Making All Right
Threats to personal control fuel similarity attraction
Anyi Ma et al.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 22 October 2024
Abstract:
We propose that experiencing a lack of personal control will increase people’s preferences for self-similar others and that this effect would be explained by a greater need for structure. Our hypotheses received support across 11 longitudinal, experimental, and archival studies composed of data from 60 countries (5 preregistered studies, N = 90,216). In an analysis of cross-country archival data, we found that respondents who indicated a lower sense of personal control were less likely to prefer to live with neighbors who had a different religion, race, or spoke a different language (Study 1). Study 2 found that participants who perceived lower (vs. higher) personal control indicated greater liking for coworkers who they perceived to be more self-similar across a wide range of characteristics (e.g., gender, personality). Studies 3a and 3b, two live-interaction experiments conducted in the United States and China, provided additional causal evidence for control-motivated similarity attraction. A causal experimental chain (Studies 4a to 4c) and a manipulation-of-mediation-as-a-moderator study (Study 5) provided evidence for the mediating effects of the need for structure. Study 6, a longitudinal study with Chinese employees, found that workers who reported perceiving a lower (vs. higher) sense of personal control preferred more self-similar coworkers, and this effect was mediated by a greater desire for structure. Finally, exploring downstream consequences, Studies 7a and 7b found that control-motivated similarity attraction was associated with a greater preference for homogenous (vs. diverse) groups. These findings highlight how the fundamental motive for personal control shapes the structure of social life.
Who Feels They Contribute to U.S. Society? Helping Behaviors and Social Class Disparities in Perceived Contributions
Ellen Reinhart, Rebecca Carey & Hazel Rose Markus
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts are less likely to believe they contribute to society. Helping others by giving one’s time is an important way of contributing to others that also varies with social class. Five studies (N = 7,326) investigated whether one source of the social class disparity in perceived contributions is a default model that considers helping distant others (i.e., bridging help, e.g., volunteering) as more of a contribution than helping close others (i.e., bonding help, e.g., caring for family members). In Study 1, Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts perceived they contribute less to society (i.e., self-perceived contributions, Part A) and believed others perceive them as contributing less (i.e., metaperceived contributions, Part B). Studies 2–4 provide evidence for a default model of social good: Americans across social class contexts and even helpers themselves perceived bridging help as more of a contribution than bonding help, in part, because bridging help is perceived as reflecting more choice to help. With a representative sample (Midlife Development in the United States), Study 5 finds that Americans in lower (vs. higher) social class contexts engaged in relatively less bridging help and more bonding help. However, bridging help served as a stronger pathway to feelings of contributing than bonding help did. Together, these studies suggest that people in lower social class contexts may experience a psychological inequality, in part, because some of the forms of help that are most accessible, familiar, and practiced are widely perceived as less of a contribution.
How Low Socioeconomic Status Hinders Organ Donation: An Extended Self Account
Yan Vieites & Chiraag Mittal
Journal of Consumer Research, forthcoming
Abstract:
Past studies find that lower socioeconomic status (SES) individuals are less likely to donate organs. Building on the extended self literature, we propose that this effect occurs in part because the body is more central to the sense of self of lower-SES individuals. We test our predictions across seven studies (N = 8,782) conducted in different countries (U.S. and Brazil) with qualitative, observational, and experimental data in controlled and field settings. Results show that lower-SES individuals ascribe a greater weight to their bodies in forming their self-concept, which reduces their willingness to donate organs. Consistent with this rationale, socioeconomic disparities in organ donation are attenuated when (a) conceptions of selfhood prioritize non-physical aspects (e.g., the mind) over physical aspects (e.g., the body), and (b) appeals emphasize organ donation as a means to extend one’s sense of self (e.g., “let yourselves live through others”). Overall, this research documents an unexplored psychological barrier to organ donation and provides insights into how donation rates can be increased among lower-SES individuals.
The Elite Global Citizen: How Wealth Shapes Cosmopolitan Identity and Charitable Intentions
Kunalan Manokara, Matthew Hornsey & Jolanda Jetten
European Journal of Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
In four studies, we provide the first empirical examination of how wealth relates to cosmopolitan identity and its consequences for charitable intentions. Study 1 demonstrated that wealth positively predicted cosmopolitan identity in a 60-nation dataset (n = 90,350). Study 2 replicated this finding with multi-item measures in the United States, India and Australia (total n = 861); self-esteem and self-efficacy accounted for this association. Study 3 demonstrated the mediating role of cosmopolitan identity in explaining the link between wealth and charitable intentions (n = 351). Study 4 provided causal evidence for these relationships by experimentally manipulating wealth perceptions in the United States and India (total n = 537). People who were made to feel wealthy (as opposed to poor) reported greater self-esteem and self-efficacy, which flowed through to heightened cosmopolitan identification, and finally to increased charitable intentions. Together, these studies suggest that structural economic realities may impose psychological barriers to cultivating global citizenship, hence implicating prosocial downstream consequences.
The Bigger the Problem the Littler: When the Scope of a Problem Makes It Seem Less Dangerous
Lauren Eskreis-Winkler, Luiza Tanoue Troncoso Peres & Ayelet Fishbach
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Across 15 studies (N = 2,636), people who considered the prevalence of a problem (e.g., 4.2 million people drive drunk each month) inferred it caused less harm, a phenomenon we dub the big problem paradox. People believed dire problems -- ranging from poverty to drunk driving -- were less problematic upon learning the number of people they affect (Studies 1–2). Prevalence information caused medical experts to infer medication nonadherence was less dangerous, just as it led women to underestimate their true risk of contracting cancer. The big problem paradox results from an optimistic view of the world. When people believe the world is good, they assume widespread problems have been addressed and, thus, cause less harm (Studies 3–4). The big problem paradox has key implications for motivation and helping behavior (Studies 5–6). Learning the prevalence of medical conditions (i.e., chest pain, suicidal ideation) led people to think a symptomatic individual was less sick and, as a result, to help less -- in violation of clinical guidelines. The finding that scale warps judgments and de-motivates action is of particular relevance in the globalized 21st century.
The existence of manual mode increases human blame for AI mistakes
Mads Arnestad et al.
Cognition, November 2024
Abstract:
People are offloading many tasks to artificial intelligence (AI) -- including driving, investing decisions, and medical choices -- but it is human nature to want to maintain ultimate control. So even when using autonomous machines, people want a “manual mode”, an option that shifts control back to themselves. Unfortunately, the mere existence of manual mode leads to more human blame when AI makes mistakes. When observers know that a human agent theoretically had the option to take control, the humans are assigned more responsibility, even when agents lack the time or ability to actually exert control, as with self-driving car crashes. Four experiments reveal that though people prefer having a manual mode, even if the AI mode is more efficient and adding the manual mode is more expensive (Study 1), the existence of a manual mode increases human blame (Studies 2a-3c). We examine two mediators for this effect: increased perceptions of causation and counterfactual cognition (Study 4). The results suggest that the human thirst for illusory control comes with real costs. Implications of AI decision-making are discussed.
Moral Judgment Is Sensitive to Bargaining Power
Arthur Le Pargneux & Fiery Cushman
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, forthcoming
Abstract:
For contractualist accounts of morality, actions are moral if they correspond to what rational or reasonable agents would agree to do, were they to negotiate explicitly. This, in turn, often depends on each party’s bargaining power, which varies with each party’s stakes in the potential agreement and available alternatives in case of disagreement. If there is an asymmetry, with one party enjoying higher bargaining power than another, this party can usually get a better deal, as often happens in real negotiations. A strong test of contractualist accounts of morality, then, is whether moral judgments do take bargaining power into account. We explore this in five preregistered experiments (n = 3,025; U.S.-based Prolific participants). We construct scenarios depicting everyday social interactions between two parties in which one of them can perform a mutually beneficial but unpleasant action. We find that the same actions (asking the other to perform the unpleasant action or explicitly refusing to do it) are perceived as less morally appropriate when performed by the party with lower bargaining power, as compared to the party with higher bargaining power. In other words, participants tend to give more moral leeway to parties with better bargaining positions and to hold disadvantaged parties to stricter moral standards. This effect appears to depend only on the relative bargaining power of each party but not on the magnitude of the bargaining power asymmetry between them. We discuss implications for contractualist theories of moral cognition and the emergence and persistence of unfair norms and inequality.
When Your Friend is My Friend: How Loyalty Prompts Support for Indirect Ties in Moral Dilemmas
Zachariah Berry & John Angus Hildreth
Organization Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
How are some criminals able to get away with wrongdoing for months or even years? Here, we consider the role of loyalty in facilitating networks of support for wrongdoers, examining whether the obligations of loyalty to direct ties (here, brokers) transfer through individuals’ social networks to their indirect ties, prompting them to support those indirect ties in moral dilemmas. Integrating research on brokering, loyalty, relational identity, and social norms, we propose that loyalty to a broker will prompt an individual to support an indirect tie accused of wrongdoing because loyalty activates one’s relational identity with the broker, which highlights the descriptive and relational injunctive norms associated with their role, leading them to view the broker’s request to support an indirect tie accused of wrongdoing as falling within the bounds of their loyalty-based obligations to the broker. Specifically, these norms reveal to the actor their benevolence-based trust in the broker, their value alignment with the broker, and relational concerns for not granting the broker’s request. We further demonstrate how a broker’s history of creating divisions between people moderates how the actor sees the broker and reduces their willingness to grant the request. Across 11 preregistered studies (n = 2,249) -- 10 experiments and a field study -- we found support for our hypotheses: the obligations of loyalty to brokers did indeed transfer to indirect ties accused of wrongdoing, regardless of the type of wrongdoing or strength of evidence presented against the accused.
Tipping the balance between fairness and efficiency through temporoparietal stimulation
Alexander Soutschek, Türkay Șahin & Philippe Tobler
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 15 October 2024
Abstract:
Maximizing the welfare of society requires distributing goods between groups of people with different preferences. Such decisions are difficult because different moral principles impose irreconcilable solutions. For example, utilitarian efficiency (maximize overall outcome across individuals) may need trade-off against Rawlsian fairness norms (maximize the outcome for the worst-off individual). We identify a brain mechanism enabling decision-makers to solve such trade-offs between efficiency and fairness using separate neuroimaging and sham-controlled brain stimulation experiments. As activity in the temporoparietal junction (TPJ) increases, people are more likely to implement the Rawlsian fairness criterion rather than efficiency or inequality concerns. Strikingly, reducing TPJ excitability with brain stimulation reduces the concern for fairness in fairness-efficiency trade-offs. Moreover, the reduced fairness concerns statistically relate to stimulation-induced reductions in perspective-taking skills as measured in a separate task. Together, our findings not only reveal the neural underpinning of efficiency-fairness trade-offs but also recast the role of TPJ in social decision-making by showing that its perspective-taking function serves to promote fairness for the worst-off rather than efficiency or equality.
The offline roots of online hostility: Adult and childhood administrative records correlate with individual-level hostility on Twitter
Stig Hebbelstrup Rye Rasmussen, Alexander Bor & Michael Bang Petersen
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 29 October 2024
Abstract:
Reducing hostility in social media interactions is a key public concern. Most extant research emphasizes how online contextual factors breed hostility. Here, we take a different perspective and focus on the offline roots of hostility, that is, offline experiences and stable individual-level dispositions. Using a unique dataset of Danish Twitter users (N = 4,931), we merge data from administrative government registries with a behavioral measure of online hostility. We demonstrate that individuals with more aggressive dispositions (as proxied by having many more criminal verdicts) are more hostile in social media conversations. We also find evidence that features of childhood environments predict online hostility. Time spent in foster care is a strong correlate, while other indicators of childhood instability (e.g., the number of moves and divorced parents) are not. Furthermore, people from more resourceful childhood environments -- those with better grades in primary school and higher parental socioeconomic status -- are more hostile on average, as such people are more politically engaged. These results offer an important reminder that much online hostility is rooted in offline experiences and stable dispositions. They also provide anuanced view of the core group of online aggressors. While these individuals display general antisocial personality tendencies by having many more criminal verdicts, they also come from resourceful backgrounds more often than not.