Pub Date : 2024-06-01DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00103-7
Kristína Pavlíčková, Judith Gärtner, Stella D. Voulgaropoulou, Deniz Fraemke, Eli Adams, Conny W.E.M. Quaedflieg, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Dennis Hernaus
Although the acute stress response is a highly adaptive survival mechanism, much remains unknown about how its activation impacts our decisions and actions. Based on its resource-mobilizing function, here we hypothesize that this intricate psychophysiological process may increase the willingness (motivation) to engage in effortful, energy-consuming, actions. Across two experiments (n = 80, n = 84), participants exposed to a validated stress-induction protocol, compared to a no-stress control condition, exhibited an increased willingness to exert physical effort (grip force) in the service of avoiding the possibility of experiencing aversive electrical stimulation (threat-of-shock), but not for the acquisition of rewards (money). Use of computational cognitive models linked this observation to subjective value computations that prioritize safety over the minimization of effort expenditure; especially when facing unlikely threats that can only be neutralized via high levels of grip force. Taken together, these results suggest that activation of the acute stress response can selectively alter the willingness to exert effort for safety-related goals. These findings are relevant for understanding how, under stress, we become motivated to engage in effortful actions aimed at avoiding aversive outcomes. People who underwent acute stress tended to prioritize safety over effort minimization. This led stressed people to mobilize more effort than non-stressed people to avoid threats that have a low probability to occur.
{"title":"Acute stress promotes effort mobilization for safety-related goals","authors":"Kristína Pavlíčková, Judith Gärtner, Stella D. Voulgaropoulou, Deniz Fraemke, Eli Adams, Conny W.E.M. Quaedflieg, Wolfgang Viechtbauer, Dennis Hernaus","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00103-7","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-024-00103-7","url":null,"abstract":"Although the acute stress response is a highly adaptive survival mechanism, much remains unknown about how its activation impacts our decisions and actions. Based on its resource-mobilizing function, here we hypothesize that this intricate psychophysiological process may increase the willingness (motivation) to engage in effortful, energy-consuming, actions. Across two experiments (n = 80, n = 84), participants exposed to a validated stress-induction protocol, compared to a no-stress control condition, exhibited an increased willingness to exert physical effort (grip force) in the service of avoiding the possibility of experiencing aversive electrical stimulation (threat-of-shock), but not for the acquisition of rewards (money). Use of computational cognitive models linked this observation to subjective value computations that prioritize safety over the minimization of effort expenditure; especially when facing unlikely threats that can only be neutralized via high levels of grip force. Taken together, these results suggest that activation of the acute stress response can selectively alter the willingness to exert effort for safety-related goals. These findings are relevant for understanding how, under stress, we become motivated to engage in effortful actions aimed at avoiding aversive outcomes. People who underwent acute stress tended to prioritize safety over effort minimization. This led stressed people to mobilize more effort than non-stressed people to avoid threats that have a low probability to occur.","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00103-7.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141187661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-27DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00099-0
Levi Kumle, Melissa L.-H. Võ, Anna C. Nobre, Dejan Draschkow
Visual distraction is a ubiquitous aspect of everyday life. Studying the consequences of distraction during temporally extended tasks, however, is not tractable with traditional methods. Here we developed a virtual reality approach that segments complex behaviour into cognitive subcomponents, including encoding, visual search, working memory usage, and decision-making. Participants copied a model display by selecting objects from a resource pool and placing them into a workspace. By manipulating the distractibility of objects in the resource pool, we discovered interfering effects of distraction across the different cognitive subcomponents. We successfully traced the consequences of distraction all the way from overall task performance to the decision-making processes that gate memory usage. Distraction slowed down behaviour and increased costly body movements. Critically, distraction increased encoding demands, slowed visual search, and decreased reliance on working memory. Our findings illustrate that the effects of visual distraction during natural behaviour can be rather focal but nevertheless have cascading consequences. Tracking behaviour in a virtual reality setting allows segmenting and tracking encoding, visual search, working memory usage, and decision-making separately and reveals distinct effects of distraction on these subprocesses.
{"title":"Multifaceted consequences of visual distraction during natural behaviour","authors":"Levi Kumle, Melissa L.-H. Võ, Anna C. Nobre, Dejan Draschkow","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00099-0","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-024-00099-0","url":null,"abstract":"Visual distraction is a ubiquitous aspect of everyday life. Studying the consequences of distraction during temporally extended tasks, however, is not tractable with traditional methods. Here we developed a virtual reality approach that segments complex behaviour into cognitive subcomponents, including encoding, visual search, working memory usage, and decision-making. Participants copied a model display by selecting objects from a resource pool and placing them into a workspace. By manipulating the distractibility of objects in the resource pool, we discovered interfering effects of distraction across the different cognitive subcomponents. We successfully traced the consequences of distraction all the way from overall task performance to the decision-making processes that gate memory usage. Distraction slowed down behaviour and increased costly body movements. Critically, distraction increased encoding demands, slowed visual search, and decreased reliance on working memory. Our findings illustrate that the effects of visual distraction during natural behaviour can be rather focal but nevertheless have cascading consequences. Tracking behaviour in a virtual reality setting allows segmenting and tracking encoding, visual search, working memory usage, and decision-making separately and reveals distinct effects of distraction on these subprocesses.","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00099-0.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141165082","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-24DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00092-7
Nicole C. Engeler, Nichola J. Raihani
Third-party punishment and helping can signal trustworthiness, but the interpretation of deliberation may vary: uncalculated help signals trustworthiness, but this may not hold for punishment. Using online experiments, we measured how deliberation over personal costs and impacts to targets affected the trustworthiness of helpers and punishers. We expected that personal cost-checking punishers and helpers would be trusted less. Conversely, impact deliberation was expected to increase the perceived trustworthiness of punishers but not helpers. Replicating previous work, we found that refraining from checking the personal cost of helping signals trustworthiness (although evidence for observers trusting uncalculating over calculating helpers was mixed). This did not extend to punishment: only uncalculating non-punishers were more trustworthy than cost-checking non-punishers. Impact deliberation results were mixed: deliberation affected the trust and trustworthiness of non-helpers more than helpers and no conclusive results were found for punishment. These results show that deliberation differentially affects assessments of those who help or punish others. The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 13th November 2023. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24559462.v1 . This Registered Report replicates the finding that not checking the personal cost of helping signals trustworthiness. However, in a third-party punishment setup, avoidance of cost-checking only increased trustworthiness in those who also do not punish.
{"title":"Acting without considering personal costs signals trustworthiness in helpers but not punishers","authors":"Nicole C. Engeler, Nichola J. Raihani","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00092-7","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-024-00092-7","url":null,"abstract":"Third-party punishment and helping can signal trustworthiness, but the interpretation of deliberation may vary: uncalculated help signals trustworthiness, but this may not hold for punishment. Using online experiments, we measured how deliberation over personal costs and impacts to targets affected the trustworthiness of helpers and punishers. We expected that personal cost-checking punishers and helpers would be trusted less. Conversely, impact deliberation was expected to increase the perceived trustworthiness of punishers but not helpers. Replicating previous work, we found that refraining from checking the personal cost of helping signals trustworthiness (although evidence for observers trusting uncalculating over calculating helpers was mixed). This did not extend to punishment: only uncalculating non-punishers were more trustworthy than cost-checking non-punishers. Impact deliberation results were mixed: deliberation affected the trust and trustworthiness of non-helpers more than helpers and no conclusive results were found for punishment. These results show that deliberation differentially affects assessments of those who help or punish others. The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 13th November 2023. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24559462.v1 . This Registered Report replicates the finding that not checking the personal cost of helping signals trustworthiness. However, in a third-party punishment setup, avoidance of cost-checking only increased trustworthiness in those who also do not punish.","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00092-7.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141096480","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-24DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00101-9
Communications Psychology celebrates the publication of the journal’s first two Stage-2 Registered Reports. We encourage researchers regardless of career stage to consider the format and highlight some considerations for PhD students and early career researchers.
{"title":"Reciprocating trust in Registered Reports","authors":"","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00101-9","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-024-00101-9","url":null,"abstract":"Communications Psychology celebrates the publication of the journal’s first two Stage-2 Registered Reports. We encourage researchers regardless of career stage to consider the format and highlight some considerations for PhD students and early career researchers.","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00101-9.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141096515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-24DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00093-6
Konstantin Offer, Dorothee Mischkowski, Zoe Rahwan, Christoph Engel
Why do people punish experienced unfairness if it induces costs for both the punisher and punished person(s) without any direct material benefits for the punisher? Economic theories of fairness propose that punishers experience disutility from disadvantageous inequality and punish in order to establish equality in outcomes. We tested these theories in a modified Ultimatum Game (N = 1370) by examining whether people avoid the urge to reject unfair offers, and thereby punish the proposer, by deliberately blinding themselves to unfairness. We found that 53% of participants deliberately ignored whether they had received an unfair offer. Among these participants, only 6% of offers were rejected. As expected, participants who actively sought information rejected significantly more unfair offers (39%). Averaging these rejection rates to 21%, no significant difference to the rejection rate by participants who were directly informed about unfairness was found, contrary to our hypothesis. We interpret these findings as evidence for sorting behavior: People who punish experienced unfairness seek information about it, while those who do not punish deliberately ignore it. The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 13 October 2023. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24559132.v1 . Players in the ultimatum game who deliberately choose to be ignorant about whether they received an unfair offer are more likely to accept unfair offers than participants who actively choose to know.
{"title":"Deliberately ignoring inequality to avoid rejecting unfair offers","authors":"Konstantin Offer, Dorothee Mischkowski, Zoe Rahwan, Christoph Engel","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00093-6","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-024-00093-6","url":null,"abstract":"Why do people punish experienced unfairness if it induces costs for both the punisher and punished person(s) without any direct material benefits for the punisher? Economic theories of fairness propose that punishers experience disutility from disadvantageous inequality and punish in order to establish equality in outcomes. We tested these theories in a modified Ultimatum Game (N = 1370) by examining whether people avoid the urge to reject unfair offers, and thereby punish the proposer, by deliberately blinding themselves to unfairness. We found that 53% of participants deliberately ignored whether they had received an unfair offer. Among these participants, only 6% of offers were rejected. As expected, participants who actively sought information rejected significantly more unfair offers (39%). Averaging these rejection rates to 21%, no significant difference to the rejection rate by participants who were directly informed about unfairness was found, contrary to our hypothesis. We interpret these findings as evidence for sorting behavior: People who punish experienced unfairness seek information about it, while those who do not punish deliberately ignore it. The Stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 13 October 2023. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24559132.v1 . Players in the ultimatum game who deliberately choose to be ignorant about whether they received an unfair offer are more likely to accept unfair offers than participants who actively choose to know.","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00093-6.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141096490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Psychological constructs are commonly quantified with closed-ended rating scales. However, recent advancements in natural language processing (NLP) enable the quantification of open-ended language responses. Here we demonstrate that descriptive word responses analyzed using NLP show higher accuracy in categorizing emotional states compared to traditional rating scales. One group of participants (N = 297) generated narratives related to depression, anxiety, satisfaction, or harmony, summarized them with five descriptive words, and rated them using rating scales. Another group (N = 434) evaluated these narratives (with descriptive words and rating scales) from the author’s perspective. The descriptive words were quantified using NLP, and machine learning was used to categorize the responses into the corresponding emotional states. The results showed a significantly higher number of accurate categorizations of the narratives based on descriptive words (64%) than on rating scales (44%), questioning the notion that rating scales are more precise in measuring emotional states than language-based measures. Using participants’ self-experienced emotions as ground truth, emotional states were more often categorized correctly using descriptive words analyzed with natural language processing as compared to traditional rating scales.
{"title":"Question-based computational language approach outperforms rating scales in quantifying emotional states","authors":"Sverker Sikström, Ieva Valavičiūtė, Inari Kuusela, Nicole Evors","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00097-2","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-024-00097-2","url":null,"abstract":"Psychological constructs are commonly quantified with closed-ended rating scales. However, recent advancements in natural language processing (NLP) enable the quantification of open-ended language responses. Here we demonstrate that descriptive word responses analyzed using NLP show higher accuracy in categorizing emotional states compared to traditional rating scales. One group of participants (N = 297) generated narratives related to depression, anxiety, satisfaction, or harmony, summarized them with five descriptive words, and rated them using rating scales. Another group (N = 434) evaluated these narratives (with descriptive words and rating scales) from the author’s perspective. The descriptive words were quantified using NLP, and machine learning was used to categorize the responses into the corresponding emotional states. The results showed a significantly higher number of accurate categorizations of the narratives based on descriptive words (64%) than on rating scales (44%), questioning the notion that rating scales are more precise in measuring emotional states than language-based measures. Using participants’ self-experienced emotions as ground truth, emotional states were more often categorized correctly using descriptive words analyzed with natural language processing as compared to traditional rating scales.","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00097-2.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141091667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-22DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00098-1
Daniel Redhead, Matthew Gervais, Kotrina Kajokaite, Jeremy Koster, Arlenys Hurtado Manyoma, Danier Hurtado Manyoma, Richard McElreath, Cody T. Ross
Formal theoretical models propose that cooperative networks can be maintained when individuals condition behavior on social standing. Here, we empirically examine the predictions of such models of positive and negative indirect reciprocity using a suite of network-structured economic games in four rural Colombian communities (Nind = 496 individuals, Nobs = 53,876 ratings/transfers). We observe that, at a dyadic-level, individuals have a strong tendency to exploit and punish others in bad standing (e.g., those perceived as selfish), and allocate resources to those in good standing (e.g., those perceived as generous). These dyadic findings scale to a more generalized, community level, where reputations for being generous are associated with receipt of allocations, and reputations for being selfish are associated with receipt of punishment. These empirical results illustrate the roles that both positive and negative reciprocity, and costly punishment, play in sustaining community-wide cooperation networks. Positive and negative reciprocity, and costly punishment play, a role in cooperation networks. Members of rural Colombian communities show a strong tendency to punish others perceived as selfish and allocate resources to those perceived as generous.
{"title":"Evidence of direct and indirect reciprocity in network-structured economic games","authors":"Daniel Redhead, Matthew Gervais, Kotrina Kajokaite, Jeremy Koster, Arlenys Hurtado Manyoma, Danier Hurtado Manyoma, Richard McElreath, Cody T. Ross","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00098-1","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-024-00098-1","url":null,"abstract":"Formal theoretical models propose that cooperative networks can be maintained when individuals condition behavior on social standing. Here, we empirically examine the predictions of such models of positive and negative indirect reciprocity using a suite of network-structured economic games in four rural Colombian communities (Nind = 496 individuals, Nobs = 53,876 ratings/transfers). We observe that, at a dyadic-level, individuals have a strong tendency to exploit and punish others in bad standing (e.g., those perceived as selfish), and allocate resources to those in good standing (e.g., those perceived as generous). These dyadic findings scale to a more generalized, community level, where reputations for being generous are associated with receipt of allocations, and reputations for being selfish are associated with receipt of punishment. These empirical results illustrate the roles that both positive and negative reciprocity, and costly punishment, play in sustaining community-wide cooperation networks. Positive and negative reciprocity, and costly punishment play, a role in cooperation networks. Members of rural Colombian communities show a strong tendency to punish others perceived as selfish and allocate resources to those perceived as generous.","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00098-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141091633","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-16DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00095-4
F. Katelynn Boland, Shai Davidai
Although researchers have argued that exposure to diverse views may help reduce political divisions in society, people often avoid discussing politics with ideologically opposed others. We investigate the avoidance of political conversations surrounding highly contested elections in Israel and the U.S. Specifically, we examine the relationship between people’s belief that politics is a zero-sum game and their tendency to avoid talking about politics with ideologically opposed others. In two studies conducted in the days leading up to their countries’ elections, we found that Israeli and American voters who view politics as zero-sum avoided political discussions with ideologically opposed others. Furthermore, zero-sum beliefs about politics statistically predicted the avoidance of political conversations through two distinct mechanisms: perceived conflict and a lack of receptiveness to opposing views. Finally, in a longitudinal design, we found that zero-sum beliefs about politics statistically and robustly predicted the avoidance of political conversation one week later. Israeli and US American respondents who hold zero-sum beliefs about politics were less willing to engage in cross-partisan discussions in the run up to the 2022 election for the Knesset (Israel) and the 2022 Mid Term U.S. elections (USA).
{"title":"Zero-sum beliefs and the avoidance of political conversations","authors":"F. Katelynn Boland, Shai Davidai","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00095-4","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-024-00095-4","url":null,"abstract":"Although researchers have argued that exposure to diverse views may help reduce political divisions in society, people often avoid discussing politics with ideologically opposed others. We investigate the avoidance of political conversations surrounding highly contested elections in Israel and the U.S. Specifically, we examine the relationship between people’s belief that politics is a zero-sum game and their tendency to avoid talking about politics with ideologically opposed others. In two studies conducted in the days leading up to their countries’ elections, we found that Israeli and American voters who view politics as zero-sum avoided political discussions with ideologically opposed others. Furthermore, zero-sum beliefs about politics statistically predicted the avoidance of political conversations through two distinct mechanisms: perceived conflict and a lack of receptiveness to opposing views. Finally, in a longitudinal design, we found that zero-sum beliefs about politics statistically and robustly predicted the avoidance of political conversation one week later. Israeli and US American respondents who hold zero-sum beliefs about politics were less willing to engage in cross-partisan discussions in the run up to the 2022 election for the Knesset (Israel) and the 2022 Mid Term U.S. elections (USA).","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00095-4.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140953265","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-09DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00094-5
Anthony S. Gabay, Andrea Pisauro, Kathryn C. O’Nell, Matthew A. J. Apps
There is an ever-increasing understanding of the cognitive mechanisms underlying how we process others’ behaviours during social interactions. However, little is known about how people decide when to leave an interaction. Are these decisions shaped by alternatives in the environment – the opportunity-costs of connecting to other people? Here, participants chose when to leave partners who treated them with varying degrees of fairness, and connect to others, in social environments with different opportunity-costs. Across four studies we find people leave partners more quickly when opportunity-costs are high, both the average fairness of people in the environment and the effort required to connect to another partner. People’s leaving times were accounted for by a fairness-adapted evidence accumulation model, and modulated by depression and loneliness scores. These findings demonstrate the computational processes underlying decisions to leave, and highlight atypical social time allocations as a marker of poor mental health. Across four experiments, participants chose to spend more time with partners who made fair offers; likewise, a poor social environment and low opportunity-costs led participants to stay with partners.
{"title":"Social environment-based opportunity costs dictate when people leave social interactions","authors":"Anthony S. Gabay, Andrea Pisauro, Kathryn C. O’Nell, Matthew A. J. Apps","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00094-5","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-024-00094-5","url":null,"abstract":"There is an ever-increasing understanding of the cognitive mechanisms underlying how we process others’ behaviours during social interactions. However, little is known about how people decide when to leave an interaction. Are these decisions shaped by alternatives in the environment – the opportunity-costs of connecting to other people? Here, participants chose when to leave partners who treated them with varying degrees of fairness, and connect to others, in social environments with different opportunity-costs. Across four studies we find people leave partners more quickly when opportunity-costs are high, both the average fairness of people in the environment and the effort required to connect to another partner. People’s leaving times were accounted for by a fairness-adapted evidence accumulation model, and modulated by depression and loneliness scores. These findings demonstrate the computational processes underlying decisions to leave, and highlight atypical social time allocations as a marker of poor mental health. Across four experiments, participants chose to spend more time with partners who made fair offers; likewise, a poor social environment and low opportunity-costs led participants to stay with partners.","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00094-5.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140895328","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-05-06DOI: 10.1038/s44271-024-00089-2
Laura G. E. Smith, Emma F. Thomas, Ana-Maria Bliuc, Craig McGarty
The term polarization is used to describe both the division of a society into opposing groups (political polarization), and a social psychological phenomenon (group polarization) whereby people adopt more extreme positions after discussion. We explain how group polarization underpins the political polarization phenomenon: Social interaction, for example through social media, enables groups to form in such a way that their beliefs about what should be done to change the world—and how this differs from the stance of other groups—become integrated as aspects of a new, shared social identity. This provides a basis for mobilization to collective action. Group polarization, a result of social interaction, can underpin political polarization—the division of society into groups. While intergroup conflict and hostility are possible outcomes of polarization, polarization as a mobilizing force for collective action can benefit marginalized groups.
{"title":"Polarization is the psychological foundation of collective engagement","authors":"Laura G. E. Smith, Emma F. Thomas, Ana-Maria Bliuc, Craig McGarty","doi":"10.1038/s44271-024-00089-2","DOIUrl":"10.1038/s44271-024-00089-2","url":null,"abstract":"The term polarization is used to describe both the division of a society into opposing groups (political polarization), and a social psychological phenomenon (group polarization) whereby people adopt more extreme positions after discussion. We explain how group polarization underpins the political polarization phenomenon: Social interaction, for example through social media, enables groups to form in such a way that their beliefs about what should be done to change the world—and how this differs from the stance of other groups—become integrated as aspects of a new, shared social identity. This provides a basis for mobilization to collective action. Group polarization, a result of social interaction, can underpin political polarization—the division of society into groups. While intergroup conflict and hostility are possible outcomes of polarization, polarization as a mobilizing force for collective action can benefit marginalized groups.","PeriodicalId":501698,"journal":{"name":"Communications Psychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00089-2.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140845003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：