Search

When someone violates a social norm, others may think that some sanction would be appropriate. We examine how the experience of emotions like anger and disgust relate to the judged appropriateness of sanctions, in a pre-registered analysis of data from a large-scale study in 56 societies. Across the world, we find that individuals who experience anger and disgust over a norm violation are more likely to endorse confrontation, ostracism and, to a smaller extent, gossip. Moreover, we find that the experience of anger is consistently the strongest predictor of judgments of confrontation, compared to other emotions. Although the link between state-based emotions and judgments may seem universal, its strength varies across countries. Aligned with theoretical predictions, this link is stronger in societies, and among individuals, that place higher value on individual autonomy. Thus, autonomy values may increase the role that emotions play in guiding judgments of social sanctions., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Using data from 15 countries, this article investigates whether descriptive and prescriptive gender norms concerning housework and child care (domestic work) changed after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results of a total of 8,343 participants ( M = 19.95, SD = 1.68) from two comparable student samples suggest that descriptive norms about unpaid domestic work have been affected by the pandemic, with individuals seeing mothers' relative to fathers' share of housework and child care as even larger. Moderation analyses revealed that the effect of the pandemic on descriptive norms about child care decreased with countries' increasing levels of gender equality; countries with stronger gender inequality showed a larger difference between pre- and post-pandemic. This study documents a shift in descriptive norms and discusses implications for gender equality-emphasizing the importance of addressing the additional challenges that mothers face during health-related crises., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bribery, a grand global challenge, often occurs across national jurisdictions. Behavioral research studying bribery to inform anticorruption interventions, however, has merely examined bribery within single nations. Here, we report online experiments and provide insights into crossnational bribery. We ran a pilot study (across three nations) and a large, incentivized experiment using a bribery game played across 18 nations ( N = 5,582, total number of incentivized decisions = 346,084). The results show that people offer disproportionally more bribes to interaction partners from nations with a high (vs. low) reputation for foreign bribery, measured by macrolevel indicators of corruption perceptions. People widely share nation-specific expectations about a nation's bribery acceptance levels. However, these nation-specific expectations negatively correlate with actual bribe acceptance levels, suggesting shared yet inaccurate stereotypes about bribery tendencies. Moreover, the interaction partner's national background (more than one's own national background) drives people's decision to offer or accept a bribe-a finding we label conditional bribery.

This work investigates the perception of eight different mental disorders within the Stereotype Content Model (SCM). The presented study ( N  = 297) includes a sample representative for the German population in terms of age and gender. Results reveal distinct warmth and competence evaluations for people with different mental disorders, e.g., people with alcohol dependence were seen as less warm and less competent than people with depression or phobia. Future directions and practical implications are discussed., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Allstadt Torras, Scheel and Dorrough.)

Positive contact between members of different groups reduces prejudice and increases cooperation, findings known as intergroup contact effects. Yet in real-world settings not only positive, but also negative intergroup contact occurs, which have opposing effects. To date little is known about whether and how an individual's valenced history of intergroup contact influences contact effects and how this dynamic change happens during specific instances of intergroup contact. A pilot study examined the psychological impact of a novel paradigm to assess intergroup contact using a behavioral game. We then conducted two studies, which allowed us to observe a sequence of up to 23 in- and outgroup interactions and their behavioral outcomes in a continuous prisoner's dilemma behavioral game ( N = 116, 2,668 interactions; N = 89, 1,513 interactions). As expected, participants showed a clear ingroup bias in expectations and cooperation. Furthermore, the quality of contact history moderated contact effects. Specifically, intergroup contact following a positive history of intergroup contact had a stronger effect on intergroup expectations than contact following a negative history thereof. Findings are discussed in view of the importance of considering the valenced history of intergroup contact, as well as new research questions on intergroup contact that can be addressed with this novel contact paradigm. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

This paper presents three datasets (.csv) providing raw data of three surveys about self-reported behavior, attitudes, and emotions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Data for Study 1 comes from a German sample, while data for Study 2 and Study X come from U.S. samples. For each survey, data was collected online through different survey software. The surveys contained items concerning self-reported ambivalence (two measures) regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and preventive measures to reduce the spread of the coronavirus, self-reported adherence to these preventive measures, and sociodemographic variables. Data can be used for re-analyses and exploratory purposes and comparisons between German and U.S. citizens in the domain of adherence, attitudes, and emotions., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors.)

In this article, we outline the current state of research concerning cooperation in the cross-national context. We present several theoretical approaches and empirical findings regarding national differences in cooperation, as well as how cooperation may depend on the national background of the interaction partner. In addition, we discuss the influence of (national) group norms, cultural similarity, and ingroup membership. This review concludes with a call for research on cooperation to include more non-WEIRD nations and more systematically cover national background as one important social category determining the willingness to cooperate., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We investigate how men and women are evaluated in group discussions. In five studies ( N = 761) using a variant of a Hidden Profile Task , we find that, when experimentally and/or statistically controlling for actual gender differences in behavior, the female performance in a group discussion is devalued in comparison to male performance. This was observed for fellow group members (Study 1) and outside observers (Studies 2-5), in both primarily student (Studies 1, 4, and 5) and mixed samples (Studies 2 and 3), for different measures of performance (perceived helpfulness of the contribution, for work-related competence), across different discussion formats (preformulated chat messages, open chat), and when controlling for the number of female group members (Study 5). In contrast to our hypothesis, we did not find a moderating effect of selection procedure in that women were devalued to a similar degree in both situations with a women's quota and without.

Is there a 'more helpful' gender? The present research assessed gender differences in prosocial self-perceptions, prosocial behavioural intentions, and prosocial (transfer) behaviour in same- and other-gender interactions in 10 countries (N = 1,915). The present results showed negligible differences in the degree to which women and men saw themselves as prosocial. However, larger gender differences emerged in regard to prosocial behavioural intentions and prosocial (transfer) behaviours across different help contexts (i.e., same- vs. other-gender interactions). In a hypothetical work scenario, women reported greater prosocial behavioural intentions than men when the recipient of the help was of the same gender. In contrast, when the recipient of the help was of the other gender, men reported greater prosocial behavioural intentions than women. In addition, men transferred more than women to both same- and other-gender interaction partners in a prisoner's dilemma game. Taken together, the present findings suggest that there is no 'more helpful' gender. Instead, gender differences in prosociality are dynamic and contextual. Different theoretical perspectives are taken into consideration in discussing gender differences in the present research., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Psychological Society.)

In two pre-registered and fully incentivized studies ( N = 501), we investigate prosocial behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Based on a comparison with pre-pandemic data, Study 1 shows that individuals' general prosociality measured with a (context-independent) Social Value Orientation Slider changed significantly before vs. during the early stage of the pandemic towards increased prosociality. In addition, we identified pandemic-specific context factors for prosocial behavior measured by a series of Dictator games with different recipients. Allocations in the Dictator game increased with the giver's responsibility and the recipients' vulnerability to the virus. Study 2 replicates and extends this finding in a sample representative for the adult German population in terms of age and gender. We show that, for different actors (self, recipient, politicians), different dimensions of responsibility (responsibility to help, responsibility for the problem cause, and for the solution) are associated with prosocial behavior. Contrary to what could be expected from diffusion of responsibility, prosocial behavior increased not only when individuals themselves felt responsible to help but also when they perceived politicians to be responsible to help. Assigning responsibility for the cause of the COVID-19 crisis to recipients and politicians was associated with a decrease in prosocial behavior. However, responsibility for the solution had no influence. We discuss implications for public policies., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

In a comprehensive cross-national study involving samples from 12 different countries that were representative for the adult populations in terms of age and sex (N = 2,429), we found that women cooperate significantly less overall than men in fully incentivized one-shot prisoner's dilemma games. This gender gap in cooperation can be explained by the fact that women hold lower expectations regarding the cooperativeness of their anonymous interaction partners. These results contradict both the common stereotype that women are more communal, caring, emotionally expressive, and warm than men and substantial empirical evidence showing that women act more prosocially in many contexts., (© 2018 The British Psychological Society.)

To make decisions in probabilistic inference tasks, individuals integrate relevant information partly in an automatic manner. Thereby, potentially irrelevant stimuli that are additionally presented can intrude on the decision process (e.g., Söllner, Bröder, Glöckner, & Betsch, 2014). We investigate whether such an intrusion effect can also be caused by potentially irrelevant or even misleading knowledge activated from memory. In four studies that combine a standard information board paradigm from decision research with a standard manipulation from social psychology, we investigate the case of stereotypes and demonstrate that stereotype knowledge can yield intrusion biases in probabilistic inferences from description. The magnitude of these biases increases with stereotype accessibility and decreases with a clarification of the rational solution., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In a globalized world, establishing successful cooperation between people from different nations is becoming increasingly important. We present results from a comprehensive investigation of cross-societal cooperation in one-shot prisoner's dilemmas involving population-representative samples from six countries and identify crucial facilitators of and obstacles to cooperation. In interactions involving mutual knowledge about only the other players' nationalities, we demonstrate that people hold strong and transnationally shared expectations (i.e., stereotypes) concerning the cooperation level of interaction partners from other countries. These expectations are the strongest determinants of participant cooperation. Paradoxically, however, they turn out to be incorrect stereotypes that even correlate negatively with reality. In addition to erroneous expectations, participants' cooperation behavior is driven by (shared) social preferences that vary according to the interaction partner's nationality. In the cross-societal context, these social preferences are influenced by differences in wealth and ingroup favoritism, as well as effects of specific country combinations but not by spatial distance between nations., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

In two comprehensive and fully incentivized studies, we investigate the development of ingroup favoritism as one of two aspects of parochial altruism in repeated social dilemmas. Specifically, we test whether ingroup favoritism is a fixed phenomenon that can be observed from the very beginning and remains stable over time, or whether it develops (increases vs. decreases) during repeated contact. Ingroup favoritism is assessed through cooperation behavior in a repeated continuous prisoner's dilemma where participants sequentially interact with 10 members of the ingroup (own city and university) and subsequently with 10 members of the outgroup (other city and university), or vice versa. In none of the experiments do we observe initial differences in cooperation behavior for interaction partners from the ingroup, as compared to outgroup, and we only observe small differences in expectations regarding the interaction partners' cooperation behavior. After repeated interaction, however, including a change of groups, clear ingroup favoritism can be observed. Instead of being due to gradual and potentially biased updating of expectations, we found that these emerging differences were mainly driven by the change of interaction partners' group membership that occurred after round 10. This indicates that in social dilemma settings ingroup favoritism is to some degree dynamic in that it is enhanced and sometimes only observable if group membership is activated by thinking about both the interaction with the ingroup and the outgroup.