Benjamin A. Converse, Annabelle R. Roberts, Marie Hennecke, Ayelet Fishbach
We distinguish between goal‐specific value, which refers to the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits associated with a particular goal (“value derived from the goal”), and goal‐generic value, which refers to the benefits associated with having, pursuing, or completing a goal in general (“value derived from a goal”). Motivation theory and research have traditionally, if tacitly, sought to explain decision‐making (e.g., What to prioritize? How much to invest?) based on goal‐specific value. But several goal‐related decision regularities are not easily explained by accounting for goal‐specific value alone, such as online workers choosing a lower‐paying assignment (over a higher‐paying assignment) if it allows them to complete the last step in a sequence and college students electing to do more work sooner (rather than less work later) if it provides them closure. Accounting for goal‐generic value—such as the positive experiences of purpose, progress, closure, and accomplishment—offers additional insight into people's decisions. More generally, auditing goals in a way that accounts for both goal‐specific value and goal‐generic value is crucial for understanding goal pursuits.
{"title":"On the experience of goals: Differentiating goal‐generic value from goal‐specific value","authors":"Benjamin A. Converse, Annabelle R. Roberts, Marie Hennecke, Ayelet Fishbach","doi":"10.1111/spc3.70006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70006","url":null,"abstract":"We distinguish between <jats:italic>goal‐specific value</jats:italic>, which refers to the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits associated with a particular goal (“value derived from <jats:italic>the</jats:italic> goal”), and <jats:italic>goal‐generic value</jats:italic>, which refers to the benefits associated with having, pursuing, or completing a goal in general (“value derived from <jats:italic>a</jats:italic> goal”). Motivation theory and research have traditionally, if tacitly, sought to explain decision‐making (e.g., What to prioritize? How much to invest?) based on goal‐specific value. But several goal‐related decision regularities are not easily explained by accounting for goal‐specific value alone, such as online workers choosing a lower‐paying assignment (over a higher‐paying assignment) if it allows them to complete the last step in a sequence and college students electing to do more work sooner (rather than less work later) if it provides them closure. Accounting for goal‐generic value—such as the positive experiences of purpose, progress, closure, and accomplishment—offers additional insight into people's decisions. More generally, auditing goals in a way that accounts for both goal‐specific value and goal‐generic value is crucial for understanding goal pursuits.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142264857","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}
Although White allies attempt to support racial justice movements, their behaviors can be interpreted as performative rather than genuine by racially minoritized individuals. In the current work, I discuss how White individuals' personal connection to their racial identity and the power it confers—White identity form—shapes their allyship behaviors. Specifically, moving beyond conceptualizations of White identity as centrality, I call for a study of White identity that incorporates power‐relevant ideologies, understanding how White individuals make meaning of their unearned privilege and incorporate it into their self‐concept. I suggest that a power‐cognizant identity form, which involves personally connecting the self to Whiteness and unearned power, is necessary for White individuals to engage in genuine anti‐racist allyship. I discuss White identity measurement issues as well as potential interventions for promoting a power‐cognizant identity form.
{"title":"The role of White identity in anti‐racist allyship","authors":"Caitlyn Yantis","doi":"10.1111/spc3.70005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70005","url":null,"abstract":"Although White allies attempt to support racial justice movements, their behaviors can be interpreted as performative rather than genuine by racially minoritized individuals. In the current work, I discuss how White individuals' personal connection to their racial identity and the power it confers—<jats:italic>White identity form</jats:italic>—shapes their allyship behaviors. Specifically, moving beyond conceptualizations of White identity as centrality, I call for a study of White identity that incorporates power‐relevant ideologies, understanding how White individuals make meaning of their unearned privilege and incorporate it into their self‐concept. I suggest that a power‐cognizant identity form, which involves personally connecting the self to Whiteness and unearned power, is necessary for White individuals to engage in genuine anti‐racist allyship. I discuss White identity measurement issues as well as potential interventions for promoting a power‐cognizant identity form.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142264855","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}
Maintenance goals have a fundamental albeit understudied role in human motivation. From health to relationships, to personal possessions and the environment, the things people value require regular care. When maintaining a friendship, for instance, one may need to catch‐up regularly, share life updates and offer support, and occasionally make time to meet and spend time together. Distinct from the more commonly studied approach and avoidance goals, maintenance goals focus on sustaining current states over time, a process that has recently begun to attract increasing scholarly attention. This paper explores the construct of maintenance goals; It provides a comprehensive review of key findings and offers a novel perspective on the potential role of maintenance in individual and collective behavior, centering on topics such as well‐being, leadership, and group perceptions across different cultural contexts. By integrating theory with empirical evidence, this review underscores the necessity of incorporating maintenance goals into a broader psychological framework and recognizes their potential to inform interventions aimed at fostering resilience and stability in an ever‐changing world.
{"title":"The unseen pillar of behavior: A review of maintenance goals","authors":"Yael Ecker","doi":"10.1111/spc3.70003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70003","url":null,"abstract":"Maintenance goals have a fundamental albeit understudied role in human motivation. From health to relationships, to personal possessions and the environment, the things people value require regular care. When maintaining a friendship, for instance, one may need to catch‐up regularly, share life updates and offer support, and occasionally make time to meet and spend time together. Distinct from the more commonly studied approach and avoidance goals, maintenance goals focus on sustaining current states over time, a process that has recently begun to attract increasing scholarly attention. This paper explores the construct of maintenance goals; It provides a comprehensive review of key findings and offers a novel perspective on the potential role of maintenance in individual and collective behavior, centering on topics such as well‐being, leadership, and group perceptions across different cultural contexts. By integrating theory with empirical evidence, this review underscores the necessity of incorporating maintenance goals into a broader psychological framework and recognizes their potential to inform interventions aimed at fostering resilience and stability in an ever‐changing world.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142264858","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}
This paper critically examines the constructs of spiritual capital and spiritual entrepreneurship/entrepreneur. These concepts have recently become widespread in the social sciences and the psychology of the New Age, or the new spiritualities, and they are also increasingly present in business literature, organizational management, and personal improvement in managerial terms. From a critical social psychology position, the paper will consider the usefulness of these concepts in revealing how the field of spirituality currently seems to be a favoured space of governmentality and subjectivation for neoliberalism.
{"title":"Spiritual capital and spiritual entrepreneurship: The new spiritualities and the processes of subjectivation","authors":"Rodrigo Navarrete‐Saavedra, René Gallardo‐Vergara","doi":"10.1111/spc3.70004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70004","url":null,"abstract":"This paper critically examines the constructs of spiritual capital and spiritual entrepreneurship/entrepreneur. These concepts have recently become widespread in the social sciences and the psychology of the New Age, or the new spiritualities, and they are also increasingly present in business literature, organizational management, and personal improvement in managerial terms. From a critical social psychology position, the paper will consider the usefulness of these concepts in revealing how the field of spirituality currently seems to be a favoured space of governmentality and subjectivation for neoliberalism.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142264860","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}
Devin A. Heyward, Jennifer Ayala, Scarlett Guajala, Ash Madore, Maria Menes, Nico Pickett
In this piece, we grapple with the conditions of creating and sustaining liberatory, healing spaces connected to higher education, delivering our analysis through a fictive podcast format. We present three different scenes authored by undergraduates, tied together by common, intersecting threads of both struggle and resistance, community in/as healing amidst layered crises and traumas, and deep desires for universities to fulfill their potential as learning spaces of safety, structural critique and connection. We consider our individual and collective roles as faculty and program directors in these institutional settings, and the conditions that help and hinder opportunities for students to co‐construct or live into liberatory spaces. We also consider the threats to the sustainability and viability of these initiatives, as well as the disproportionate impact on minoritized students, staff, and faculty. These learnings are in line with research that highlights the importance of students' sense of safety and belonging, the role of student agency, and perspectives that position educators through the lens of accompaniment.
{"title":"Carving to excise, carving to create: Conversations on creating and sustaining safe spaces in higher education","authors":"Devin A. Heyward, Jennifer Ayala, Scarlett Guajala, Ash Madore, Maria Menes, Nico Pickett","doi":"10.1111/spc3.70001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70001","url":null,"abstract":"In this piece, we grapple with the conditions of creating and sustaining liberatory, healing spaces connected to higher education, delivering our analysis through a fictive podcast format. We present three different scenes authored by undergraduates, tied together by common, intersecting threads of both struggle and resistance, community in/as healing amidst layered crises and traumas, and deep desires for universities to fulfill their potential as learning spaces of safety, structural critique and connection. We consider our individual and collective roles as faculty and program directors in these institutional settings, and the conditions that help and hinder opportunities for students to co‐construct or live into liberatory spaces. We also consider the threats to the sustainability and viability of these initiatives, as well as the disproportionate impact on minoritized students, staff, and faculty. These learnings are in line with research that highlights the importance of students' sense of safety and belonging, the role of student agency, and perspectives that position educators through the lens of accompaniment.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142185651","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}
Individuals from different social groups form divergent legal punishment decisions about police officers engaged in altercations with civilians despite viewing the same visual evidence. We review empirical and archival data in the legal domain to offer four vision‐based moderators of polarized legal judgments determined after viewing evidence with a focus on research relevant to police‐civilian altercations. We discuss how selective visual attention, flittering and staring tendencies, differences in cognitive engagement, and visual confirmation bias contribute to divergent legal decisions within and across social groups. By incorporating visual experience into models of legal decision‐making, we reconcile inconsistencies regarding the impact of social group identity on bias in police punishment.
{"title":"Shielded perspectives: How visual attention moderates the link between social identity and biased judgments about police","authors":"Jennie Qu‐Lee, Emily Balcetis","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12994","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12994","url":null,"abstract":"Individuals from different social groups form divergent legal punishment decisions about police officers engaged in altercations with civilians despite viewing the same visual evidence. We review empirical and archival data in the legal domain to offer four vision‐based moderators of polarized legal judgments determined after viewing evidence with a focus on research relevant to police‐civilian altercations. We discuss how selective visual attention, flittering and staring tendencies, differences in cognitive engagement, and visual confirmation bias contribute to divergent legal decisions within and across social groups. By incorporating visual experience into models of legal decision‐making, we reconcile inconsistencies regarding the impact of social group identity on bias in police punishment.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141882267","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}
Rules serve many important functions in society. One such function is to codify, and make public and enforceable, a society's desired prescriptions and proscriptions. This codification means that rules come with predefined punishments administered by third parties. We argue that when we look at how third parties punish rule violations, we see that rules and their punishments often serve dual functions. They support and help to maintain cooperation as it is usually theorized, but they also facilitate the domination of marginalized others. We begin by reviewing literature on rules and third‐party punishment, arguing that a great deal of punishment research has neglected to consider the unique power of codified rules. We also argue that by focusing on codified rules, it becomes clear that the enforcement of such rules via third‐party punishment is often used to exert control, punish retributively, and oppress outgroup members. By challenging idealized theory of rules as facilitators of social harmony, we highlight their role in satisfying personal punishment motives, and facilitating discrimination in a way that is uniquely justifiable to those who enforce them.
{"title":"Cooperation, domination: Twin functions of third‐party punishment","authors":"Jordan Wylie, Ana Gantman","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12992","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12992","url":null,"abstract":"Rules serve many important functions in society. One such function is to codify, and make public and enforceable, a society's desired prescriptions and proscriptions. This codification means that rules come with predefined punishments administered by third parties. We argue that when we look at how third parties punish rule violations, we see that rules and their punishments often serve dual functions. They support and help to maintain cooperation as it is usually theorized, but they also facilitate the domination of marginalized others. We begin by reviewing literature on rules and third‐party punishment, arguing that a great deal of punishment research has neglected to consider the unique power of codified rules. We also argue that by focusing on codified rules, it becomes clear that the enforcement of such rules via third‐party punishment is often used to exert control, punish retributively, and oppress outgroup members. By challenging idealized theory of rules as facilitators of social harmony, we highlight their role in satisfying personal punishment motives, and facilitating discrimination in a way that is uniquely justifiable to those who enforce them.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141871019","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}
Alexandra Figueroa, Rachael Dailey Goodwin, Cheryl J. Wakslak
Addressing difficult, controversial, or sensitive issues with employees is a critical component of effective leadership, but discussing uncomfortable topics with subordinates can be daunting, even for those with structural power. Distinguishing between the structural power that supervisors hold, and their situationally felt personal sense of power, we consider here how a supervisor's personal sense of power relates to his or her inclination to confront, or to avoid, difficult conversations, as well as to offer social support in such contexts. Integrating a social role theory perspective, we further consider the role of gender. Across an initial study (N = 588), and a follow‐up replication study (N = 567), we show that personal sense of power predicts supervisor's inclination to confront (and not to avoid) difficult issues in the workplace, as well as to offer social support to the target of conversation. We also consider whether such effects vary across male and female supervisors, finding inconsistent results across studies. In Study 1a, we found that power had less of an effect on the avoidance and support intentions of women than men, such that women (but not men) were more likely to constructively confront the difficult issue head on as well as to offer support, even when they felt low in personal power. These effects did not emerge in Study 1b. However, in both studies, we find a main effect of gender on social support such that women were more likely to provide social support when confronting difficult issues. We speculate about reasons for this inconsistency, and further theorize about the role of personal sense of power and gender in explaining supervisor's engagement in difficult conversations.
{"title":"Who handles the tough talk? Supervisor sense of power and confronting difficult issues","authors":"Alexandra Figueroa, Rachael Dailey Goodwin, Cheryl J. Wakslak","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12991","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12991","url":null,"abstract":"Addressing difficult, controversial, or sensitive issues with employees is a critical component of effective leadership, but discussing uncomfortable topics with subordinates can be daunting, even for those with structural power. Distinguishing between the structural power that supervisors hold, and their situationally felt personal sense of power, we consider here how a supervisor's personal sense of power relates to his or her inclination to confront, or to avoid, difficult conversations, as well as to offer social support in such contexts. Integrating a social role theory perspective, we further consider the role of gender. Across an initial study (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 588), and a follow‐up replication study (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 567), we show that personal sense of power predicts supervisor's inclination to confront (and not to avoid) difficult issues in the workplace, as well as to offer social support to the target of conversation. We also consider whether such effects vary across male and female supervisors, finding inconsistent results across studies. In Study 1a, we found that power had less of an effect on the avoidance and support intentions of women than men, such that women (but not men) were more likely to constructively confront the difficult issue head on as well as to offer support, even when they felt low in personal power. These effects did not emerge in Study 1b. However, in both studies, we find a main effect of gender on social support such that women were more likely to provide social support when confronting difficult issues. We speculate about reasons for this inconsistency, and further theorize about the role of personal sense of power and gender in explaining supervisor's engagement in difficult conversations.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141871017","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}
Stefania Paolini, Jake Harwood, Mark Rubin, Jonathan Huck, Kevin Dunn, John Dixon
The benefits of positive intergroup contact for intergroup attitudes are well‐established. Yet individual and group self‐segregation practices demonstrate that opportunities for intergroup contact are not sufficient for contact uptake; and persistent institutionalized segregation reinforces and compounds this problem. Hence, we need to understand what drives people towards and away from intergroup contact and what consequences the capacity to deliberately engage or avoid contact has for individuals, groups, and communities. This paper formally introduces the concept of intergroup contact volition: our perceived personal control over intergroup contact engagement and avoidance. We demonstrate this concept's theoretical, political, and practical significance by highlighting its embeddedness in both old and recent literature. We document debates around volition in early intergroup contact research and note a prolonged neglect since. After discussing reasons for that neglect, we present a detailed analysis of the concept, outlining how the idea of volition itself is contested and political, as well as the ways it intersects with broader societal power and status dynamics. We then outline pathways for future research, including investigations of when taking volition away (making contact mandated) might be helpful, intersections between psychological and human geography perspectives on volition, and connections between volition and system justification. We argue that contact volition is intimately and ultimately linked to issues of social change: support of, versus resistance to, policies promoting intergroup integration. As a result, an enhanced understanding of volition is critical to developing intergroup contact research and practice into outcomes that maximize social justice.
{"title":"Reaching across social divides deliberately: Theoretical, political, and practical implications of intergroup contact volition for intergroup relations","authors":"Stefania Paolini, Jake Harwood, Mark Rubin, Jonathan Huck, Kevin Dunn, John Dixon","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12988","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12988","url":null,"abstract":"The benefits of positive intergroup contact for intergroup attitudes are well‐established. Yet individual and group self‐segregation practices demonstrate that opportunities for intergroup contact are not sufficient for contact uptake; and persistent institutionalized segregation reinforces and compounds this problem. Hence, we need to understand what drives people towards and away from intergroup contact and what consequences the capacity to deliberately engage or avoid contact has for individuals, groups, and communities. This paper formally introduces the concept of <jats:italic>intergroup contact volition</jats:italic>: our perceived personal control over intergroup contact engagement and avoidance. We demonstrate this concept's theoretical, political, and practical significance by highlighting its embeddedness in both old and recent literature. We document debates around volition in early intergroup contact research and note a prolonged neglect since. After discussing reasons for that neglect, we present a detailed analysis of the concept, outlining how the idea of volition itself is contested and political, as well as the ways it intersects with broader societal power and status dynamics. We then outline pathways for future research, including investigations of when taking volition away (making contact mandated) might be helpful, intersections between psychological and human geography perspectives on volition, and connections between volition and system justification. We argue that contact volition is intimately and ultimately linked to issues of social change: support of, versus resistance to, policies promoting intergroup integration. As a result, an enhanced understanding of volition is critical to developing intergroup contact research and practice into outcomes that maximize social justice.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141871025","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}
Rebecca Peretz‐Lange, Guadalupe D. S. Gonzalez, Yanine D. Hess
People may attribute social phenomena to either internal causes (e.g., people's ability, intelligence, effort, or personality) or external causes (e.g., people's circumstances, access to opportunities, treatment by others). In this review, we focus on external attributions, which have been widely characterized as positive because they help people view marginalized groups and rejected individuals sympathetically. We argue, however, that there exists an important actor‐observer distinction in the consequences of external attributions, giving them the potential to yield both positive and negative consequences: When observers attribute others' setbacks or rejections to external causes, this may help them adopt a sympathetic view. However, when actors attribute their own setbacks or rejections to external causes, this view may harm their mental wellbeing, motivation, or self‐concept. We identify this actor‐observer distinction in three domains: social disparities, social rejection, and academic setbacks. Finally, we discuss some implications of this actor‐observer difference and directions for future research.
{"title":"My circumstances, their circumstances: An actor‐observer distinction in the consequences of external attributions","authors":"Rebecca Peretz‐Lange, Guadalupe D. S. Gonzalez, Yanine D. Hess","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12993","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12993","url":null,"abstract":"People may attribute social phenomena to either internal causes (e.g., people's ability, intelligence, effort, or personality) or external causes (e.g., people's circumstances, access to opportunities, treatment by others). In this review, we focus on external attributions, which have been widely characterized as positive because they help people view marginalized groups and rejected individuals sympathetically. We argue, however, that there exists an important actor‐observer distinction in the consequences of external attributions, giving them the potential to yield both positive and negative consequences: When <jats:italic>observers</jats:italic> attribute <jats:italic>others'</jats:italic> setbacks or rejections to external causes, this may help them adopt a sympathetic view. However, when <jats:italic>actors</jats:italic> attribute <jats:italic>their own</jats:italic> setbacks or rejections to external causes, this view may harm their mental wellbeing, motivation, or self‐concept. We identify this actor‐observer distinction in three domains: social disparities, social rejection, and academic setbacks. Finally, we discuss some implications of this actor‐observer difference and directions for future research.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141871015","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}
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：