Journal of Experimental Social Psychology最新文献

{"title":"In the pursuit of happiness: Attaining a greater number of high-status positions increases well-being but only in select groups","authors":"John Angus D. Hildreth","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104622","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104622","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In the pursuit of happiness, how does an individual's standing in each of their groups affect their well-being? In ten pre-registered studies of 3554 participants, I found that attaining a greater number of high-status positions increased well-being but only in select groups. In surveys of workers (Studies 1, S1 and S2) and student athletes (Study S3), well-being was significantly positively related to the number and proportion of high-status positions a person held in their <em>important</em> groups, i.e., those groups central to their identity, but was not related to the status they held in their unimportant groups, regardless of how status was measured. Holding high-status in important groups increased well-being because such positions bolstered individuals' self-esteem and increased their sense of acceptance in those groups but not because such positions enhanced their sense of power. Four experiments (Studies 2, S5, S6, and S7) utilizing random assignment and a year-long longitudinal study (Study 3) established the causal relationship between well-being and high-status across groups as well as the moderating role of the groups' importance. A field study of graduate students (Study S4) utilizing a round-robin design confirmed that well-being was positively related to graduate students' self-reported status as well as the status ratings they received from their peers in an important group but not in an unimportant group. Therefore, in the pursuit of happiness, individuals would be wise to focus their energy on attaining and maintaining high-status only in those important groups that are central to their identity.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 104622"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140823881","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}

{"title":"The effect of financial stress on inhibitory control and economic decisions","authors":"Bradley T. Hughes ,&nbsp;Rita M. Ludwig ,&nbsp;Kelly E. Robles ,&nbsp;Elliot T. Berkman","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104621","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104621","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Financial scarcity, both real and imagined, is associated with impaired executive functions and present-focused economic decisions. What is the mechanism that connects the lack of financial resources to these cognitive and behavioral effects? The present work will test the hypothesis that the experience of financial stress contributes to these deficits by reducing executive functions related to self-control and causing present-focused, real-world economic decisions. In a preliminary experiment (<em>N</em> = 215), we found support for the hypothesis that financial stress (as compared to social stress) causes a reduction in inhibitory control performance. In the registered study, we recruited participants (<em>N</em> = 1014) from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds and assessed inhibitory control before and after a financial stress manipulation, and economic preferences. The results did not support the hypothesis that momentary financial stress reduces inhibitory control or alters time preference. However, chronic financial stress was associated with reduced inhibitory control and VWM, and real-world economic decisions. Several interactions between SES and the effect of conditions highlight the relevance of a person's SES in the association between affective experiences and cognitive and behavioral responses. We discuss the implications of this work for future study of the association between SES, executive function, and economic decisions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 104621"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000337/pdfft?md5=d75e1d310cf0120a029922226e280950&pid=1-s2.0-S0022103124000337-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140818238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The spillover effect of mimicry: Being mimicked by one person increases prosocial behavior toward another person","authors":"Paweł Muniak ,&nbsp;Oliver Genschow ,&nbsp;Dariusz Dolinski ,&nbsp;Tomasz Grzyb ,&nbsp;Wojciech Kulesza","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104620","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104620","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>People have the automatic tendency to mimic their interaction partners. Mimicry theories propose that such mimicking behavior is beneficial for the mimicker as mimicked persons tend to like, trust and help the mimicker more. Yet an open question remains as to whether prosocial effects translate to parties other than the mimicker. To test for the presence of such a spillover effect, we ran two field experiments (total <em>N</em> = 460). In all experiments, participants interacted with an experimenter. The experimenter either verbally mimicked the participants or behaved naturally. Afterwards, either the experimenter or another person asked participants to donate to a charity. Across all experiments, our results indicate that irrespective of whether a donation request is made by the mimicker or another person, mimicry increases the likelihood to donate to a charity, but not the amount that participants are willing to donate. Bayesian analyses suggest that this effect is less strongly pronounced than assumed by previous research and theories.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 104620"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140645867","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}

{"title":"Religiosity predicts the delegation of decisions between moral and self-serving immoral outcomes","authors":"Alexa Weiss ,&nbsp;Matthias Forstmann","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104605","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104605","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Studies support an association between religious belief and prosocial behavior. Such <em>religious prosociality</em> has been attributed to fear of supernatural punishment and enhanced concern for a prosocial reputation and self-image. Hence, religious individuals may be more prone to pursue their self-interest indirectly, thereby averting personal responsibility. We conducted 12 studies (<em>N</em>_total = 4468) to examine whether religiosity predicts delegation in incentivized deception, dictator, and die-roll cheating games and in realistic scenarios. Participants could choose between an immoral (e.g., lying) and a moral, prosocial (e.g., honest/fair) option or leave this decision to another individual (the agent) who equally benefited from the immoral option. Across all studies, religiosity positively predicted delegation, even though participants could directly implement prosocial outcomes. Employing experimental manipulations of participants' interests, we found that the predictive effect of religiosity on delegation only emerged when participants could expect to benefit from the agent's decision, but not when they were not affected by it or could be harmed by it. At the same time, religiosity predicted prosocial decisions among non-delegating participants. Moreover, delegating participants felt less bad and responsible about their decisions and victims' outcomes. Taken together, these findings suggest that delegation is strategically employed by individuals who would otherwise act prosocially to pursue selfish interests while avoiding responsibility and blame. They further support the notion of religious prosociality as a multi-faceted, context-dependent phenomenon.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 104605"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140778917","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}

{"title":"Uncertainty, expertise, and persuasion: A replication and extension of Karmarkar and Tormala (2010)","authors":"Erik Løhre ,&nbsp;Subramanya Prasad Chandrashekar ,&nbsp;Lewend Mayiwar ,&nbsp;Thorvald Hærem","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104619","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104619","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>If you are trying to persuade someone, expressing your opinion with certainty intuitively seems like a good strategy to maximize your influence. However, Karmarkar and Tormala (2010) found that the effectiveness of this tactic depends on expertise. In three experiments, Karmarkar and Tormala found support for an incongruity hypothesis, whereby non-expert sources can gain interest and influence by expressing certainty, while expert sources can increase persuasion by expressing uncertainty. In this Registered Report, we conducted a high-powered (<em>N</em> = 1018) direct replication of Experiment 2 by Karmarkar and Tormala (2010). In a consumer behaviour context, the original study examined whether source expertise moderated the positive effect of source certainty on the persuasive impact of a restaurant recommendation. The present replication failed to find support for the incongruity hypothesis, <em>η</em>_p² = 0.00 [0.00, 0.02]: expressing certainty had a positive but non-significant effect for non-experts, <em>d</em> = 0.10 [−0.10, 0.34], and a positive effect for experts, <em>d</em> = 0.28 [0.03, 0.52]. Instead, the results supported the competing <em>confidence heuristic</em> hypothesis that expressed certainty would have a positive effect on persuasion, irrespective of source expertise, <em>d</em> = 0.18 [0.01, 0.36]. Extending the original work, we (1) controlled for the reason given for (un)certainty, and (2) examined need for closure as a potential individual difference moderator. The results indicated robust support for the confidence heuristic <em>d</em> = 0.25, [0.12, 0.37], but neither reason for (un)certainty nor need for closure moderated the effect as hypothesized. All materials, data, and code are available on: <span>https://osf.io/hbjyv/</span><svg><path></path></svg>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 104619"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000313/pdfft?md5=8234e9b0b3218c8ce87a65d11bab3ec6&pid=1-s2.0-S0022103124000313-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140618356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Revisiting the bounded generalized reciprocity model: Ingroup favoritism and concerns about negative evaluation","authors":"Yutaka Horita,&nbsp;Shun Hamada","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104618","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The bounded generalized reciprocity (BGR) model, grounded in reputation management, predicts that the motivation underlying ingroup favoritism (favoring one's own group over other groups) is driven by avoiding a negative reputation within one's own group. This research conducted two economic games with minimal groups in which reputational concerns (partners' knowledge of participants' group membership) were manipulated. We aimed to verify the replicability of the experimental results in support of the BGR model. A study (<em>N</em> = 394) using a dictator game (in which participants unilaterally determined their partners' payoffs) indicated the following: (1) participants were more likely to behave cooperatively with ingroup partners than with outgroup partners, regardless of whether their partners knew the participants' group membership; and (2) individual differences in fear of negative evaluation by others were not associated with cooperation toward the ingroup. Similar results were found in another study (<em>N</em> = 429) using a prisoner's dilemma game (in which participants' payoffs were determined by their partners). However, while sharing knowledge about group membership facilitated cooperation with the outgroup in the dictator game, no such tendency was observed in the prisoner's dilemma game. These findings suggest that concerns about a bad reputation may not play a relatively important role in ingroup favoritism, and that generosity toward outgroup members is influenced by the presence or absence of interdependence (i.e., whether the partner's behavior affects the participant's payoffs). This research proposes a reconsideration of the motivations behind cooperation within or between groups.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 104618"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140552449","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}

{"title":"Rude or just blunt? Honor, dignity, and spontaneous trait inferences from potentially offensive behaviors","authors":"Ceren Günsoy ,&nbsp;Irmak Olcaysoy Okten ,&nbsp;A. Demaske","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104617","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>To restore their reputation, people from honor cultures (e.g., U.S. South) are more likely than people from dignity cultures (e.g., U.S. North) to retaliate against conflict partners who insult them. If a conflict partner does not insult them, however, they are more polite than dignity culture individuals, so that they don't provoke the person unnecessarily. Previous research has not examined the implicit person perception phase in these interactions. In this research, we focused on spontaneous trait inferences (STIs) that people can make from others' potentially offensive behaviors. In four studies (<em>n</em> = 1126), we tested whether being from a U.S. honor or dignity culture or the endorsement of these values was associated with hostile and nonhostile STIs, and whether honor and dignity influenced the relationship between STIs and behavioral intentions. In Study 1 and 2, honor culture participants made both types of STIs, whereas dignity culture participants only made hostile STIs. Study 3 revealed a positive association between individual honor endorsement and nonhostile STIs. In Study 4, we replicated most of these results and also found a positive association between hostile STIs and confrontation intentions in the honor (but not dignity) group. These results suggest that people from honor (vs. dignity) cultures tend to make rather simultaneous inferences of hostile and nonhostile traits from potentially offensive behaviors and making spontaneous hostile inferences can be more consequential for them. This research highlights the complexity of culture's influence on interpersonal processes and can have implications for diverse social contexts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 104617"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140542516","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}

{"title":"To beckon or not to beckon: Testing a causal-evaluative modelling approach to moral judgment: A registered report","authors":"Cillian McHugh ,&nbsp;Kathryn B. Francis ,&nbsp;Jim A.C. Everett ,&nbsp;Shane Timmons","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104616","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104616","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Moral judgments are increasingly being understood as showing context dependent variability. A growing literature has identified a range of specific contextual factors (e.g., emotions, intentions) that can influence moral judgments in predictable ways. Integrating these diverse influences into a unified approach to understanding moral judgments remains a challenge. Recent work by Railton (2017) attempted to address this with a causal-evaluative modelling approach to moral judgment. In support of this model Railton presents evidence from novel variations of classic trolley type dilemmas. We present results from a pre-registered pilot study that highlight a significant confound and demonstrate that it likely influenced Railton's results. Building on this, our registered report presents a replication-extension of Railton's study, using larger more diverse samples, and more rigorous methods and materials, specifically controlling for potential confounds. We found that participants' judgments in sacrificial dilemmas are influenced by both direct personal force, and by whether harm occurs as a means or as a side-effect of action. We also show the relationship between a range of individual difference variables and responses to sacrificial moral dilemmas. Our results provide novel insights into the factors that influence people's moral judgments, and contribute to ongoing theoretical debates in moral psychology.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 104616"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103124000283/pdfft?md5=64c886f733e92422f57027ea21a78ac0&pid=1-s2.0-S0022103124000283-main.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140536277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Most people do not “value the struggle”: Tempted agents are judged as less virtuous than those who were never tempted","authors":"Ryan M. McManus ,&nbsp;Helen Padilla Fong ,&nbsp;Max Kleiman-Weiner ,&nbsp;Liane Young","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104615","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Do people judge those who overcome temptation as more virtuous than those who don't feel tempted in the first place? Because prior research provides conflicting answers to this question, the current paper uses an expanded set of methodological and statistical tools to solve this puzzle. First, we replicated results of prior research showing that agents who overcome temptation are seen as less virtuous than non-tempted agents, with 74–78% of people making this judgment. Second, we used participant-generated stimuli and one measure from each of two published papers to rule out stimulus and measurement sampling as explanations for the previous opposite effects. We replicated our original results: 72–75% of people judged agents who overcame temptation as less virtuous than non-tempted agents. Third, we investigated whether judgments were moderated by relationship context. Again, the majority of people judged agents who overcame temptation–that would harm strangers or close others–as less virtuous than non-tempted agents. Additionally, the following interaction effect was the most common (modal) pattern: While judging tempted agents as less virtuous than non-tempted agents within each relationship context, 39% of people judged agents who were tempted to act in a way that would harm close others as even less virtuous than those agents whose temptations would harm strangers. Together, these results provide a detailed moral psychological account of temptation by: resolving a puzzle in the literature, revealing moderation by relationship context, and documenting the pervasiveness of this effect across stimuli, measures, and persons.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 104615"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140328695","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}

{"title":"Judging the guilt of the un-guilty: The roles of “false positive” guilt and empathy in moral character perception","authors":"Danielle E. Wahlers,&nbsp;William Hart,&nbsp;Joshua T. Lambert","doi":"10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2024.104613","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>When people accidentally harm others, some theory anticipates that expressing normatively unexpected (“false positive”) guilt is socially functional because it signals a positive moral character and likability. Although previous evidence shows anticipated effects of false positive guilt on these outcomes, it is possible these effects result from perceiving aspects specific to empathy (vs. guilt). We address this possibility in three preregistered studies. Participants answered questions regarding their perceptions of agents of accidental harm. In Experiment 1 (<em>N</em> = 299), agents that expressed guilt (vs. no guilt) received higher moral character and likability ratings; mediation evidence suggested these effects resulted via perceptions that the agent experienced empathy-specific (e.g., concern, understanding), not guilt-specific (e.g., self-blame) sentiments; if anything, guilt-specific sentiments reduced some moral character evaluations. Experiment 2 (<em>N</em> = 503) was a conceptual replication with more ecologically valid methods; it provided similar conclusions. Experiment 3 (<em>N</em> = 653) crossed an agent's expression of guilt-specific sentiments (present vs. absent) with empathy-specific sentiments (present vs. absent). Main effects of empathy-specific sentiments on moral character and likability judgments were at least seven times larger than those attributed to guilt-specific sentiments. Additionally, when empathy-specific sentiments were expressed, the expression of guilt-specific sentiments had no positive effects on moral character and likability judgments; however, when empathy-specific sentiments were <em>not</em> expressed, the expression of guilt-specific sentiments enhanced some but not all moral character judgments. We discuss how our findings contribute to understanding the social benefits of expressing false positive guilt and cohere with some impression formation perspectives.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48441,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Social Psychology","volume":"113 ","pages":"Article 104613"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140135052","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}