Personality and Social Psychology Review最新文献

{"title":"Second Thoughts About Culture and Cause: Why and How Do the Chinese and Americans Differ in Causal Attributions?","authors":"Xiaoyu Ge","doi":"10.1177/10888683251333453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251333453","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractCurrent theories on dispositional-situational attributions suggest that East Asians' attributions are more external compared to Westerners. However, empirical studies yield mixed findings. I reflect on historical, philosophical, and sociological resources in China and the United States to address this inconsistency. This paper (a) proposes a new attributional dimension borrowed from Chinese philosophy-human- versus heaven-determined (-); (b) postulates that the Chinese are more likely to make internal human-determined attributions than Americans, whereas Americans are more inclined to make internal and external heaven-determined attributions than the Chinese; (c) reviews the existing literature to examine the extent to which this theory is evidenced and determine aspects remaining untested; and (d) discusses the generalizability to other cultures and directions for further research. Notably, \"heaven-determined\" is interpreted metaphorically (not religiously). Beyond dispositional-situational theory, this paper spotlights another meaningful pathway for constructing cross-cultural theory: The Chinese emphasize human determinism more than Americans.Public AbstractWhy do I succeed or fail? Why do people help or harm others? Members of different cultures may provide different answers to such questions-known in psychology as \"causal attributions.\" A popular belief in psychology is that East Asians are more likely than Westerners to consider external factors-in other words, environmental/outside factors-as causes of behaviors and outcomes. In this paper, I challenge this prevailing theory and propose an alternative, drawing on cultural resources and social realities of China and the United States. When explaining why something happens, the Chinese may focus more on average than Americans do on internal causes determined by humans (e.g., effort, motivation, attitude, skill, and strategy), whereas Americans may focus more on average than the Chinese do on causes that are not determined by humans (e.g., aptitude, genes, gender, race/ethnicity, physiological characteristics, luck, and supernatural force). More research is needed to test this postulation.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"10888683251333453"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143893169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond Trolleyology: The CNI Model of Moral-Dilemma Responses.","authors":"Bertram Gawronski, Nyx L Ng","doi":"10.1177/10888683241234114","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241234114","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>How do people make judgments about actions that violate moral norms yet maximize the greater good (e.g., sacrificing the well-being of a small number of people for the well-being of a larger number of people)? Research on this question has been criticized for relying on highly artificial scenarios and for conflating multiple distinct factors underlying responses in moral dilemmas. The current article reviews research that used a computational modeling approach to disentangle the roles of multiple distinct factors in responses to plausible moral dilemmas based on real-world events. By disentangling sensitivity to consequences, sensitivity to moral norms, and general preference for inaction versus action in responses to realistic dilemmas, the reviewed work provides a more nuanced understanding of how people make judgments about the right course of action in moral dilemmas.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"32-80"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734360/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140111896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When People Do Allyship: A Typology of Allyship Action.","authors":"Lucy De Souza, Toni Schmader","doi":"10.1177/10888683241232732","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241232732","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>Despite increased popular and academic interest, there is conceptual ambiguity about what allyship is and the forms it takes. Viewing allyship as a practice, we introduce the <i>typology of allyship action</i> which organizes the diversity of ways that advantaged individuals seek to support those who are disadvantaged. We characterize <i>allyship actions</i> as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and proactive (fostering positive outcomes such as feelings of inclusion, respect, and capacity), both of which can vary in level of analysis (i.e., targeting oneself, one or a few other individuals, or institutions). We use this framework to profile six productive yet largely independent bodies of social psychological literature on social action and directly compare relative benefits and constraints of different actions. We suggest several future directions for empirical research, using the typology of allyship to understand when, where, and how different forms of allyship might succeed.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>Despite increased popular and academic interest in the word, people differ in what they believe allyship is and the forms it takes. Viewing allyship as a practice, we introduce a new way (the <i>typology of allyship action</i>) to describe how advantaged individuals seek to support those who are disadvantaged. We characterize <i>allyship actions</i> as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and proactive (increasing positive outcomes such as feelings of inclusion, respect, and capacity), both of which can vary in level (i.e., targeting oneself, one or a few other individuals, or institutions). We use this framework to profile six large yet mostly separate areas of social psychological research on social action and directly compare the relative benefits and limitations of different actions. We suggest several future directions for how the typology of allyship action can help us understand when, where, and how different forms of allyship might succeed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"3-31"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734359/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140066073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When Social Hierarchy, Power, and Collective Autonomy Motivate Social Movement and Counter-Movement Mobilization Among Disadvantaged and Advantaged Groups","authors":"Adrian Rivera-Rodriguez, Evelyn Mercado, Linda R. Tropp, Nilanjana Dasgupta","doi":"10.1177/10888683241305662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241305662","url":null,"abstract":"What happens when disadvantaged group members try to gain power in an attempt to protect their collective autonomy? The present integrative review outlines dynamic social processes and conditions under which efforts to restrict a group’s collective autonomy motivate social movement mobilization among disadvantaged groups to challenge social hierarchies that limit their power. This, in turn, threatens advantaged groups’ perceptions of their access to power and, by extension, their sense of collective autonomy, motivating them to reaffirm the existing social hierarchy by mobilizing counter-movements. We propose a theoretical model, called the Movement Mobilization Model of Collective Autonomy, to articulate these dynamic processes by integrating sociological, psychological, and organizational science literatures. The model specifies the conditions under which social movements and counter-movements are activated, psychological processes that drive action, how they play off each other, and offer directions for future research.Public AbstractWhat happens when disadvantaged groups feel that their freedom to define and practice their collective identity (i.e., collective autonomy) is restricted? The present theoretical review outlines the conditions under which social inequality activates the feelings of collective autonomy restriction among disadvantaged group members and motivates the mobilization of social movements seeking social equality. As these social movements gain traction, advantaged group members may feel that their privileged position and collective autonomy are threatened. These feelings of threat and collective autonomy restriction among advantaged groups in turn motivate them to mobilize counter-movements that seek to protect social hierarchy and their privileged position within it. The process outlined in this case is relevant to individuals from both marginalized and privileged backgrounds, as it illustrates the different ways in which real-world power structures shape the way they experience and navigate social movements and counter-movements as they unfold in real time.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"204 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142940164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond Good or Bad: The Four Evaluative Quadrants of Relationships","authors":"Francesca Righetti, Mirna Đurić, Iris Schneider","doi":"10.1177/10888683241302247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241302247","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractTraditionally, theoretical and empirical accounts have considered relationship evaluations along one single dimension ranging from positive to negative. However, in this theoretical work, we stress the importance of using a bi-dimensional conceptualization of relationship evaluations in which positive and negative dimensions can vary independently. In doing so, we describe the four evaluative quadrants experienced in relationships and outline their unique interpersonal processes and outcomes, both from the perspective of the person experiencing them (i.e., actor effects) and from the perspective of the recipient of such evaluations (i.e., partner effects) and considering both explicit (i.e., deliberative) and implicit (i.e., automatic) processes. We also provide a framework that predicts how relationship properties are likely to influence relationships evaluations, and we introduce the Trajectories of Relationship Evaluation Model (TREM) that describes changes in evaluations over time and the factors that influence such changes.Public AbstractThe way we evaluate other people has important implications for how we relate to others and for our psychological and physical health. However, previous research has mostly focused on positive or negative evaluations in relationships. But there are two other types of evaluations that people commonly experience in relationships: ambivalence and indifference. In this work, we argue that it is important to study all four different evaluative types in relationships (i.e., mostly positive, mostly negative, ambivalence, and indifference) because they each uniquely predict certain relationship dynamics and processes. We discuss the consequences of these different types of evaluations for the person who holds the evaluation and for the person who is the target of such evaluation, and we discuss how these evaluations affect both deliberative and automatic processes. Finally, we propose a model (TREM) of how relationship evaluations evolve over time and of the factors that influence the changes in evaluations.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142901606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Theoretical Model of Victimization, Perpetration, and Denial in Mass Atrocities: Case Studies From Indonesia, Cambodia, East Timor, and Myanmar.","authors":"Idhamsyah Eka Putra, Any Rufaedah, Haidar Buldan Thontowi, Annie Pohlman, Winnifred Louis","doi":"10.1177/10888683241239097","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241239097","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>The present article discusses victimization, perpetration, and denial in mass atrocities, using four recent case studies from Southeast Asia. The four cases include Indonesia (in which hundreds of thousands died in anti-Communist violence), Cambodia (in which the Khmer Rouge killed more than one million civilians), East Timor (in which more than one hundred thousand civilians died during the Indonesian occupation), and Myanmar (in which the state/army is accused of genocide toward the Rohingyas). Our aim is to bring a psychological lens to these histories, with a focus on three processes relevant to genocide. We examine, first, how the victims were targeted; second, how the perpetrators were mobilized; and third, the denial, justification, meaning-making, and commemoration of the atrocities. We propose a novel theoretical model, TOPASC: A Theory of the Psychology of Atrocities in Societal Contexts, highlighting the psychology of atrocities as involving factors across the macro, meso, and micro contexts.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>We introduce a new model, \"TOPASC: A Theory of the Psychology of Atrocities in Societal Contexts,\" to explain why people justify mass killings and why certain group members are consistently targeted. In our model, we explore how mass atrocities against specific groups are influenced by psychological dynamics in intergroup situations which, in turn, are shaped by socio-historical contexts and individual psychologies. To illustrate these ideas, we analyze four cases of mass atrocities in Southeast Asia: Indonesia, Cambodia, East Timor, and Myanmar. These cases highlight how different social groups, characterized by diverse ideologies, ethnicities, genders, or religions, exhibit varying vulnerabilities as perpetrators or victims based on their social and power status. Mass atrocities are not sudden occurrences but rather result from a series of complex processes and events.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"398-426"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140194845","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Being as Having, Loving, and Doing: A Theory of Human Well-Being.","authors":"Frank Martela","doi":"10.1177/10888683241263634","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241263634","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>Stronger theory on the nature of human well-being is needed, especially as well-being indicators are increasingly utilized in policy contexts. Building on Erik Allardt, who argued that a theory of well-being is, in essence, a theory of human nature, I propose four modes of existence each capturing one dimension central to human well-being: <i>Having</i> recognizes humans as biological creatures requiring certain material resources for survival. <i>Loving</i> captures human social nature and our dependence on others for well-being. <i>Doing</i> highlights the active and agentic nature of human existence. <i>Being</i> acknowledges humans as experiencing their existence. Each mode of existence gives rise to a few more specific needs, and a full assessment of human well-being requires both subjective and objective indicators tapping into these needs. The proposed theory integrates psychological well-being research with sociological and philosophical traditions and contributes to debates about how the progress of nations and sustainability should be measured.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>Well-being is something we all value individually, and it is also a key political goal. Accordingly, how we define and measure well-being influences what physicians, managers, policy-makers, politicians, and international organizations aim to improve through their work. Better theories of well-being make better measurement of well-being possible, which makes possible more effective and evidence-based advancement of human well-being. In this spirit, the present article argues that there are four fundamental dimensions to human well-being: <i>Having</i> highlights that as biological creatures, we have physical needs, <i>loving</i> highlights human social needs, <i>doing</i> highlights that we are active and agentic beings with goals and strivings, and <i>being</i> highlights that we feel and evaluate our lives. To assess well-being, we need measures tapping into all four of these dimensions. And to assess the <i>sustainability</i> of well-being, we need to examine how to provide well-being for all humanity while remaining within planetary boundaries.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"372-397"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11500488/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141761775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intergenerational Storytelling and Positive Psychosocial Development: Stories as Developmental Resources for Marginalized Groups.","authors":"Nic M Weststrate, Kate C McLean, Robyn Fivush","doi":"10.1177/10888683241259902","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241259902","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>We articulate an intergenerational model of positive psychosocial development that centers storytelling in an ecological framework and is motivated by an orientation toward social justice. We bring together diverse literature (e.g., racial-ethnic socialization, family storytelling, narrative psychology) to argue that the intergenerational transmission of stories about one's group is <i>equally</i> important for elders and youth, and <i>especially</i> important for groups who are marginalized, because stories provide a developmental resource for resistance and resilience in the face of injustice. We describe how storytelling activities can support positive psychosocial development in culturally dynamic contexts and illustrate our model with a case study involving LGBTQ+ communities, arguing that intergenerational storytelling is <i>uniquely</i> important for this group given issues of access to stories. We argue that harnessing the power of intergenerational storytelling could provide a culturally safe and sustaining practice for fostering psychosocial development among LGBTQ+ people and other equity-seeking populations.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>Understanding one's identity as part of a group with shared history and culture that has existed through time is important for positive psychological functioning. This is especially true for marginalized communities for whom identity-relevant knowledge is often erased, silenced, or distorted in mainstream public discourses (e.g., school curricula, news media, television, and film). To compensate for these limitations around access, one channel for the transmission of this knowledge is through oral storytelling between generations of elders and youth. Contemporary psychological science has often assumed that such storytelling occurs within families, but when families cannot or would not share such knowledge, youth suffer. We present a model of intergenerational storytelling that expands our ideas around who counts as \"family\" and how knowledge can be transmitted through alternative channels, using LGBTQ+ communities as a case example.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"351-371"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141789532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"“My Aim Is True”: An Attribution-Identity Model of Ally Sincerity","authors":"Charlotte E. Moser, Shaun Wiley","doi":"10.1177/10888683241273354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241273354","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractAdvantaged group allies have multiple motives for supporting equality, raising questions about their sincerity. We draw upon the covariation model of attributions to explain how disadvantaged group members make attributions about whether advantaged group “allies” are sincerely motivated to empower the disadvantaged group. We propose an Attribution-Identity Model of Sincerity (AIMS) which posits that disadvantaged group members view advantaged group members as sincere allies when they support equality in the presence of inhibitory causes and in the absence of facilitative causes, exceed expectations for the advantaged group, and provide support across time and contexts. Furthermore, those who identify strongly with their disadvantaged group and perceive intergroup inequality as illegitimate are most motivated to ascertain the sincerity of advantaged group members’ allyship. AIMS suggests how members of disadvantaged groups seek to maximize benefits and minimize risks of advantaged group members’ allyship.Public AbstractAdvantaged group members (e.g., men, White Americans) can act as allies for disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, Americans belonging to minoritized racial groups), but members of disadvantaged groups sometimes have reason to question whether their motives are sincere. We argue that members of disadvantaged groups view advantaged group allies as more sincere when they support equality when they do not stand to benefit from it and even when they stand to lose. We also argue that members of disadvantaged groups view advantaged group allies as more sincere when their support for equality goes beyond expectations for their advantaged group, consistently over time, and is not limited to particular situations, forms, or contexts. Members of disadvantaged groups like sincere allies, want to work with them, and feel safe around them. Sincere allies also serve as moral exemplars to other members of advantaged groups.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142235126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In the Mind’s Eye: Exploring the Relationship Between Visual Mental Imagery and Stereotyping","authors":"Benjamin E. Eisenstadt, Alfredo Spagna, Steven J. Stroessner","doi":"10.1177/10888683241273350","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241273350","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractHow do social stereotypes shape and reflect images formed in the mind’s eye? Visual mental imagery has long been assumed crucial in creating, maintaining, and perpetuating stereotypes and prejudice. Surprisingly, research in social cognition has only recently begun to explore the causal role of mental images in these phenomena. In contrast, cognitive neuroscience research on visual mental imagery (VMI) has explored the pivotal role of imagery in various consequential cognitive and behavioral phenomena. However, cognitive neuroscience has largely neglected how stereotypes influence mental imagery. This article provides a historical overview of the development of these two fields in terms of mental imagery and discusses recent advances at their intersection. Opportunities for additional integration are highlighted, and suggestions for furthering the dual study of stereotyping and mental imagery are provided.Public AbstractHow can social stereotypes impact and mirror visual imagination? It has long been assumed that visual mental imagery plays a central role in forming, maintaining, and strengthening stereotypes and prejudice. Yet, until recently, there has been limited exploration within social psychology and cognitive neuroscience on the explicit connection between visual mental images and social stereotypes. We describe the historical progression of these fields concerning visual imagery and explore recent advancements that unite stereotyping and mental imagery research. Furthermore, we propose avenues for future research to deepen our understanding of how individuals utilize mental images in stereotyping and how mental imagery can modify stereotypes.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142235127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}