Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Tabea Springstein, Tammy English Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Academic AbstractThis paper aims to motivate research on emotion regulation success in naturalistic settings. We define emotion regulation success as achieving one’s emotion regulation goal and differentiate it from related concepts (i.e., maladaptive regulation and dysregulation). As goals vary across individuals and situations, it is insufficient to conceptualize emotion regulation success as maximizing positive affect and minimizing negative affect. Instead, emotion regulation success can be measured through novel approaches targeting the achievement of emotion regulation goals. In addition to utilizing novel data analytic tools (e.g., response surface analyses), future research can make use of informant reports and observing ambulatory behavior or physiology. Considering emotion regulation goals when measuring daily emotion regulation success has the potential to answer key questions about personality, development, and mental health.Public AbstractPeople differ in how they want to feel in daily situations (e.g., excited) and why they want to feel that way (e.g., to make others feel better), depending on factors such as culture or age. Although people manage their emotions to reach these goals, most research assessing emotion regulation success has not taken individual goals into account. When assessing if people successfully regulate their emotions, most research in daily life has been focused on whether people feel more positive or less negative. To help study emotion regulation success in a more thoughtful and inclusive way, we propose a new approach to conceptualizing emotion regulation success that incorporates individual differences in what motivates people to regulate and discuss future research directions and applications. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-09-20T09:59:09Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683231199140
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Martijn van Zomeren, Chantal d’Amore, Inga Lisa Pauls, Eric Shuman, Ana Leal Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Scientific AbstractWe review social-psychological evidence for a theoretically integrative and dynamic model of intergroup conflict escalation within democratic societies. Viewing individuals as social regulators who protect their social embeddedness (e.g., in their group or in society), the intergroup value protection model (IVPM) integrates key insights and concepts from moral and group psychology (e.g., group identification, outrage, moralization, protest) into a functional intergroup value protection process. The model assumes that social regulators are continuously looking for information diagnostic of the outgroup’s intentions to terminate the relationship with the ingroup, and that their specific cognitive interpretations of an outgroup’s action (i.e., as a violation of ingroup or shared values) trigger this process. The visible value-protective responses of one group can trigger the other group’s value-protective responses, thus dynamically increasing chances of conflict escalation. We discuss scientific implications of integrating moral and group psychology and practical challenges for managing intergroup conflict within democratic societies.Public AbstractThe 2021 Capitol Hill attack exemplifies a major “trigger event” for different groups to protect their values within a democratic society. Which specific perceptions generate such a triggering event, which value-protective responses does it trigger, and do such responses escalate intergroup conflict' We offer the intergroup value protection model to analyze the moral and group psychology of intergroup conflict escalation in democratic societies. It predicts that when group members cognitively interpret another group’s actions as violating ingroup or shared values, this triggers the intergroup value protection process (e.g., increased ingroup identification, outrage, moralization, social protest). When such value-protective responses are visible to the outgroup, this can in turn constitute a trigger event for them to protect their values, thus increasing chances of intergroup conflict escalation. We discuss scientific implications and practical challenges for managing intergroup value conflict in democratic societies, including fears of societal breakdown and scope for social change. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-09-05T08:12:07Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683231192120
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Jannis Kreienkamp, Laura F. Bringmann, Raili F. Engler, Peter de Jonge, Kai Epstude Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Academic AbstractOne of the key challenges to researching psychological acculturation is the immense heterogeneity in theories and measures. These inconsistencies make it difficult to compare past literature, hinder straightforward measurement selections, and stifle theoretical integration. To structure acculturation, we propose to utilize the four basic aspects of human experiences (wanting, feeling, thinking, and doing) as a conceptual framework. We use this framework to build a theory-driven assessment of past theoretical (final N = 92), psychometric (final N = 233), and empirical literature (final N = 530). We find that the framework allows us to examine and compare past conceptualizations. For example, empirical works have understudied the more internal aspects of acculturation (i.e., motivations and feelings) compared with theoretical works. We, then, discuss the framework’s novel insights including its temporal resolution, its comprehensive and cross-cultural structure, and how the framework can aid transparent and functional theories, studies, and interventions going forward.Public AbstractThis systematic scoping review indicates that the concept of psychological acculturation can be structured in terms of affect (e.g., feeling at home), behavior (e.g., language use), cognition (e.g., ethnic identification), and desire (e.g., independence wish). We find that the framework is useful in structuring past research and helps with new predictions and interventions. We, for example, find a crucial disconnect between theory and practice, which will need to be resolved in the future. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-08-12T06:19:11Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683231183479
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Karen R. S. Hamann, Marlis C. Wullenkord, Gerhard Reese, Martijn van Zomeren Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Social and ecological crises require people to act together, for instance, against climate change or social injustice. Psychological scholarship suggests that human agency, in terms of individuals’ self-efficacy and collective efficacy, plays a crucial role in motivating people to act for a better world. However, progress in this field and hence the utilization of its accumulated knowledge is hindered by manifold conceptualizations and operationalizations. We therefore identify key problems in how the concept of self-efficacy has evolved and been used in the domain of environmental protection and then present a conceptual solution: the triple-A framework. This framework organizes and integrates theoretical insights by differentiating which agents, actions, and aims are involved in assessments of efficacy. We then illustrate the framework’s broader application and highlight recommendations for improved measurement of self-efficacy beliefs. We further offer a research agenda on how human agency can be utilized to promote social and ecological aims.Public AbstractMany people do not act together against climate change or social inequalities because they feel they or their group cannot make a difference. Understanding how people come to feel that they can achieve something (a perception of self-efficacy) is therefore crucial for motivating people to act together for a better world. However, it is difficult to summarize already existing self-efficacy research because previous studies have used many different ways of naming and measuring it. In this article, we uncover the problems that this raises and propose the triple-A framework as a solution. This new framework shows which agents, actions, and aims are important for understanding self-efficacy. By offering specific recommendations for measuring self-efficacy, the triple-A framework creates a basis for mobilizing human agency in the context of climate change and social injustice. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-06-30T06:20:15Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683231178056
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Matthias S. Gobel, Yuri Miyamoto Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Social hierarchy is one fundamental aspect of social living, structuring interactions in families, teams, and entire societies. In this review, we put forward a cultural psychological approach to social hierarchy, positing that rank differences are embedded within larger cultural meaning systems, which shape how high rank is attained or conferred and how social hierarchy affords behavior and psychology. We then examine manifestations of hierarchy in two cultural meaning systems: Western and East Asian cultural contexts. Accumulating evidence on collective, interpersonal, and individual processes suggests cultural similarities in self-orientation but cultural differences in other-orientation of high-ranking individuals. Such literature reveal how thought and behavior within social hierarchies and cultural beliefs, values, and norms mutually constitute each other. We close with a discussion of how the present review is a stepping stone for future research and of remaining questions to further advance social hierarchy research across wider and more diverse cultural contexts.Public AbstractSocial hierarchy is one fundamental aspect of human life, structuring interactions in families, teams, and entire societies. In this review, we put forward a new theory about how social hierarchy is shaped by the wider societal contexts (i.e., cultures). Comparing East Asian and Western cultural contexts, we show how culture comprises societal beliefs about who can raise to high rank (e.g., become a leader), shapes interactions between high- and low-ranking individuals (e.g., in a team), and influences human thought and behavior in social hierarchies. Overall, we find cultural similarities, in that high-ranking individuals are agentic and self-oriented in both cultural contexts. But we also find important cross-cultural differences. In East Asian cultural contexts, high-ranking individuals are also other oriented; they are also concerned about the people around them and their relationships. We close with a call to action, suggesting studying social hierarchies in more diverse cultural contexts. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-05-25T07:11:58Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683231172252
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Suraiya Allidina, William A. Cunningham Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Social categorization is often framed as the antecedent to stereotyping, with perceivers rationally sorting the social world on the basis of perceptually salient categories before applying biased or motivated beliefs about those categories. Here, we instead suggest that the construction of social categories by individuals is itself subject to motivational influences, such that perceivers will attend to a given dimension of social categorization (e.g., race or gender) insofar as doing so fits within their motivations. Drawing from classic conceptualizations of social structure as the interplay of schemas and resources, we focus on how the motivations for shared schemas and for material benefits or resources may shape attention to social category dimensions. We outline the potential cognitive mechanisms through which these motivations may act on attention, before discussing the implications of this model for individual differences, conceptualizations of social categorization as rational information reduction, and prejudice reduction.Public AbstractSocial categories like race and gender often give rise to stereotypes and prejudice, and a great deal of research has focused on how motivations influence these biased beliefs. Here, we focus on potential biases in how these categories are even formed in the first place, suggesting that motivations can influence the very categories people use to group others. We propose that motivations to share schemas with other people and to gain resources shape people’s attention to dimensions like race, gender, and age in different contexts. Specifically, people will pay attention to dimensions to the degree that the conclusions produced from using those dimensions align with their motivations. Overall, we suggest that simply examining the downstream effects of social categorization like stereotyping and prejudice is not enough, and that research should look earlier in the process at how and when we form the categories on which those stereotypes are based. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-05-22T11:14:48Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683231172255
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Neil Hester, Eric Hehman Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Academic AbstractClothing, hairstyle, makeup, and accessories influence first impressions. However, target dress is notably absent from current theories and models of person perception. We discuss three reasons for this minimal attention to dress in person perception: high theoretical complexity, incompatibility with traditional methodology, and underappreciation by the groups who have historically guided research in person perception. We propose a working model of person perception that incorporates target dress alongside target face, target body, context, and perceiver characteristics. Then, we identify four types of inferences for which perceivers rely on target dress: social categories, cognitive states, status, and aesthetics. For each of these, we review relevant work in social cognition, integrate this work with existing dress research, and propose future directions. Finally, we identify and offer solutions to the theoretical and methodological challenges accompanying the psychological study of dress.Public AbstractWhy is it that people often agonize over what to wear for a job interview, a first date, or a party' The answer is simple: They understand that others’ first impressions of them rely on their clothing, hairstyle, makeup, and accessories. Many people might be surprised, then, to learn that psychologists’ theories about how people form first impressions of others have little to say about how people dress. This is true in part because the meaning of clothing is so complex and culturally dependent. We propose a working model of first impressions that identifies four types of information that people infer from dress: people’s social identities, mental states, status, and aesthetic tastes. For each of these, we review existing research on clothing, integrate this research with related work from social psychology more broadly, and propose future directions for research. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-03-23T10:20:30Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683231157961
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:David M. Silverman, R. Josiah Rosario, Ivan A. Hernandez, Mesmin Destin Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Academic AbstractPersonality and social psychology have historically viewed individuals’ systemically marginalized identities (e.g., as people of color, as coming from a lower-income background) as barriers to their success. Such a deficit-based perspective limits psychological science by overlooking the broader experiences, value, perspectives, and strengths that individuals who face systemic marginalization often bring to their societies. The current article aims to support future research in incorporating a strength-based lens through tracing psychology’s journey away from an emphasis on deficits among people who contend with systemic marginalization and toward three distinct strength-based approaches: the universal strengths, difference-as-strength, and identity-specific strengths approaches. Through distinguishing between each approach, we advance scholarship that aims to understand systemically marginalized identities with corresponding implications for addressing inequality. Strength-based approaches guide the field to recognize the imposed limitations of deficit-based ideologies and advance opportunities to engage in research that effectively understands and values systemically marginalized people.Public AbstractInequalities, including those between people from higher- and lower-income backgrounds, are present across society. From schools to workplaces, hospitals to courtrooms, people who come from backgrounds that are marginalized by society often face more negative outcomes than people from more privileged backgrounds. While such inequalities are often blamed on a lack of hard work or other issues within marginalized people themselves, scientific research increasingly demonstrates that this is not the case. Rather, studies consistently find that people’s identities as coming from groups that face marginalization in society often serve as a valuable source of unique strengths, not deficiencies, that can help them succeed. Our article reviews these studies to examine how future research in psychology may gain a broader understanding of people who contend with marginalization. In doing so, we outline opportunities for psychological research to effectively support efforts to address persistent inequalities. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-01-12T08:27:45Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683221145243
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Séamus A. Power, Tania Zittoun, Sanne Akkerman, Brady Wagoner, Martina Cabra, Flora Cornish, Hana Hawlina, Brett Heasman, Kesi Mahendran, Charis Psaltis, Antti Rajala, Angela Veale, Alex Gillespie Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Academic AbstractSocial psychology’s disconnect from the vital and urgent questions of people’s lived experiences reveals limitations in the current paradigm. We draw on a related perspective in social psychology1—the sociocultural approach—and argue how this perspective can be elaborated to consider not only social psychology as a historical science but also social psychology of and for world-making. This conceptualization can make sense of key theoretical and methodological challenges faced by contemporary social psychology. As such, we describe the ontology, epistemology, ethics, and methods of social psychology of and for world-making. We illustrate our framework with concrete examples from social psychology. We argue that reconceptualizing social psychology in terms of world-making can make it more humble yet also more relevant, reconnecting it with the pressing issues of our time.Public AbstractWe propose that social psychology should focus on “world-making” in two senses. First, people are future-oriented and often are guided more by what could be than what is. Second, social psychology can contribute to this future orientation by supporting people’s world-making and also critically reflecting on the role of social psychological research in world-making. We unpack the philosophical assumptions, methodological procedures, and ethical considerations that underpin a social psychology of and for world-making. Social psychological research, whether it is intended or not, contributes to the societies and cultures in which we live, and thus it cannot be a passive bystander of world-making. By embracing social psychology of and for world-making and facing up to the contemporary societal challenges upon which our collective future depends will make social psychology more humble but also more relevant. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-01-11T09:25:50Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683221145756
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Adam Stanaland, Sarah Gaither, Anna Gassman-Pines Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Academic AbstractManhood is a precarious social status. Under perceived gender identity threat, men are disproportionately likely to enact certain stereotype-consistent responses such as aggression to maintain their gender status. Yet less is known regarding individual variation in men’s threat responsiveness—that is, the psychological conditions under which one’s masculine identity is more or less “fragile.” We propose a novel model of masculine identity whereby masculine norm expectancy generates discrepancy within the self to the extent that rigid norms are internalized as obligational (actual-ought discrepancy) versus aspirational (actual-ideal discrepancy), which predict extrinsic versus intrinsic motivations to reduce these discrepancies, respectively. Under threat, then, extrinsic motivations predict externalized responses (e.g., aggression), and intrinsic motivations elicit internalized responses (e.g., anxiety, shame, self-harm). We also consider the conditions under which masculinity may be less fragile—for example, in contexts with less rigid expectations and among men who reject expectations—as pathways to mitigate adverse masculinity threat-related outcomes.Public AbstractIn many cultures, men prove their manhood by engaging in behaviors that harm themselves and others (e.g., violence, sexism, homophobia), particularly people from marginalized groups. Yet less is known about why some men are more likely than others to enact these masculinity-proving behaviors. The goal of our model is to specify certain conditions under which masculinities become “fragile” and elicit these responses when under threat. We start by describing the rigid expectations men experience—for example, that they are strong and tough. We propose that these expectations cause men to experience different forms of discrepancy within themselves that produce corresponding motivations to reduce these discrepancies. Under threat, motivations driven by others’ expectations elicit outward attempts to restore masculine status (e.g., aggression), whereas motivations driven by self-ideals cause internalized responses (e.g., shame, self-harm). We conclude by discussing how to reduce these discrepancies, such as mitigating the rigidity of and encouraging men’s resistance to masculinity expectations. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2023-01-04T07:01:55Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683221141176
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:James G. Hillman, Devin I. Fowlie, Tara K. MacDonald Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Academic AbstractIn the present review, we propose a theory that seeks to recontextualize various existing theories as functions of people’s perceptions of their consistency with those around them. This theory posits that people seek social consistency for both epistemic and relational needs and that social inconsistency is both negative and aversive, similar to the experience of cognitive dissonance. We further posit that the aversive nature of perceiving social inconsistency leads people to engage in various behaviors to mitigate or avoid these inconsistencies. When these behaviors fail, however, people experience chronic social inconsistency, which, much like chronic rejection, is associated with physical and mental health and well-being outcomes. Finally, we describe how mitigation and avoidance of social inconsistency underlie many seemingly unrelated theories, and we provide directions for how future research may expand on this theory.Public AbstractIn the present review, we propose that people find inconsistency with those around them to be an unpleasant experience, as it threatens people’s core need to belong. Because the threat of reduced belongingness evokes negative feelings, people are motivated to avoid inconsistency with others and to mitigate the negative feelings that are produced when it inevitably does arise. We outline several types of behaviors that can be implemented to avoid or mitigate these inconsistencies (e.g., validation, affirmation, distancing, etc.). When these behaviors cannot be implemented successfully, people experience chronic invalidation, which is associated with reduced physical and mental health and well-being outcomes. We discuss how invalidation may disproportionately affect individuals with minoritized identities. Furthermore, we discuss how belongingness could play a key role in radicalization into extremist groups. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-12-03T09:17:27Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683221138384
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Kurt Gray, Nicholas DiMaggio, Chelsea Schein, Frank Kachanoff Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Academic AbstractThe idea of “purity” transformed moral psychology. Here, we provide the first systematic review of this concept. Although often discussed as one construct, we reveal ~9 understandings of purity, ranging from respecting God to not eating gross things. This striking heterogeneity arises because purity—unlike other moral constructs—is not understood by what it is but what it isn’t: obvious interpersonal harm. This poses many problems for moral psychology and explains why purity lacks convergent and divergent validity and why purity is confounded with politics, religion, weirdness, and perceived harm. Because purity is not a coherent construct, it cannot be a distinct basis of moral judgment or specially tied to disgust. Rather than a specific moral domain, purity is best understood as a loose set of themes in moral rhetoric. These themes are scaffolded on cultural understandings of harm—the broad, pluralistic harm outlined by the Theory of Dyadic Morality.Public AbstractPeople are fascinated by morality—how do people make moral judgments and why do liberals and conservatives seem to frequently disagree' “Purity” is one moral concept often discussed when talking about morality—it has been suggested to capture moral differences across politics and to demonstrate the evolutionary roots of morality, especially the role of disgust in moral judgment. However, despite the many books and articles that mention purity, there is no systematic analysis of purity. Here, we review all existing academic articles focused on purity in morality. We find that purity is an especially messy concept that lacks scientific validity. Because it is so poorly defined and inconsistently measured, it should not be invoked to explain our moral minds or political differences. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-10-31T12:19:19Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683221124741
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Flora Oswald, Reginald B. Adams Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print. Social vision research, which examines, in part, how humans visually perceive social stimuli, is well-positioned to improve understandings of social inequality. However, social vision research has rarely prioritized the perspectives of marginalized group members. We offer a theoretical argument for diversifying understandings of social perceptual processes by centering marginalized perspectives. We examine (a) how social vision researchers frame their research questions and who these framings prioritize and (b) how perceptual processes (person perception; people perception; perception of social objects) are linked to group membership and thus comprehensively understanding these processes necessitates attention to marginalized perceivers. We discuss how social vision research translates into theoretical advances and to action for reducing negative intergroup consequences (e.g., prejudice). The purpose of this article is to delineate how prioritizing marginalized perspectives in social vision research could develop novel questions, bridge theoretical gaps, and elevate social vision’s translational impact to improve outcomes for marginalized groups.Public AbstractSocial vision research is a subfield of psychology and vision science which examines how people visually perceive social stimuli and what the downstream consequences of these perceptions are. Social vision work includes, for example, examination of how White people visually perceive racial minorities and how these perceptions lead to social categorizations of racial minorities as outgroups, and therefore contribute to behaviors such as stereotyping and prejudice. Social vision research has rarely prioritized the perspectives of marginalized group members. It therefore cannot fully explain the contributions of perception to intergroup relations, which are necessarily bidirectional. We offer a theoretical argument for diversifying understandings of social perceptual processes by centering marginalized perspectives to understand how people with marginalized identities see their social worlds. We believe that prioritizing these marginalized perspectives has the potential to contribute to the development of a psychological science with heightened capacity to improve the well-being of people with marginalized identities. Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review PubDate: 2022-10-11T01:02:05Z DOI: 10.1177/10888683221126582
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
