会行为的总体影响。适度分析显示，诚实-谦卑的亲社会人格特质和反社会人格特质d没有显著影响。此外，中介分析显示，无聊降低了个体的代理感，代理感反过来又与亲社会和反社会行为的增加有关；无聊也会降低意义感，当只有这种社交选择时，意义感又会增加亲社会行为。总的来说，本研究考察了无聊对社会行为的动机方面，以及人格特质作为调节因素和缺乏能动性和意义作为调节因素的作用。

{"title":"On the relation between boredom and social behavior: A registered report","authors":"Thekla Müller-Boysen , Sergio Pirla , Stefan Pfattheicher","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104804","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104804","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Boredom plays an essential role in everyday life and is a powerful motivator. This registered report investigated the interpersonal consequences of boredom. We recruited participants online (<em>N</em> = 3568) and ran one experiment manipulating boredom with three variations of behavioral options as dependent variables: 1) prosocial and non-social, 2) antisocial and non-social, and 3) prosocial, antisocial, and non-social. First, we tested whether boredom increases the likelihood of individuals engaging in any type of behavior, including both social and non-social alternatives. We found no significant main effect of boredom on behavior. Second, we tested whether boredom increases the likelihood of individuals engaging in prosocial or antisocial behavior. No clear evidence emerged for a total effect of boredom on prosocial or antisocial behavior. Moderation analyses revealed no significant effect of the prosocial personality trait Honestly-Humility, and the antisocial personality trait D. In addition, mediation analyses showed that boredom reduces individuals' sense of agency, which in turn is associated with increased prosocial and antisocial behavior; boredom also reduces a sense of meaning, which in turn relates to increased prosocial behavior when only this social option is presented. Overall, this study examined the motivational aspect of boredom with regard to social behavior and the role of personality traits as moderators and lack of agency and meaning as mediators.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104804"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144889043","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}

引用次数: 0

The do-gooder dilemma: A self/other asymmetry in the perceived emotional costs of self-reporting good deeds 行善者困境：自我报告善行的感知情感成本中的自我/他人不对称

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-08-21 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104808

Jerry Richardson , Paul Bloom , Shaun Nichols , David Pizarro

Recent research in which individuals are encouraged to share stories of their own charitable giving on social media suggests that such sharing facilitates perceptions of prosocial norms and increases charitable donations. However, we predicted that this sharing might also incur unforeseen emotional costs, diminishing the “warm glow” of altruism. Across 5 preregistered experiments (N = 2840), participants reported that they would feel worse when sharing their own good deeds compared to their achievements, and substantially worse when sharing these stories on social media (compared to telling a friend or not sharing). In contrast, participants reported that others would feel better (i.e., less shame and embarrassment, more happiness and pride) after reporting their own good deeds. These studies suggest that individuals believe that (1) reporting their own good deeds will leave them feeling worse, and (2) others will not suffer similar negative feelings.

最近的一项研究表明，鼓励个人在社交媒体上分享自己的慈善捐赠故事，这种分享促进了对亲社会规范的认知，并增加了慈善捐赠。然而，我们预测，这种分享也可能产生不可预见的情感成本，减少利他主义的“温暖的光芒”。在5个预先注册的实验中（N = 2840），参与者报告说，与他们的成就相比，他们在分享自己的善行时会感觉更糟，在社交媒体上分享这些故事时（与告诉朋友或不分享相比）会感觉更糟。相比之下，参与者报告说，其他人在报告自己的善行后会感觉更好（即，更少的羞耻和尴尬，更多的快乐和骄傲）。这些研究表明，人们相信(1)报告自己的善行会让他们感觉更糟，(2)其他人不会遭受类似的负面情绪。

引用次数: 0

Norm-enhanced prebunking for actively open-minded thinking indirectly improves misinformation discernment and reduces conspiracy beliefs 规范增强的主动开放思维的预掩蔽间接提高了错误信息的识别，减少了阴谋信念

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-08-20 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104818

Mikey Biddlestone , Carolin-Theresa Ziemer , Rakoen Maertens , Jon Roozenbeek , Sander van der Linden

Recent research has demonstrated that actively open-minded thinking (AOT)—a cognitive thinking style characterized by the active avoidance of myside bias and overconfidence in one's conclusions—is related to lower misinformation susceptibility. Furthermore, logic-based inoculation has proven effective at conferring resistance against misinformation and conspiracy beliefs. Building on these findings, the current article outlines two pre-registered experiments, conducted on Reddit.com (Study 1, N = 462) and Prolific (Study 2, N = 464), wherein participants were either allocated to a control condition or presented with an inoculation message prebunking failure to engage in AOT. We hypothesised that improvements in AOT relative to the control group should indirectly reduce misinformation susceptibility and conspiracy beliefs. Results showed that in both studies, the AOT inoculation significantly improved AOT relative to the control group, and in turn, reduced conspiracy beliefs and improved veracity discernment of real news headlines from fake ones. Furthermore, the intervention also improved sharing decisions (Study 1), and its efficacy was exclusive to improving AOT rather than its individual epistemic components (Study 2). We provide recommendations for future efforts to reduce misinformation susceptibility using logic-based inoculation and discuss the theoretical implications of our findings.

最近的研究表明，积极开放的思维（AOT）——一种以积极避免自我偏见和对结论过度自信为特征的认知思维方式——与较低的错误信息易感性有关。此外，基于逻辑的接种已被证明在赋予对错误信息和阴谋信仰的抵抗力方面有效。基于这些发现，本文概述了在Reddit.com（研究1，N = 462）和多产（研究2，N = 464）上进行的两项预先注册的实验，其中参与者要么被分配到控制条件，要么被告知接种信息，因为他们没有参与AOT。我们假设，相对于对照组，AOT的改善应该间接减少错误信息的易感性和阴谋信念。结果显示，在两项研究中，接种AOT后，相对于对照组，AOT显著改善，进而减少了阴谋信念，提高了对真假新闻标题的真实性识别。此外，干预还改善了共享决策（研究1），其功效仅限于改善AOT，而不是改善其个体认知成分（研究2）。我们提出建议，为未来的努力，以减少错误信息易感性使用基于逻辑的接种和讨论我们的研究结果的理论意义。

{"title":"Norm-enhanced prebunking for actively open-minded thinking indirectly improves misinformation discernment and reduces conspiracy beliefs","authors":"Mikey Biddlestone , Carolin-Theresa Ziemer , Rakoen Maertens , Jon Roozenbeek , Sander van der Linden","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104818","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104818","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Recent research has demonstrated that actively open-minded thinking (AOT)—a cognitive thinking style characterized by the active avoidance of myside bias and overconfidence in one's conclusions—is related to lower misinformation susceptibility. Furthermore, logic-based inoculation has proven effective at conferring resistance against misinformation and conspiracy beliefs. Building on these findings, the current article outlines two pre-registered experiments, conducted on <span><span><em>Reddit.com</em></span><svg><path></path></svg></span> (Study 1, <em>N</em> = 462) and <em>Prolific</em> (Study 2, <em>N</em> = 464), wherein participants were either allocated to a control condition or presented with an inoculation message prebunking failure to engage in AOT. We hypothesised that improvements in AOT relative to the control group should indirectly reduce misinformation susceptibility and conspiracy beliefs. Results showed that in both studies, the AOT inoculation significantly improved AOT relative to the control group, and in turn, reduced conspiracy beliefs and improved veracity discernment of real news headlines from fake ones. Furthermore, the intervention also improved sharing decisions (Study 1), and its efficacy was exclusive to improving AOT rather than its individual epistemic components (Study 2). We provide recommendations for future efforts to reduce misinformation susceptibility using logic-based inoculation and discuss the theoretical implications of our findings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104818"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144878219","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}

引用次数: 0

Are you still one of us? When living abroad undermines perceived home country identification and trust from compatriots 你还是我们中的一员吗？当生活在国外削弱了同胞对祖国的认同和信任

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-08-19 DOI: 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.

快速的全球化促使许多人到国外寻求经验，其中许多人最终回到自己的祖国。本研究调查了他们的同胞如何看待这些回返者。通过对美国和中国样本的四项研究，我们发现海归在国外生活的经历导致同胞认为他们对祖国的认同感较低，对国内背景下基于认知的信任产生负面影响。我们还发现，强烈的母国认同信号有助于减轻这些后果，使海归获得与非海归相似的信任水平。这些发现揭示了身份问题如何阻碍海归有效利用其国际经验，凸显了全球人才流动的一个关键挑战。我们的研究揭示了海归在国内面临的挑战，并阐明了在国外生活、感知到的祖国认同和信任之间的复杂关系。

引用次数: 0

Why do some people refuse to compromise their positions on politicized practices? The role of need for closure 为什么有些人拒绝在政治化的做法上妥协？需要关闭的作用

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-08-14 DOI: 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

人们在堕胎和拥枪等政治化问题上的立场越来越不愿妥协，使得对立双方之间的对话变得困难。为什么有些人比其他人更倾向于拒绝在政治实践中妥协自己的立场？五项研究（N = 1377）发现，高关闭需要（NFC）是拒绝妥协的先决条件。研究1发现，即使在控制了这些态度的极端程度、重要性、强度和中心性之后，性格近距离接触得分较高的人也不愿意在持有枪支、狩猎、吸食大麻和安乐死等问题上妥协。研究2的重点是堕胎，这在美国是一种高度政治化的做法。在时间压力下，支持堕胎和支持堕胎的参与者都变得更不愿意在各自的堕胎立场上妥协。研究3发现，在优先考虑约束性道德基础（强调群体凝聚力）而不是个性化道德基础（强调个人自主性）的个体中，NFC与拒绝在一些政治化实践中妥协立场之间的关系更强。研究4-5采用实验因果链法检验了其潜在机制。时间压力确实提高了NFC，增加了人们使用义务推理的倾向，义务推理是一种强调基于规则而不是基于结果的判断的认知风格（研究4），诱导义务推理增强了人们在一些政治化实践中妥协立场的抵抗力（研究5）。总之，这些研究揭示了政治两极分化（一种高度分裂的现象）背后的潜在心理机制，并确定了可以为减少群体间冲突的努力提供信息的途径

{"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}

引用次数: 0

Self-anchoring toward groups shapes changes in intergroup attitudes during intergroup interactions 群体的自我锚定塑造了群体间互动中群体间态度的变化

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-08-13 DOI: 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.

以往关于群体间互动的研究为竞争和合作如何影响群体间关系提供了丰富的理论解释，但对于它们对群体间态度的差异影响的解释仍然是碎片化的。本研究探讨了群体间竞争与合作中自我锚定在群体间态度形成中的作用。通过三个实验，我们证明了自我锚定是群体间互动影响群体间态度的关键心理机制。我们研究了自我锚定的认知（人格特质相似性）和动机（心理重叠反映的方法取向）两个维度。研究结果表明，相对于群体间竞争，群体间合作增强了自我锚定，改善了对外群体的态度。平行中介模型证实了自我锚定的认知和动机两个维度都介导了群体间互动对外群体态度的影响。此外，自我锚定的实验操作导致群体间态度的相应变化，证实了其因果作用。这些结果阐明了自我锚定过程如何解释群体间竞争和合作对群体间关系的不同影响。

{"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}

引用次数: 0

Does protection come at a cost? A random stimuli approach to investigating the (side-)effects of misinformation inoculations 保护是有代价的吗？一个随机刺激的方法来调查误传接种的（副作用）

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-08-11 DOI: 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.

接种是一种干预措施，旨在告知人们错误信息的威胁以及传播错误信息的策略，这是一种越来越受欢迎的打击假新闻的方法。虽然研究表明，接种疫苗可以有效降低假新闻的可信度，但关于接种疫苗是否也可能导致不良副作用（如降低真实新闻的可信度）的证据却参差不齐。此外，现有的研究很少使用现实生活中的新闻来测试接种，没有考虑到有偏见的刺激选择的潜在问题，也没有测试接种有效性背后的假设机制：假新闻与真新闻中错误信息策略的存在率更高。目前的研究旨在填补这些空白。研究1使用随机刺激方法和真实生活中的真假新闻标题数据集，表明接种降低了假新闻的感知准确性（但不是可信度）（不改变真实新闻的感知准确性），并且没有使人们变得更加愤世嫉俗。此外，研究2表明假新闻比真实新闻包含更多的错误信息策略，研究3发现接种在使用更多（相对较少）错误信息策略的标题上效果更好。总之，我们的研究结果表明，接种不太可能有副作用，但其有效性可能比以前假设的更有限。因此，我们对减少错误信息的更广泛的文献做出了贡献，特别是对接种方法有效性的研究。

{"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}

引用次数: 0

When allies join the fight: How joint collective action shapes social change and intergroup relations 当盟友加入战斗：联合集体行动如何塑造社会变革和群体间关系

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-08-11 DOI: 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.

过去十年来，全球抗议和社会运动的兴起为推动社会变革带来了希望，同时也带来了新的社会紧张局势。目前的研究考察了包括优势群体和弱势群体成员在内的联合集体行动对支持社会变革和群体间两极分化的影响，并与弱势群体单独采取的集体行动进行了比较。四项研究(两项试点研究和两项预注册研究；N = 1707)，联合集体行动（相对于弱势群体的集体行动）可靠地促进了优势群体成员对社会变革的支持。在弱势群体成员中，研究中出现了一致的模式：由优势盟友支持（但不是领导）的联合集体行动，通过增加对尊重的感知，间接增强了对变革的支持，减少了两极分化，但对这些结果没有直接影响。这些发现强调了联合集体行动在促进社会平等和凝聚力方面的前景，同时也强调了解决权力不对称和尊重弱势群体在这一过程中的能动性的必要性。

{"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}

引用次数: 0

Power as a moral magnifier: Moral outrage is amplified when the powerful transgress 权力作为道德放大镜：当权贵越轨时，道德义愤会被放大

IF 3.5 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-08-08 DOI: 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.

在现代生活中，对权势人物丑闻的道德愤怒已经司空见惯。这些例子表明，道德上的愤怒可能不成比例地指向那些对他人有权力的人。然而，目前尚不清楚这种趋势是否仅仅反映了有权力的人犯下的不道德行为的发生率和突出程度更高，或者它是否表明有权力的肇事者更容易引起旁观者的愤怒。在一系列的研究中，我们调查了观察者的道德愤怒是否受到犯罪者在社会等级中的权力的影响。参与者阅读假设的场景（研究1，N = 481），回忆实际的违法行为（研究2，N = 351），目睹自私的经济行为（研究3，N = 1012），并观察由权力较大或较小的施暴者亲自实施的欺凌行为（研究4，N = 177）。参与者始终感受到更大的道德愤怒，并对有权势的肇事者给予更严厉的（匿名）惩罚。对强大的犯罪者的更大反应仅限于道德领域和特定于犯罪者的权力，而不是他们的地位。这项工作强调了社会背景因素的重要性，比如在研究道德判断时，等级制度中的犯罪者权力。

{"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}

引用次数: 0

Maybe don't say “maybe”: How and why invitees fail to realize that they should not respond to invitations with a “maybe” 也许不要说“也许”：被邀请的人如何以及为什么没有意识到他们不应该用“也许”来回应邀请。

IF 3.5 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Pub Date : 2025-08-07 DOI: 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.

人们经常邀请别人加入他们的社会活动。收到邀请后，被邀请者可能会用试探性的“也许”来回应邀请者。我们考察被邀请者在考虑回答“可能”（与“不”）时，是否能准确判断邀请者的偏好。通过六个实验（五个预先注册的），我们发现被邀请者往往高估了邀请者更喜欢“可能”而不是直接“不”的可能性，因为他们低估了邀请者在收到“可能”（与“不”）时感受到的不尊重程度。我们还证明，这些错误预测的出现，部分是由于动机推理。被邀请者认为，回答“可能”（相对于“不”）更符合邀请者的意愿，部分原因是“可能”的回答比直接拒绝更符合被邀请者的利益。最后，我们说明了部分由于他们有缺陷的预测，被邀请者更有可能回答“可能”（而不是“不”），尽管邀请者更喜欢更果断的回答。这些发现为新兴的邀请社会心理学做出了贡献。

{"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}

引用次数: 0