Pub Date : 2025-07-16DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104791
Sierra D. Peters , Jon K. Maner , Andrea L. Meltzer
Although existing evolutionary psychological research provides insight into the ultimate reproductive functions underlying long-term romantic partner preferences, such research has generally stopped short of identifying the proximate affective and motivational mechanisms that drive those preferences. Findings from three studies comprising four independent samples (total N = 2099) provide evidence that sexual desire is a proximate mechanism underlying prioritization of attractiveness in long-term partners. Sex differences and individual differences in sociosexuality were associated with prioritization of long-term partner attractiveness and those associations were statistically mediated by levels of chronic sexual desire (Study 1). Experimentally activating a state of high sexual desire increased males' and females' prioritization of attractiveness to an equivalent degree (Study 2). Experimentally reducing the relevance of sexual desire in people's mate preferences decreased prioritization of attractiveness in both males and females (Study 3). These studies integrate ultimate and proximate perspectives to provide novel insight into the role situationally activated motivational states play in shaping long-term partner preferences.
{"title":"The evolved psychology of mate preferences: Sexual desire underlies the prioritization of attractiveness in long-term partners","authors":"Sierra D. Peters , Jon K. Maner , Andrea L. Meltzer","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104791","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104791","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Although existing evolutionary psychological research provides insight into the ultimate reproductive functions underlying long-term romantic partner preferences, such research has generally stopped short of identifying the proximate affective and motivational mechanisms that drive those preferences. Findings from three studies comprising four independent samples (total <em>N</em> = 2099) provide evidence that sexual desire is a proximate mechanism underlying prioritization of attractiveness in long-term partners. Sex differences and individual differences in sociosexuality were associated with prioritization of long-term partner attractiveness and those associations were statistically mediated by levels of chronic sexual desire (Study 1). Experimentally activating a state of high sexual desire increased males' and females' prioritization of attractiveness to an equivalent degree (Study 2). Experimentally reducing the relevance of sexual desire in people's mate preferences decreased prioritization of attractiveness in both males and females (Study 3). These studies integrate ultimate and proximate perspectives to provide novel insight into the role situationally activated motivational states play in shaping long-term partner preferences.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104791"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144655483","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 : 2025-07-16DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104793
Wenlin Ke , Fangfang Wen , Bin Zuo
Building upon the application of common ingroup identity in intergroup relations and the meta-perception perspective, this study innovatively introduces the concept of Common Ingroup Meta-Identification (CIMI), defined as individuals' perceptions regarding the identification of various subgroups with a common ingroup. Through four experiments, the research systematically examines both the effects of CIMI on intergroup attitudes and the moderating role of group status, using Agent-Based Modeling to simulate the underlying dynamic processes. The results indicated that manipulating CIMI effectively affected intergroup attitudes in both real groups and minimal groups (Study 1 and Study 2). Notably, CIMI from high-status groups exhibited a more pronounced effect, particularly when low-status groups perceived low level CIMI from high-status groups (Study 3A). The ABM simulation results in Study 3B revealed that at the group level, even a small number of individuals with strong shared group identity could trigger widespread improvements in intergroup attitudes, as their positive influence spreads through mutual CIMI. The starting level of this shared identity, especially in higher-status groups, played a pivotal role in determining whether attitudes became sustainably positive or regressed to negativity. These findings suggest that manipulating CIMI serves as an effective strategy for enhancing intergroup relations, providing a flexible approach to fostering mutual understanding among diverse nations, ethnicities, and cultures of different status.
{"title":"Common ingroup meta-identification: A meta-perception perspective to dynamically promote intergroup attitudes in status asymmetry contexts","authors":"Wenlin Ke , Fangfang Wen , Bin Zuo","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104793","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104793","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Building upon the application of common ingroup identity in intergroup relations and the meta-perception perspective, this study innovatively introduces the concept of Common Ingroup Meta-Identification (CIMI), defined as individuals' perceptions regarding the identification of various subgroups with a common ingroup. Through four experiments, the research systematically examines both the effects of CIMI on intergroup attitudes and the moderating role of group status, using Agent-Based Modeling to simulate the underlying dynamic processes. The results indicated that manipulating CIMI effectively affected intergroup attitudes in both real groups and minimal groups (Study 1 and Study 2). Notably, CIMI from high-status groups exhibited a more pronounced effect, particularly when low-status groups perceived low level CIMI from high-status groups (Study 3A). The ABM simulation results in Study 3B revealed that at the group level, even a small number of individuals with strong shared group identity could trigger widespread improvements in intergroup attitudes, as their positive influence spreads through mutual CIMI. The starting level of this shared identity, especially in higher-status groups, played a pivotal role in determining whether attitudes became sustainably positive or regressed to negativity. These findings suggest that manipulating CIMI serves as an effective strategy for enhancing intergroup relations, providing a flexible approach to fostering mutual understanding among diverse nations, ethnicities, and cultures of different status.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104793"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144655484","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 : 2025-07-16DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104785
Steven Samuel , Robert Lurz , Daizi Davies , Harry Axtell , Sarah K. Salo
An important component of Theory of Mind is the ability to understand the beliefs (true or false) of others. Arguably the most widely-held view is that this is performed by a detached belief-representation process (e.g., metarepresenting that another agent has a belief about the world which one does not share). The standard belief-representation account posits a separation between one's own first-order representations of the physical environment and one's second-order representations of another agent's mental states, preventing the latter from infecting the former. An alternative process is engaged belief-simulation (e.g., imaginatively adopting another agent's belief about the world) which, in contrast to standard belief-representation, posits a correspondence in the mental states shared by oneself and another agent and predicts an influence of the other agent's beliefs on one's own first-order representations and egocentric actions. In the first two of three studies, a participant and an agent watched an object buried in a continuous space (sandbox). The participant then watched the same object moved from the first location to a new location. When participants were asked to search for the object, they demonstrated a bias towards the first location when the agent falsely believed the object to be there but not when the agent knew, like the participant, that the object was in the new location. Reasoning that the strength of this bias may have been limited by participants' knowledge of the object's true whereabouts, in a third and final study we hid the movement of the object so that participants did not know its true location. We also recruited a greater number of participants to increase statistical power. Contrary to expectations, there was now no evidence of belief infection. Overall, these results are more consistent with a belief-representation account for (human) adults' understanding of others' belief states.
{"title":"Testing “quarantined” metarepresentational accounts of Theory of Mind: Are we biased by others' false beliefs?","authors":"Steven Samuel , Robert Lurz , Daizi Davies , Harry Axtell , Sarah K. Salo","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104785","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104785","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>An important component of Theory of Mind is the ability to understand the beliefs (true or false) of others. Arguably the most widely-held view is that this is performed by a detached <em>belief-representation</em> process (e.g., metarepresenting that another agent has a belief about the world which one does not share). The standard belief-representation account posits a separation between one's own first-order representations of the physical environment and one's second-order representations of another agent's mental states, preventing the latter from infecting the former. An alternative process is engaged <em>belief-simulation</em> (e.g., imaginatively adopting another agent's belief about the world) which, in contrast to standard belief-representation, posits a correspondence in the mental states shared by oneself and another agent and predicts an influence of the other agent's beliefs on one's own first-order representations and egocentric actions. In the first two of three studies, a participant and an agent watched an object buried in a continuous space (sandbox). The participant then watched the same object moved from the first location to a new location. When participants were asked to search for the object, they demonstrated a bias towards the first location when the agent falsely believed the object to be there but not when the agent knew, like the participant, that the object was in the new location. Reasoning that the strength of this bias may have been limited by participants' knowledge of the object's true whereabouts, in a third and final study we hid the movement of the object so that participants did not know its true location. We also recruited a greater number of participants to increase statistical power. Contrary to expectations, there was now no evidence of belief infection. Overall, these results are more consistent with a belief-representation account for (human) adults' understanding of others' belief states.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"121 ","pages":"Article 104785"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144633663","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 : 2025-07-11DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104784
Miriam E. Schwyck, Carolyn Parkinson
Similarity among friends – or other socially connected individuals – is a ubiquitous characteristic of social networks. There are several, often simultaneous, mechanisms (e.g., social influence, shared environments) through which such links between social connection and similarity arise, including homophily, or the tendency for similar people to attract one another. While past research has found that people use similarity heuristics to structure their mental representations of social networks (predicting that friends are likely to be similar to each other), it is unknown if people assume such similarity arises through homophily, specifically. Here, we tested if people assume that homophily will shape their own and others' future friendships. Participants (NTotal = 560) learned how (i) trustworthy and (ii) trusting various partners were through repeated trust games. Participants predicted which partners would become friends with one another and which partners they would become friends with themselves if they were to meet in person. Across two studies and both trait measures, we found that participants were significantly more likely to predict that partners who behaved similarly would later become friends compared to those who behaved dissimilarly. Interestingly, we found that participants were significantly more likely to predict that they would become friends with highly trustworthy and highly trusting partners compared to highly untrustworthy or highly untrusting partners, regardless of their own behavioral tendencies or even their own self-perceptions. These findings suggest that for trust-related traits, people assume homophily will govern others' relationships but not necessarily their own. Such expectations likely shape how people approach or foster new friendships for themselves and between others.
{"title":"Predicting that birds of a feather will flock together: Expectations of homophily for others but not the self","authors":"Miriam E. Schwyck, Carolyn Parkinson","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104784","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104784","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Similarity among friends – or other socially connected individuals – is a ubiquitous characteristic of social networks. There are several, often simultaneous, mechanisms (e.g., social influence, shared environments) through which such links between social connection and similarity arise, including homophily, or the tendency for similar people to attract one another. While past research has found that people use similarity heuristics to structure their mental representations of social networks (predicting that friends are likely to be similar to each other), it is unknown if people assume such similarity arises through homophily, specifically. Here, we tested if people assume that homophily will shape their own and others' future friendships. Participants (<em>N</em><sub>Total</sub> = 560) learned how (i) trustworthy and (ii) trusting various partners were through repeated trust games. Participants predicted which partners would become friends with one another and which partners they would become friends with themselves if they were to meet in person. Across two studies and both trait measures, we found that participants were significantly more likely to predict that partners who behaved similarly would later become friends compared to those who behaved dissimilarly. Interestingly, we found that participants were significantly more likely to predict that they would become friends with highly trustworthy and highly trusting partners compared to highly untrustworthy or highly untrusting partners, regardless of their own behavioral tendencies or even their own self-perceptions. These findings suggest that for trust-related traits, people assume homophily will govern others' relationships but not necessarily their own. Such expectations likely shape how people approach or foster new friendships for themselves and between others.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 104784"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144595723","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 : 2025-07-10DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104789
Ignazio Ziano , Deming Wang , Ovul Sezer
Five studies (four preregistered; total n = 2948, French and U.S. adult participants) show that the reputational consequences of attributing an outcome to internal or external sources depend on the outcome's valence. Individuals are liked more when they attribute successes to external sources (such as their teammates) and when they attribute failures to internal sources (such as themselves) (Studies 1, 2, and 3). Consequently, participants donate more to others who fit this attribution profile (Study 4). This preference is associated with participants' belief that targets attributing successes internally and failures externally are misrepresenting their contribution to the outcome (Studies 1 and 3). The effect is observed for attributions made both in public and in private but is slightly weaker for those made in private settings (Study 5). We discuss theoretical implications of the results for impression formation and the psychology of perceived contribution, and practical implications for communication in organizational and workplace settings.
{"title":"“I wanna thank me”: Reputational consequences of attribution locus depend on outcome valence","authors":"Ignazio Ziano , Deming Wang , Ovul Sezer","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104789","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104789","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Five studies (four preregistered; total <em>n</em> = 2948, French and U.S. adult participants) show that the reputational consequences of attributing an outcome to internal or external sources depend on the outcome's valence. Individuals are liked more when they attribute successes to external sources (such as their teammates) and when they attribute failures to internal sources (such as themselves) (Studies 1, 2, and 3). Consequently, participants donate more to others who fit this attribution profile (Study 4). This preference is associated with participants' belief that targets attributing successes internally and failures externally are misrepresenting their contribution to the outcome (Studies 1 and 3). The effect is observed for attributions made both in public and in private but is slightly weaker for those made in private settings (Study 5). We discuss theoretical implications of the results for impression formation and the psychology of perceived contribution, and practical implications for communication in organizational and workplace settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 104789"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144589141","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 : 2025-07-08DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104790
Gloria Danqiao Cheng , Jennifer Whitson , Cynthia S. Wang
Negative group labels (i.e., slurs) can reinforce stigma and perpetuate oppression of stigmatized groups. This research compares two label-coping strategies that stigmatized group members employ to cope with negative group labels: self-labeling (“I am X”) and label-rejection (“I am not X”). Seven studies demonstrate that self-labeling more effectively reduces outgroup observers' perceptions of a label's negativity compared to label-rejection. However, outgroup observers impose higher social costs on self-labelers (in terms of reduced likability, hireability, and promotability) than label-rejecters. These effects generalize across multiple stigmatized groups and contexts (Studies 1a-d). Moreover, the effect of label-coping strategy on label negativity is mediated by observers' perceptions of the stigmatized group's control over the label (Study 2), while the effect of label-coping strategy on social costs is mediated by observers' experience of symbolic threat (Study 3). Finally, observers who more strongly believe that status differences between groups are justified are more likely to penalize self-labelers vs. label-rejecters due to heightened threat (Study 4).
{"title":"I am, I am not: Strategies to cope with negative group labels","authors":"Gloria Danqiao Cheng , Jennifer Whitson , Cynthia S. Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104790","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104790","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Negative group labels (i.e., slurs) can reinforce stigma and perpetuate oppression of stigmatized groups. This research compares two label-coping strategies that stigmatized group members employ to cope with negative group labels: <em>self-labeling</em> (“I am X”) and <em>label-rejection</em> (“I am not X”). Seven studies demonstrate that self-labeling more effectively reduces outgroup observers' perceptions of a label's negativity compared to label-rejection. However, outgroup observers impose higher social costs on self-labelers (in terms of reduced likability, hireability, and promotability) than label-rejecters. These effects generalize across multiple stigmatized groups and contexts (Studies 1a-d). Moreover, the effect of label-coping strategy on label negativity is mediated by observers' perceptions of the stigmatized group's control over the label (Study 2), while the effect of label-coping strategy on social costs is mediated by observers' experience of symbolic threat (Study 3). Finally, observers who more strongly believe that status differences between groups are justified are more likely to penalize self-labelers vs. label-rejecters due to heightened threat (Study 4).</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 104790"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144581242","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 : 2025-07-08DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104787
Samantha Zaw, Alex Koch
We examined prospective (i.e., future-oriented) self-comparisons in an ecology with three empirically validated principles of impression formation. First, people can have more negative than positive attributes (diversity). But second, individuals do have more positive than negative attributes (frequency). Third, over time people generally improve by losing negative attributes and gaining positive attributes (growth). Three studies found that present-future similarities were most positive, the present self's unique attributes were most negative, and the future self's unique attributes were in between. In Study 1, this pattern emerged for both self-comparisons and acquaintance-comparisons. In Study 2, it emerged for both prospective and retrospective (i.e., past-oriented) self-comparisons. In Study 3, the pattern vanished when middle-aged people compared their present self to their old age self. Taken together, these findings largely support a realistic view of one's own future. The findings also lend some support for a self-enhancing view of what the future holds.
{"title":"Rethinking rose-tinted glasses: A cognitive-ecological explanation of prospective self-comparisons","authors":"Samantha Zaw, Alex Koch","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104787","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104787","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We examined prospective (i.e., future-oriented) self-comparisons in an ecology with three empirically validated principles of impression formation. First, people <em>can</em> have more negative than positive attributes (diversity). But second, individuals <em>do</em> have more positive than negative attributes (frequency). Third, over time people generally improve by losing negative attributes and gaining positive attributes (growth). Three studies found that present-future similarities were most positive, the present self's unique attributes were most negative, and the future self's unique attributes were in between. In Study 1, this pattern emerged for both self-comparisons and acquaintance-comparisons. In Study 2, it emerged for both prospective and retrospective (i.e., past-oriented) self-comparisons. In Study 3, the pattern vanished when middle-aged people compared their present self to their old age self. Taken together, these findings largely support a realistic view of one's own future. The findings also lend some support for a self-enhancing view of what the future holds.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 104787"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144581241","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 : 2025-07-05DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104786
Sarah Mohammadi, Andrew H. Hales
People sometimes derive pleasure from the misfortune of others. Here, we investigate social ostracism as a multifaceted trigger of this complex emotion: schadenfreude. Building on the theories of fairness perception, ostracism, and justice-based schadenfreude, we propose that both experiencing and merely observing ostracism can elicit schadenfreude toward an ostracizer. This response is primarily driven by two factors: (1) the (un)fairness of the ostracism itself and (2) the perceived deservingness of an ostracizer to face negative consequences. Four preregistered experiments support these predictions. People who are ostracized (Study 1; N = 338) experience schadenfreude specifically toward their excluders but not toward uninvolved individuals, indicating that this response is directed rather than generalized. Not just targets but also third-party observers (Study 2; N = 82) report schadenfreude toward the ostracizer. Supporting the justice-based account, among both targets and observers (Study 3; N = 624), ostracism-induced schadenfreude is statistically accounted for by the perceived deservingness of the ostracizer to experience negative outcomes. Finally, providing direct causal evidence, ostracism elicited schadenfreude, but only when experimentally manipulated to be unfair (Study 4; N = 479): excluders who unfairly ostracized well-behaved individuals elicited greater schadenfreude than those who fairly ostracized provocative norm-violators. This indicates the fairness of exclusion influences perceptions of how much an ostracizer deserves misfortune, and thus the subsequent schadenfreude. Together, findings document a previously unexplored consequence of ostracism: the emergence of schadenfreude as a moral emotion in response to unfair exclusion.
{"title":"From ostracized to pleased: How fair and unfair social exclusion activates schadenfreude","authors":"Sarah Mohammadi, Andrew H. Hales","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104786","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104786","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>People sometimes derive pleasure from the misfortune of others. Here, we investigate social ostracism as a multifaceted trigger of this complex emotion: <em>schadenfreude.</em> Building on the theories of fairness perception, ostracism, and justice-based schadenfreude, we propose that both experiencing and merely observing ostracism can elicit schadenfreude toward an ostracizer. This response is primarily driven by two factors: (1) the (un)fairness of the ostracism itself and (2) the perceived deservingness of an ostracizer to face negative consequences. Four preregistered experiments support these predictions. People who are ostracized (Study 1; <em>N</em> = 338) experience schadenfreude specifically toward their excluders but not toward uninvolved individuals, indicating that this response is directed rather than generalized. Not just targets but also third-party observers (Study 2; <em>N</em> = 82) report schadenfreude toward the ostracizer. Supporting the justice-based account, among both targets and observers (Study 3; <em>N</em> = 624), ostracism-induced schadenfreude is statistically accounted for by the perceived <em>deservingness</em> of the ostracizer to experience negative outcomes. Finally, providing direct causal evidence, ostracism elicited schadenfreude, but only when experimentally manipulated to be unfair (Study 4; <em>N</em> = 479): excluders who unfairly ostracized well-behaved individuals elicited greater schadenfreude than those who fairly ostracized provocative norm-violators. This indicates the fairness of exclusion influences perceptions of how much an ostracizer deserves misfortune, and thus the subsequent schadenfreude. Together, findings document a previously unexplored consequence of ostracism: the emergence of schadenfreude as a moral emotion in response to unfair exclusion.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 104786"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144563103","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 : 2025-06-26DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104781
Simone Tang , Kurt Gray
Despite the widespread human aversion to harming the innocent, people often mock or attack the children and spouses of public figures they dislike, a pattern we call vicarious kin derogation (VKD). Targeting the vulnerable kin of powerful figures has been used to inflict psychological pain, from ancient China to modern-day North Korea, to social media in the West. Six studies explore VKD with both experimental and field data. Across 562,066 tweets directed at US presidential candidates, people derogate politicians' loved ones when those loved ones seem more emotionally vulnerable than the candidate themselves (Study 1). In experiments, people engage in VKD when a politician seems more emotionally affected by attacks on family than on himself (Studies 2 and 4), and when people are motivated to inflict suffering on the public figure (Study 5). At the same time, people are less likely to endorse VKD when reminded that it targets innocent individuals (Studies 3 and 5). Together, these studies reveal a central psychological tension: VKD is satisfying when it seems to hurt an otherwise invulnerable leader, but people still dislike harming the innocent. This dynamic helps explain a persistent, toxic feature of modern political discourse: when people seek to harm public figures by attacking their loved ones.
{"title":"Vicarious kin derogation—when and why people mock the innocent family members of political leaders","authors":"Simone Tang , Kurt Gray","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104781","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104781","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Despite the widespread human aversion to harming the innocent, people often mock or attack the children and spouses of public figures they dislike, a pattern we call vicarious kin derogation (VKD). Targeting the vulnerable kin of powerful figures has been used to inflict psychological pain, from ancient China to modern-day North Korea, to social media in the West. Six studies explore VKD with both experimental and field data. Across 562,066 tweets directed at US presidential candidates, people derogate politicians' loved ones when those loved ones seem more emotionally vulnerable than the candidate themselves (Study 1). In experiments, people engage in VKD when a politician seems more emotionally affected by attacks on family than on himself (Studies 2 and 4), and when people are motivated to inflict suffering on the public figure (Study 5). At the same time, people are less likely to endorse VKD when reminded that it targets innocent individuals (Studies 3 and 5). Together, these studies reveal a central psychological tension: VKD is satisfying when it seems to hurt an otherwise invulnerable leader, but people still dislike harming the innocent. This dynamic helps explain a persistent, toxic feature of modern political discourse: when people seek to harm public figures by attacking their loved ones.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 104781"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144481071","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 : 2025-06-20DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104782
Izilda Pereira-Jorge, Kimberly E. Chaney, Flora Blanchette, Alexandra Garr-Schultz
Pronoun-sharing is regarded as an inclusive practice targeted toward gender minorities. Though individual employees sharing pronouns results in the organization's higher-level management being perceived as more likely to engage in LGBT+ allyship, the impact of pronoun-sharing social norms on perceptions of individuals and companies remains unexplored. Across four experiments (N = 1365), we examined how perceived norms and employee gender identity impact when pronoun-sharing practices shift perceptions of both the target employee and the organization. When all cisgender employee team members shared pronouns, both cisgender (Studies 1, 3–4) and gender minority participants (Study 2) perceived an employee's pronoun-sharing as more externally motivated and the employee as less likely to display LGBT+ allyship compared to when pronoun-sharing was not the organizational norm. Further, we document a normative eclipsing effect, where lower-level employees who engage in pronoun-sharing norms (relative to sharing without a norm) are perceived as having management who are more likely to engage in LGBT+ allyship and are met with greater procedural fairness expectations (Study 2–3). Results suggest that normative pronoun-sharing may boost favorable perceptions of organizations but not individual employees. Yet, when evidence-based cues of inclusion are present, such as the presence of nonbinary employees (Study 3–4), both employees and management who engage in pronoun sharing are viewed as more likely to engage in LGBT+ allyship, regardless of the pronoun-sharing norm. These findings demonstrate the need to consider how context norms of identity-safety cues impact their utility to promote perceptions of allyship of individual actors and organizations.
{"title":"Organizational norms and gender identity contexts shape when pronoun-sharing is perceived as disingenuous allyship: Evidence of a normative eclipsing effect","authors":"Izilda Pereira-Jorge, Kimberly E. Chaney, Flora Blanchette, Alexandra Garr-Schultz","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104782","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2025.104782","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Pronoun-sharing is regarded as an inclusive practice targeted toward gender minorities. Though individual employees sharing pronouns results in the organization's higher-level management being perceived as more likely to engage in LGBT+ allyship, the impact of pronoun-sharing social norms on perceptions of individuals and companies remains unexplored. Across four experiments (<em>N</em> = 1365), we examined how perceived norms and employee gender identity impact when pronoun-sharing practices shift perceptions of both the target employee and the organization. When all cisgender employee team members shared pronouns, both cisgender (Studies 1, 3–4) and gender minority participants (Study 2) perceived an employee's pronoun-sharing as more externally motivated and the employee as less likely to display LGBT+ allyship compared to when pronoun-sharing was not the organizational norm. Further, we document a <em>normative eclipsing effect</em>, where lower-level employees who engage in pronoun-sharing norms (relative to sharing without a norm) are perceived as having management who are more likely to engage in LGBT+ allyship and are met with greater procedural fairness expectations (Study 2–3). Results suggest that normative pronoun-sharing may boost favorable perceptions of organizations but not individual employees. Yet, when evidence-based cues of inclusion are present, such as the presence of nonbinary employees (Study 3–4), both employees and management who engage in pronoun sharing are viewed as more likely to engage in LGBT+ allyship, regardless of the pronoun-sharing norm. These findings demonstrate the need to consider how context norms of identity-safety cues impact their utility to promote perceptions of allyship of individual actors and organizations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 104782"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2,"publicationDate":"2025-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144321960","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