A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

  Subjects -> SOCIAL SERVICES AND WELFARE (Total: 224 journals)
The end of the list has been reached or no journals were found for your choice.
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Journal Prestige (SJR): 4.302
Citation Impact (citeScore): 6
Number of Followers: 304  
 
  Full-text available via subscription Subscription journal
ISSN (Print) 0022-3514 - ISSN (Online) 1939-1315
Published by APA Homepage  [89 journals]
  • Partisan-motivated sampling: Re-examining politically motivated reasoning
           across the information processing stream.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: The United States is increasingly politically polarized, fueling intergroup conflict and intensifying partisan biases in cognition and behavior. To date, research on intergroup bias has separately examined biases in how people search for information and how they interpret information. Here, we integrate these two perspectives to elucidate how partisan biases manifest across the information processing stream, beginning with (a) a biased selection of information, leading to (b) skewed samples of information that interact with (c) motivated interpretations to produce evaluative biases. Across three experiments and four internal meta-analyses, participants (N = 2,431) freely sampled information about ingroup and outgroup members or ingroup and outgroup political candidates until they felt confident to evaluate them. Across experiments, we reliably find that most participants begin sampling information from the ingroup, which was associated with individual differences in group-based motives, and that participants sampled overall more information from the ingroup. This sampling behavior, in turn, generates more variability in ingroup (relative to outgroup) experiences. We find that more variability in ingroup experiences predicted when participants decided to stop sampling and was associated with more biased evaluations. We further demonstrate that participants employ different sampling strategies over time when the ingroup is de facto worse—obfuscating Real Group Differences—and that participants selectively integrate their experiences into evaluations based on congeniality. The proposed framework extends classic findings in psychology by demonstrating how biases in sampling behavior interact with motivated interpretations to produce downstream evaluative biases and has implications for intergroup bias interventions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Thu, 14 Apr 2022 00:00:00 GMT
       
  • The importance of being unearnest: Opportunists and the making of culture.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Opportunistic actors—who behave expediently, cheating when they can and offering minimal cooperation only when they have to—play an important role in producing some puzzling phenomena, including the flourishing of strong reciprocity, the peculiar correlation between positive and negative reciprocity within cultures of honor, and low levels of social capital within tight and collectivist cultures (that one might naively assume would produce high levels of social capital). Using agent-based models and an experiment, we show how Opportunistic actors enable the growth of Strong Reciprocators, whose strategy is the exact opposite of the Opportunists. Additionally, previous research has shown how the threat of punishment can sustain cooperation within a group. However, the present studies illustrate how stringent demands for cooperation and severe punishments for noncooperation can also backfire and reduce the amount of voluntary, uncoerced cooperation in a society. The studies illuminate the role Opportunists play in producing these backfire effects. In addition to highlighting other features shaping culture (e.g., risk and reward in the environment, “founder effects” requiring a critical mass of certain strategies at a culture’s initial stage), the studies help illustrate how Opportunists create aspects of culture that otherwise seem paradoxical, are dismissed as “error,” or produce unintended consequences. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Thu, 24 Mar 2022 00:00:00 GMT
       
  • What does it mean to be (seen as) human' The importance of gender in
           humanization.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: What does it mean to be (seen as) human' Ten studies explore this age-old question and show that gender is a critical feature of perceiving humanness, being more central to conceptions of humanness than other social categories (race, age, sexual orientation, religion, disability). Our first six studies induce humanization (i.e., anthropomorphism) and measure social-category ascription. Across different manipulations (e.g., having participants recall experiences, observe moving shapes, imagine nonhuman entities as people, and create a human form), we find that gender is the most strongly ascribed social category and the one that uniquely predicts humanization. To provide further evidence that gender is central to conceptions of personhood, and to examine the consequences of withholding it, we then demonstrate that removing gender from virtual humans (Study 5), human groups (Study 6), alien species (Study 7), and individuals (Study 8) leads them to be seen as less human. The diminished humanness ascribed to nongendered and genderless targets is due, at least in part, to the lack of a gender schema to guide facile and efficient sensemaking. The relative difficulty perceivers had in making sense of nongendered targets predicted diminished humanness ratings. Finally, we demonstrate downstream consequences of stripping a target of gender: Perceivers consider them less relatable and more socially distant (Study 8). These results have theoretical implications for research on gender, (de)humanization, anthropomorphism, and social cognition, more broadly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Thu, 10 Feb 2022 00:00:00 GMT
       
  • Affective contingencies of narcissism.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Several theories propose that narcissism is rooted in affective contingencies. Given narcissists’ focus on power, these contingencies should be strong in the power domain but not in the affiliation domain. We systematically investigated narcissists’ contingencies and explored whether these contingencies might link narcissism to social behavior. In a multimethod longitudinal study, we assessed unidimensional narcissism levels as well as two main narcissistic strategies: Admiration and rivalry. We measured 209 participants’ affective contingencies (i.e., affective responses to satisfying and frustrating experiences of power and affiliation) via self-reports (n = 207) and facial electromyography (fEMG, n = 201). In a 1-year follow-up, we observed participants’ power- and affiliation-related behaviors in the laboratory (valid n = 123). Results indicated that narcissism was linked to increased affective reactivity to power, and this pattern was present for both admiration and rivalry. Narcissism was unrelated to affective reactivity to affiliation, with an important exception: Individuals with higher levels of narcissistic rivalry exhibited decreased reactivity toward satisfactions and increased reactivity toward frustrations of affiliation. Results were more robust for self-reported than for fEMG-indexed reactivity. Although overall narcissism and narcissistic admiration were related to power-related behaviors 1 year later, affective contingencies did not generally account for these links. These findings inform why narcissists have a relatively strong power motive and why some narcissists high in rivalry have a relatively weak affiliation motive. More broadly, these findings provide insight into the affective contingencies underlying personality traits and call for research on the contexts in which these contingencies guide behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 00:00:00 GMT
       
  • Experiential learning of cultural norms: The role of implicit and explicit
           aptitudes.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: How should I greet her' Should I do what he requests' Newcomers to a culture learn its interpersonal norms at varying rates, largely through trial-and-error experience. Given that the culturally correct response often depends on conditions that are subtle and complex, we propose that newcomers’ rate of acculturation depends on not only their explicit aptitude (e.g., reasoning ability) but also their implicit aptitude (e.g., pattern recognition ability). In Studies 1–3, participants experienced a range of influence situations sourced from a foreign culture. Across many trials, they decided whether or not to comply and then received accuracy feedback (based on what a majority of locals indicated to be the appropriate action in each situation). Across the 3 studies, stronger implicit aptitude was associated with greater improvement from trial-and-error experience, whereas stronger explicit aptitude was not. In Studies 4–6, participants experienced a range of greeting situations from a foreign culture. Across many trials, implicit aptitude predicted experiential learning, especially under conditions that impede reasoning: multiple cues, subliminal feedback, or inconsistent feedback. Study 7 found that the predictiveness of implicit aptitude was weaker under a condition that impedes associative processing: delayed feedback. These findings highlight the important role of implicit aptitude in helping people learn interpersonal norms from trial-and-error experience, particularly because in real-life intercultural interactions, the relevant cues are often complex, and the feedback is often fleeting and inconsistent but immediate. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT
       
  • Positivity in peer perceptions over time: Personality explains variation
           at zero-acquaintance, popularity explains differential change.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: People have characteristic ways of perceiving others’ personalities. When judging others on several traits, some perceivers tend to form globally positive and others tend to form globally negative impressions. These differences, often termed perceiver effects, have mostly been conceptualized as a static construct that taps perceivers’ personal stereotypes about the average other. Here, we assessed perceiver effects repeatedly in small groups of strangers who got to know each other over the course of 2–3 weeks and examined the degree to which positivity differences were stable versus developed systematically over time. Using second-order latent growth curve modeling, we tested whether initial positivity (i.e., random intercepts) could be explained by several personality variables and whether change (i.e., random slopes) could be explained by these personality variables and by perceivers’ social experiences within the group. Across three studies (ns = 439, 257, and 311), personality variables characterized by specific beliefs about others, such as agreeableness and narcissistic rivalry, were found to explain initial positivity but personality was not reliably linked to changes in positivity over time. Instead, feeling liked and, to a lesser extent, being liked by one’s peers partially explained changes in positivity. The results suggest that perceiver effects are best conceptualized as reflecting personal generalized stereotypes at an initial encounter but group-specific stereotypes that are fueled by social experiences as groups get acquainted. More generally, these findings suggest that perceiver effects might be a key variable to understanding reciprocal dynamics of small groups and interpersonal functioning. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT
       
  • Policies and prejudice: Integration policies moderate the link between
           immigrant presence and anti-immigrant prejudice.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: More people than ever migrate across the world, thereby more people than ever live, study, and work in countries, regions, and institutions with high immigrant presence. Conflict and threat theories have argued that increasing immigration inevitably heightens native citizens’ anti-immigrant prejudice. Drawing on alternate strands of social psychological literature such as contact theory, the present study challenges this argument. We highlight the role of the sociopolitical context of prejudice focusing on socioeconomic and legal integration policies. We reason that such integration policies shape intergroup relations by reducing structural (socioeconomic and legal) inequalities. Thus, inclusive policies will effectively reduce prejudice especially at high levels of immigrant presence through empowering immigrants and reducing immigrant disadvantage. Indeed our findings identify inclusive integration policies as a key condition for low anti-immigrant prejudice in high-immigration contexts. We analyze surveys of 143,752 participants across 66 different countries, 20 subnational regions, and 64 institutions as sociopolitical contexts using six different data sets in eight studies. Our multilevel analyses consistently demonstrate that anti-immigrant prejudice is lower among natives when higher levels of immigrant presence are coupled with inclusive, rather than exclusive, integration policies. Inclusive policies that render immigrants more equal to natives are the path to improved intergroup relations and social cohesion in diverse societies. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT
       
  • Searching high and low for meaningful and replicable morphometric
           correlates of personality.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Recent personality neuroscience research in large samples suggests that personality traits tend to bear null-to-small relations to morphometric (i.e., brain structure) regions of interest (ROIs). In this preregistered, two-part study using Human Connectome Project data (N = 1,105), we address the possibility that these null-to-small relations are due, in part, to the “level” (i.e., hierarchical placement) of personality and/or morphometry examined. We used a Five-Factor Model framework and operationalized personality in terms of meta-traits, domains, facets, and items; we operationalized morphometry in terms of omnibus measures (e.g., total brain volume), and cortical thickness and area in the ROIs of the Desikan and Destrieux atlases. First, we compared the patterns of effect sizes observed between these levels using mixed effects modeling. Second, we used a machine learning framework for estimating out-of-sample predictability. Results highlight that personality–morphometry relations are generally null-to-small no matter how they are operationalized. Relatively, the largest mean effect sizes were observed at the domain level of personality, but the largest individual effect sizes were observed at the facet and item level, particularly for the Ideas facet of Openness and its constituent items. The largest effect sizes observed were at the omnibus level of morphometry, and predictive models containing only omnibus variables were comparably predictive to models including both omnibus variable and ROIs. We conclude by encouraging researchers to search across levels of analysis when investigating relations between personality and morphometry and consider prioritizing omnibus measures, which appear to yield the largest and most consistent effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:00:00 GMT
       
  • People attribute humanness to men and women differently based on their
           facial appearance.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Recognizing others’ humanity is fundamental to how people think about and treat each other. People often ascribe greater humanness to groups that they socially value, but do they also systematically ascribe social value to different individuals' Here, we tested whether people (de)humanize individuals based on social traits inferred from their facial appearance, focusing on attractiveness and intelligence. Across five studies, less attractive and less intelligent-looking individuals seemed less human, but this varied by target gender: Attractiveness better predicted humanness attributions to women whereas perceived intelligence better predicted humanness attributions to men (Study 1). This difference seems to stem from gender stereotypes (preregistered Studies 2 and 3) and even extends to attributions of children’s humanness (preregistered Study 4). Moreover, this gender difference leads to biases in moral treatment that confer more value to the lives of attractive women and intelligent-looking men (preregistered Study 5). These data help to explain how interpersonal judgments of individuals interact with intergroup biases to promote gender-based discrimination, providing greater nuance to the mechanisms and outcomes of dehumanization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 00:00:00 GMT
       
  • Collective deviance: Scaling up subjective group dynamics to superordinate
           categories reveals a deviant ingroup protection effect.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Six experiments examined responses to groups whose attitudes deviated from wider social norms about asylum and immigration (in the United Kingdom), or about taxation levels (in the U.S.). Subjective group dynamics (SGD) theory states that people derogate in-group individuals who deviate from prescriptive in-group norms. This enables members to sustain the subjective validity of those norms and, hence, a positive social identity. Research also shows that in-group deviants who accentuate the difference between the in-group and out-group norm (e.g., extremists) are derogated less than deviants who attenuate that difference (e.g., a member who veers toward the outgroup’s norm; Abrams et al., 2000). We hypothesize that these effects and the associated group dynamics should scale up when people evaluate deviant groups that are part of larger in-categories. Consistent with SGD theory, participants in Experiments 1, 2, and 3 derogated an in-category attenuating deviant group and upgraded an out-category attenuating deviant group relative to groups that consolidated or accentuated the respective norms of those categories—thereby reinforcing in-category norms relative to out-category norms. Across all experiments, this pattern of differential evaluation was associated with greater subjective validity of the in-category norm. We also hypothesized a novel Deviant Ingroup Protection (DIP) effect, wherein people should curtail derogation of an in-category deviant group when that group is their own. Consistent with this hypothesis, participants in Experiments 4, 5, and 6 evaluated an accentuating in-group, or an attenuating in-group, equally to or more positively than other in-category groups. Implications for political and organizational entrenchment are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 00:00:00 GMT
       
  • Equality for (almost) all: Egalitarian advocacy predicts lower endorsement
           of sexism and racism, but not ageism.

    • Free pre-print version: Loading...

      Abstract: Past research has assumed that social egalitarians reject group-based hierarchies and advocate for equal treatment of all groups. However, contrary to popular belief, we argue that egalitarian advocacy predicts greater likelihood to support “Succession”-based ageism, which prescribes that older adults step aside to free up coveted opportunities (e.g., by retiring). Although facing their own forms of discrimination, older individuals are perceived as blocking younger people, and other unrepresented groups, from opportunities—that in turn, motivates egalitarian advocates to actively discriminate against older adults. In 9 separate studies (N = 3,277), we demonstrate that egalitarian advocates endorse less prejudice toward, and show more support for, women and racial minorities, but harbor more prejudice toward (Studies 1 and 2), and show less advocacy for (Studies 3–6), older individuals. We demonstrate downstream consequences of this effect, such as support for, and resource allocation to, diversity initiatives (Studies 3–6). Further, we isolate perceived opportunity blocking as a critical mediator, demonstrating that egalitarian advocates believe that older individuals actively obstruct more deserving groups from receiving necessary resources and support to get ahead (Studies 4–6). Finally, we explore the intersectional nature of this effect (Study 7). Together this research suggests that when it comes to egalitarianism, equality for all may only mean equality for some. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)
      PubDate: Mon, 18 Jan 2021 00:00:00 GMT
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 3.239.4.127
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-