Search

The field of prosociality is flourishing, yet researchers disagree about how to define prosocial behavior and often neglect defining it altogether. In this review, we provide an overview about the breadth of definitions of prosocial behavior and the related concept of altruism. Common to almost all definitions is an emphasis on the promotion of welfare in agents other than the actor. However, definitions of the two concepts differ in terms of whether they emphasize intentions and motives, costs and benefits, and the societal context. In order to improve on the conceptual ambiguity surrounding the study of prosociality, we urge researchers to provide definitions, to use operationalizations that match their definitions, and to acknowledge the diversity of prosocial behavior.

OBJECTIVE: An effective vaccine against COVID-19 is a desired solution to curb the spread of the disease. However, vaccine hesitancy might hinder high uptake rates and thus undermine efforts to eliminate COVID-19 once an effective vaccine became available. The present contribution addresses this issue by examining two ways of increasing the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19.METHOD: Two preregistered online studies were conducted (N = 2,315 participants from the United Kingdom) in which knowledge about and beliefs in herd immunity through vaccination, as well as empathy for those most vulnerable to the virus, were either measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2). As a dependent variable, individuals' self-reported vaccination intention once a vaccine against COVID-19 became available was assessed.RESULTS: In Study 1 (N = 310), the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was correlated with knowledge about and belief in herd immunity through vaccination (r = .58, p < .001), as well as with empathy for those most vulnerable to the virus (r = .26, p < .001). In Study 2 (N = 2,005), information about herd immunity through vaccination (Cohen's d = .13, p = .003) and empathy (Cohen's d = .22, p < .001) independently promoted vaccination intention.CONCLUSIONS: The motivation to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was related to and could be causally promoted by both mere information about herd immunity through vaccination and by empathy. As such, the present research provides a better understanding of the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Past research on determinants of victim blaming mainly concentrated on individuals’ just-world beliefs as motivational process underlying this harsh reaction to others’ suffering. The present work provides novel insights regarding underlying affective processes by showing how individuals prone to derive pleasure from others’ suffering—individuals high in everyday sadism—engage in victim blaming due to increased sadistic pleasure and reduced empathic concern they experience. Results of three cross-sectional studies and one ambulatory assessment study applying online experience sampling method (ESM; overall N = 2,653) document this association. Importantly, the relation emerged over and above the HEXACO personality model (Study 1a), and other so-called dark traits (Study 1b), across different cultural backgrounds (Study 1c), and also when sampling from a population of individuals frequently confronted with victim-perpetrator constellations: police officers (Study 1d). Studies 2 and 3 highlight a significant behavioral correlate of victim blaming: Everyday sadism is related to reduced willingness to engage in effortful cognitive activity as individuals high (vs. low) in everyday sadism recall less information regarding victim-perpetrator constellations of sexual assault. Results obtained in the ESM study (Study 4) indicate that the relation of everyday sadism, sadistic pleasure, and victim blaming holds in everyday life and is not significantly moderated by interpersonal closeness to the blamed victim or impactfulness of the incident. Overall, the present paper extends our understanding of what determines innocent victims’ derogation and highlights emotional mechanisms, societal relevance and generalizability of the observed associations beyond the laboratory.

Schools can be a place of both love and of cruelty. We examined one type of cruelty that occurs in the school context: sadism, that is, harming others for pleasure. Primarily, we proposed and tested whether boredom plays a crucial role in the emergence of sadistic actions at school. In two well-powered studies (N = 1038; student age range = 10-18 years) using both self- and peer-reports of students' boredom levels and their sadistic tendencies, we first document that sadistic behavior occurs at school, although at a low level. We further show that those students who are more often bored at school are more likely to engage in sadistic actions (overall r = .36, 95% CI [0.24, 0.49]). In sum, the present work contributes to a better understanding of sadism in schools and points to boredom as one potential motivator. We discuss how reducing boredom might help to prevent sadistic tendencies at schools.

The development of partially and highly autonomous vehicles that take over parts of the driving task will result in changes in e.g. the responsibilities, interface and system design, task allocation and communication between driver and automated vehicle. To support this change and the increasing space of cooperative possibilities between driver and vehicle, generally accepted design principles and preconditions for successful driver-vehicle cooperation (Directability, Mutual Predictability, Joint Goals and Mutual Task-Dependency) were defined. However, research lacks validated scales measuring the proposed basic principles of driver-vehicle cooperation. Furthermore, a theory is missing that links those basic principles with a theory that enables an understanding of the influence of drivers' perception of the autonomous vehicle and context on driver-vehicle cooperation. Therefore, this work links the basic theoretical principles of driver-vehicle cooperation with the social psychological Theory of Interdependence and their dimensions (Conflict, Power, Mutual Dependence, Information Certainty, Future Interdependence). Filling the gap of missing validated scales for the principles of driver-vehicle cooperation, this study provides the development and validation of the Human-Machine-Interaction-Interdependence (HMII) questionnaire. In two studies, the new HMII questionnaire to measure drivers' perception in driver-vehicle cooperation was developed. In the first study (n = 94), items for the perception of the situation were transferred from the original Theory of Interdependence to the driver-vehicle cooperation. A 7-dimension model was identified via Explorative Factor Analysis. In the second study (n = 314), the model and items were validated via confirmatory factor analysis. A seven-factor model (Power, Conflict, Mutual Dependence Information Certainty: System to Human, Information Certainty (two levels) Future Interdependence (two levels) with 33 items showed a good fit to the data, chi2 = 841, p 2 = 1.77, SRMR = 0.071. In sum, this questionnaire can help designers evaluate the impact of their system designs on driver perceptions of the driver-vehicle cooperation.

In social dilemmas, asymmetric opportunities among actors can aggravate the conflict between individual and collective interests. We examine if and under what conditions redistributing extraction opportunities symmetrically fosters sustainable resource consumption. Participants in two studies (total n=640) completed a common resource game, first under asymmetric distribution of extraction opportunities (i.e., two advantaged group members could extract more than two disadvantaged group members) and then under symmetric distribution (i.e., all group members could extract the same amount). Advantaged (vs. disadvantaged) individuals took more from the resource in the asymmetric game and voted more often for the maintenance of the asymmetric system. Consumption was overall not more sustainable under symmetric (vs. asymmetric) distribution. We did not find evidence that these effects depend on the legitimacy of status positions. Of note, the symmetric game elicited higher satisfaction and fairness ratings in both status groups. The findings demonstrate how unequal access to resources fosters unequal consumption despite broad support for symmetry as the fairer system.

Meta-analytical findings suggested a positive link between trait mindfulness and prosociality. However, most correlational studies on mindfulness and prosociality have relied on self-report measures. The present work aimed to address this serious limitation by investigating actual prosocial behavior. We further focused on mindfulness as a multi-dimensional personality trait to disentangle effects of different mindfulness aspects. In addition, we tested whether the relation between trait mindfulness and prosocial behavior emerges under a theoretical meaningful experimental boundary condition (i.e., feelings of guilt). In two studies (using four different samples; N = 1240), we did not find support for a positive link between trait mindfulness and (a) charitable donation and (b) behavior in an incentivized economic game, respectively. Evidence for manipulated guilt-level as a moderator was inconclusive. Taken together, the findings point to a more complex role of trait mindfulness for prosocial behavior. Limitations and ideas for further research are discussed.

Terror management theory postulates that mortality salience (MS) increases the motivation to defend one’s cultural worldviews. How that motivation is expressed may depend on the social norm that is momentarily salient. Meta-analyses were conducted on studies that manipulated MS and social norm salience. Results based on 64 effect sizes for the hypothesized interaction between MS and norm salience revealed a small-to-medium effect of g = 0.34, 95% confidence interval [0.26, 0.41]. Bias-adjustment techniques suggested the presence of publication bias and/or the exploitation of researcher degrees of freedom and arrived at smaller effect size estimates for the hypothesized interaction, in several cases reducing the effect to nonsignificance (range gcorrected = −0.36 to 0.15). To increase confidence in the idea that MS and norm salience interact to influence behavior, preregistered, high-powered experiments using validated norm salience manipulations are necessary. Concomitantly, more specific theorizing is needed to identify reliable boundary conditions of the effect.

Cooperation—although typically connoted with prosocial behaviour—plays a crucial role in facilitating bribery. Herein, we ask (i) whether emphasizing the cooperative aspect of bribery (i.e., using cooperation framing) increases bribery, and (ii) who is most likely to be corrupted by cooperation framing, considering people’s personality. We suggest a well-powered study (N = 5,500) testing whether cooperation (vs. neutral and bribery, respectively) framing increases bribery engagement in a bribery game, and, if so, whether this is the case for cooperative individuals in particular—i.e., people with higher levels of the basic trait of Honesty-Humility. Supporting this idea, we present a Pilot Study (N = 796) showing that (1) cooperation (vs. bribery) framing increased the probability of offering and accepting bribes by 119% and 85%, respectively, and that (2) cooperation (vs. bribery) framing increased the probability of offering and accepting bribes among participants with higher, but not lower, levels of Honesty-Humility.

Does the basic trait Honesty-Humility predict the type of moral concerns people express in language? We explore whether Honesty-Humility relates to the expression of five moral concerns in language—namely, care/harm, justice/fairness, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation—as conceptualized by the Moral Foundations Theory. Using Natural Language Processing, we screened 17,217 (un)ethical justifications—i.e., reasons for behaving (un)ethically—for the presence of the five moral concerns (N = 901). We found that Honesty-Humility related positively to justice/fairness concerns, but it did not relate to care/harm, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation concerns. Our findings thus suggest that justice/fairness concerns might serve as one of the mechanisms relating Honesty-Humility to anti- and prosocial behavior.

People differ fundamentally in their propensity to engage in bribery. Herein, we tested the effects of inequality of (monetary) resources between bribers (individuals who can offer bribes) and bribees (individuals who might receive bribes) on bribery. We implemented a bribery game where bribers and bribees could engage in bribery to benefit themselves at the cost of others. To manipulate resource inequality, we allocated each briber with a high or a low endowment (resulting in “rich” and “poor” bribers) and matched them with a bribee who received either a high or a low endowment (resulting in “rich” and “poor” bribees). In a large-scale pre-registered study (N = 2,401), we found that rich (vs. poor) bribees exhibited a stronger preference for (1) accepting bribes from rich, rather than poor bribers, and (2) accepting higher, rather than lower bribes. Furthermore, we found that both poor and rich bribers indicated they would only accept relatively high bribes from rich (rather than poor) bribees. Finally, rich and poor bribers benefitted in different ways when engaging in bribery: to get their bribes accepted, rich bribers had to spend lower proportions of their endowments than poor bribees, however, rich bribers had to spend more in absolute terms.

Does the basic prosocial trait of Honesty-Humility predict crime? We test whether Honesty-Humility (1) differentiates between imprisoned criminal offenders and the national population, (2) predicts the frequency of criminal behavior (the number of reported crimes), and (3) predicts the type of crime leading to imprisonment (violent, non-violent, and sexual). We found that imprisoned criminal offenders had lower levels of Honesty-Humility than the national population, but Honesty-Humility did not predict the number of reported crimes and the type of crime leading to imprisonment in this group. Additionally, we examined if Honesty-Humility predicts violent (defensive and sadistic aggression) and non-violent (cheating) lab antisocial behavior among imprisoned criminal offenders. We found that Honesty-Humility negatively predicted violent, but it did not significantly relate to non-violent antisocial behavior in this group.

Global challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the impending climate change require each and every one of us to perform long-term self-restrictive behaviours, implying personal costs, for the sake of vulnerable others and future generations. We argue that empathy–conceptualised as other-oriented moral emotional process–can impact how we think, feel and act towards others in times of such disruptive global developments. Our research highlights how and under which circumstances empathy fosters solidarity with others in need. We review our findings which corroborate empathy’s potential in directly changing health-relevant behaviour (such as hand hygiene behaviour or adherence to COVID-19 pre-emptive measures) and as well as pro-environmental actions, which serve to protect others’ well-being through self-discipline and self-restriction. Furthermore, we also review and discuss research which indicates potential boundary conditions of empathy-induced prosocial responses to the plight of vulnerable individuals.

This study tested the idea that faith in intuition (people’s reliance on their intuition when making judgments or decisions) is negatively associated with vaccination attitudes in the U.S. populace. Intuition is an implicit, affective information processing mode based on prior experiences. U.S. citizens have few threatening experiences with vaccines because vaccination coverage for common vaccine-preventable diseases is high in the United States. Experiences with vaccination-side effects, however, are more prevalent. This is likely to shape an intuition that favors refusal over vaccination. Results of multiple regression analyses support this supposition. With increasing faith in intuition, people’s vaccination attitudes become less favorable.

Abstract. We investigated whether individuals’ punishment behavior aims at compensating for inflicted harm (i.e., retribution) or at deterring the offender from committing the offense again (i.e., deterrence) and whether punishment motives depend on the punishment system. Participants ( N = 149) assigned punishment for selfish decisions in a group resource allocation task under three conditions: Open punishment (the allocator is informed about the punishment, allowing for retribution and deterrence); hidden punishment (the allocator is not informed about the punishment, precluding deterrence); and unintentional offense (decision is made by the computer not the allocator, precluding retribution and deterrence). In line with retribution motives, participants assigned more punishment under hidden punishment compared to unintentional offense and open punishment. We found these differences in punishment between punishment conditions only under centralized punishment (i.e., punishment can only be executed by one group member), but not under decentralized punishment (i.e., each group member can punish).

This letter comments on the relation between social mindfulness and concern with environmental protection. In particular, the individual-level relationship between the constructs is found to be much smaller (rs < .111) than the country-level relationship (r = .617) reported by Van Doesum et al. (2021).

Does giving behavior in economic games reflect true prosocial preferences or is it due to confusion? Research showing that trait Honesty-Humility accounts for giving behavior suggests the former, whereas research showing that participants give money to a computer might suggest the latter. In three preregistered, well-powered studies, we examined the relation of Honesty-Humility with behavior in the Dictator Game (Study 1, N = 468) and Public Goods Game (Studies 2 and 3, each N = 313), while participants interacted either with humans (“social game”) or with a computer (“non-social game”). We found that (a) decisions in the non-social game predicted decisions in the social game, supporting the confusion hypothesis; (b) the effect of Honesty-Humility differed within and between games; and (b) participants who gave money to the computer reported acting as if they were playing with humans. Overall, the studies suggest that both prosocial preferences and confusion underlie giving behavior.

Constructing personal life stories carries benefits for psychological adjustment. We examined whether writing about the life stories of parents (i.e., vicarious life stories) hold similar advantages. In Study 1, we adapted an established experimental paradigm to an online format. Participants wrote either about personal life story chapters or about famous persons (control condition) and completed pre- and post-measures of state self-esteem. We found the predicted interaction as self-esteem increased in the chapter but not in the control condition. In Studies 2 and 3, we added the critical condition of writing about vicarious chapters. Study 2 did not find the predicted interaction. Instead, all three conditions increased in self-esteem. Study 3, which used a new neutral control task (writing about historical events), showed that the two chapter conditions, but not the control condition, increased in self-esteem. This suggests that authoring life stories for both oneself and close others momentarily boosts self-esteem.

Does giving behavior in economic games reflect true prosocial preferences or is it due to confusion? Research showing that trait Honesty-Humility accounts for giving behavior suggests the former, whereas research showing that participants give money to a computer might suggest the latter. In three preregistered, well-powered studies, we examined the relation of Honesty-Humility with behavior in the Dictator Game (Study 1, N = 468) and Public Goods Game (Studies 2 and 3, each N = 313), while participants interacted either with humans (“social game”) or with a computer (“non-social game”). We found that (1) decisions in the non-social game predicted decisions in the social game, supporting the confusion hypothesis; (2) the effect of Honesty-Humility differed within and between games; and (3) participants who gave money to the computer reported acting as if they were playing with humans. Overall, the studies suggest that both prosocial preferences and confusion underlie giving behavior.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has strongly affected individuals and societies worldwide. In this review and meta-analysis, we investigated how aversive personality traits – that is, relatively stable antisocial personality characteristics – related to how individuals perceived, evaluated, and responded to the COVID-19 pandemic. Across 34 studies with overall 26,780 participants, we found that people with higher scores in aversive personality traits were less likely to perceive guidelines and restrictions to curb the spread of the virus as protective ([Formula: see text] = −.11), to engage in health behaviors related to COVID-19 ([Formula: see text] = −.16), and to engage in non-health-related prosocial behavior related to COVID-19 ([Formula: see text] = −.14). We found no consistent relation between aversive personality and negative effect regarding the pandemic. The results thus indicate the importance of aversive personality traits in understanding individual differences with regard to COVID-19.

BackgroundThe present contribution tests the main ideas that (a) hand hygiene behavior is associated with habit, and (b) this association is robust when deliberative constructs (i.e. knowledge and intention) are controlled for, indicating an automatic component in hand hygiene behavior.MethodsTwo correlational studies using different operationalisations of hand hygiene behavior are reported. In Study 1, hand hygiene was assessed in the context of food preparation; data were measured using the Day Reconstruction Method in a sample of the general population. Study 2 considered hand hygiene compliance of healthcare workers applying video observation by body cameras and additionally self‐reported behavior. In both studies, habit was assessed using the Self‐Report Behavioral Automaticity Index.ResultsBoth studies found the expected positive association between habit and hand hygiene (0.271 < r < 0.570). Habit was further analyzed in combination with knowledge and intention (Study 2), and emerged as a significant predictor of observed hand hygiene, while knowledge and intention were marginally significant. No significant interactions were found.ConclusionsThe present work provides evidence that hand hygiene behavior is reliably related to habit. The findings speak to the notion that addressing the automatic route to hand hygiene behavior when designing interventions can be fruitful.

The last decades of research have provided overwhelming evidence that compassion fosters a vast range of behaviors toward reducing suffering of others. In this regard, compassion has been described as a prosocial tendency par excellence, fostering helping behavior across a variety of social situations. With the present contribution, we apply a differentiated perspective on compassion. Building on just deserts theory, we argue that when other individuals suffer from unjust actions, compassion for the suffering individuals can foster harmful tendencies toward those who caused the suffering (i.e., third-party punishment). In Studies 1a to 1f, we examined a rich variety of situations in which unjust suffering occurs (i.e., terrorist attacks, sexual assaults, rape of children, and war) and documented a positive relation between compassion for suffering victims and punishment inclinations toward those who caused the suffering. Applying an experimental approach using various paradigms in Studies 2 through 6, compassion was shown to increase third-party punishment. Additional analyses revealed that (a) this increase occurs because compassion intensified moral outrage, which in turn predicted third-party punishment (Studies 2 to 6), and (b) compassion only fosters third-party punishment when suffering was caused by high (vs. low) unjust acts (Study 5). Overall, the present research discusses compassion in a different light in that harmful consequences of compassion are considered. Implications are discussed from a perspective of basic research on compassion and third-party punishment as well as from a societal perspective. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Vandalism, the intentional act to destruct or to deface a property not one's own, has received surprisingly little attention in psychological research so far. The present contribution addresses this gap and applies a basic personality perspective to vandalism. Here, we focused on one specific manifestation of vandalism, that is, destroying things for pleasure. In the present study (N = 221), we assessed individual differences in sadism, the dark triad of psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism as well as the HEXACO personality model. Multiple regression analyses revealed that individual differences in sadism predict vandalistic acts that are executed for pleasure. This relation was shown to be independent of the dark triad and the HEXACO dimensions. As such, the present contribution suggests that sadistic orientations might play a role in vandalistic acts that are executed for pleasure. Implications for research on sadism and vandalism are discussed.

What gives rise to sadism? While sadistic behavior (i.e., harming others for pleasure) is well-documented, past empirical research is nearly silent regarding the psychological factors behind it. We help close this gap by suggesting that boredom plays a crucial role in the emergence of sadistic tendencies. Across 9 diverse studies, we provide correlational and experimental evidence for a link between boredom and sadism. We demonstrate that sadistic tendencies are more pronounced among people who report chronic proneness to boredom in everyday life (Studies 1A-1F, N = 1,780). We then document that this relationship generalizes across a variety of important societal contexts, including online trolling; sadism in the military; sadistic behavior among parents; and sadistic fantasies (Studies 2-5, N = 1,740). Finally, we manipulate boredom experimentally and show that inducing boredom increases sadistic behavior (i.e., killing worms; destroying other participants' pay; Studies 6-9, N = 4,097). However, alternatives matter: When several behavioral alternatives are available, boredom only motivates sadistic behavior among individuals with high dispositional sadism (Study 7). Conversely, when there is no alternative, boredom increases sadistic behavior across the board, even among individuals low in dispositional sadism (Studies 8 and 9). We further show that excitement and novelty seeking mediate the effects of boredom, and that boredom not only promotes sadistic (proactive) aggression, but reactive aggression as well (Study 9). Overall, the present work contributes to a better understanding of sadism and highlights the destructive potential of boredom. We discuss implications for basic research on sadism and boredom, as well as applied implications for society at large. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Building on the Computers Are Social Actors framework, we provide an overview of research demonstrating that humans behave prosocially towards machines. In doing so, we outline that similar motivational and cognitive processes play a role when people act in prosocial ways towards humans and machines. These include perceiving the machine as somewhat human, applying social categories to the machine, being socially influenced by the machine, and experiencing social emotions towards the machine. We conclude that studying prosocial behavior towards machines is important to facilitate proper functioning of human-machine interactions. We further argue that machines provide an interesting yet under-utilized resource in the study of prosocial behavior, because they are both highly controllable and humanlike.

Building on the computers are social actors framework, we provide an overview of research demonstrating that humans behave prosocially toward machines. In doing so, we outline that similar motivational and cognitive processes play a role when people act in prosocial ways toward humans and machines. These include perceiving the machine as somewhat human, applying social categories to the machine, being socially influenced by the machine, and experiencing social emotions toward the machine. We conclude that studying prosocial behavior toward machines is important to facilitate proper functioning of human–machine interactions. We further argue that machines provide an interesting yet underutilized resource in the study of prosocial behavior because they are both highly controllable and humanlike.

The present research examined lie detection abilities of a rarely investigated group, namely offenders. Results of the studies conducted thus far indicated a better performance of offenders compared to non-offenders when discriminating between true and false messages. With two new studies, we aimed at replicating offenders' superior abilities in the context of deception detection. Results of Study 1 (N = 76 males), in contrast, revealed that offenders were significantly worse at accurately classifying true and false messages compared to non-offenders (students). Results of Study 2 (N = 175 males) revealed that offenders' discrimination performance was not significantly different compared to non-offenders (clinic staff). An internal meta-analysis yielded no significant difference between offenders and non-offenders, questioning the generalizability of previous findings.

Findings from previous literature suggest that taking the perspective of a suffering victim is an important factor for a sadistic individual to experience pleasure. In the present study (N = 387, with a priori preregistered hypotheses, analyses, and sample size), we examined the impact of perspective taking in everyday (non-clinical) sadists from the general population. Specifically, we tested how everyday sadists' emotional reactions were affected by different perspective-taking instructions when exposed to another person's misfortune. Results revealed that individual differences in everyday sadism predicted the tendency to experience pleasure from another's misfortune. Further analysis of the interaction between individual differences in everyday sadism and perspective-taking instructions indicated that instructions to take a suffering other's perspective (compared to receiving no instructions) significantly reduced everyday sadists' tendency to derive pleasure from said suffering. In sum, the present research contributes to a better understanding of sadistic tendencies and the possible role of perspective taking in reducing sadistic pleasure among everyday sadists.

Uncertainty, perceived threats, and a generally insecure life attachment have been associated with endorsement of extremism. Furthermore, salient identification with a group can influence radicalized ways of addressing insecure life attachment through an established and sometimes extreme worldview and ideology. In the present study, we replicated the finding that an insecure life attachment is associated with a higher degree of extremism endorsement. Furthermore, we found similarities and differences in how this association was influenced by various aspects of group membership across dissimilar contexts and among majority and minority groups (e.g., Muslims and non-Muslims) from Denmark (n = 223), India (n = 147), and the United Kingdom (n = 225). Consequently, our results indicate that general social psychological processes underlie radicalization and that different aspects of collective self-esteem can be central promoting or mitigating factors. Overall, our findings suggest an important interplay among life attachment, collective self-esteem, and extremism across Western and non-Western majority and minority groups. Uncertainty, perceived threats, and a generally insecure life attachment have been associated with endorsement of extremism. Furthermore, salient identification with a group can influence radicalized ways of addressing insecure life attachment through an established and sometimes extreme worldviewand ideology. In the present study, we replicated the finding that an insecure life attachment is associated with a higher degree of extremism endorsement. Furthermore, we found similarities and differences in how this association was influenced by various aspects of group membership across dissimilar contexts and among majority and minority groups (e.g., Muslims and non-Muslims) from Denmark (n = 223), India (n = 147), and the United Kingdom (n = 225). Consequently, our results indicate that general social psychological processes underlie radicalization and that different aspects of collective self-esteem can be central promoting or mitigating factors. Overall, our findings suggest animportant interplay among life attachment, collective self-esteem, and extremism across Western and non-Western majority and minority groups.

Although past research has convincingly shown that rewarding prosocial individuals helps to establish high levels of cooperation, research investigating factors that promote rewarding others has been surprisingly rare. The present research addresses this gap and examines two factors that were shown in past research to play a role in prosocial behaviour. In a well-powered study (total N = 1003), we tested the impact of (a) a basic prosocial personality trait (the Honesty-Humility dimension from the HEXACO personality model) and (b) intuitive decision-making, as well as (c) their interaction, in rewarding prosocial individuals. We found that (1) intuition promotes rewarding prosocial others; (2) Honesty-Humility was not significantly related to rewarding prosocial others; and (3) that Honesty-Humility did not significantly moderate the effect of intuition on reward. Implications for the understanding of reciprocating others’ prosocial behaviour are discussed.

The COVID-19 pandemic presents a major challenge to societies all over the globe. Two measures implemented in many countries to curb the spread of the disease are (a) minimizing close contact between people (“physical distancing”) and (b) wearing of face masks. In the present research, we tested the idea that physical distancing and wearing of face masks can be the result of a prosocial emotional process—empathy for people most vulnerable to the virus. In four preregistered studies (N = 3,718, Western population), we found that (a) empathy indeed relates to the motivation to adhere to physical distancing and to wearing face masks and (b) inducing empathy for people most vulnerable to the virus promotes the motivation to adhere to these measures (whereas merely providing information about the importance of the measures does not). In sum, the present research provides a better understanding of the factors underlying the willingness to follow two important measures during the COVID-19 pandemic., publishedVersion

ispartof: Mindfulness vol:10 issue:1 pages:196-199 status: published

In this paper, we respond to comments by Neff et al. (2018) made about our finding that the negative dimensions of self-compassion were redundant with facets of neuroticism (rs ≥ .85; Pfattheicher et al., 2017) and not incrementally valid. We first provide epistemological guidance for establishing psychological constructs, namely three hurdles that new constructs must pass: theoretically and empirically sound measurement, discriminant validity, and incremental validity – and then apply these guidelines to the self-compassion scale (SCS). We then outline that the critique of Neff et al. (2018) is contestable. We question their decisions concerning data-analytic methods, that help them to circumvent instead of passing the outlined hurdles. In a reanalysis of the data provided by Neff et al. (2018), we point to several conceptual and psychometric problems and conclude that self-compassion does not overcome the outlined hurdles. Instead, we show that our initial critique of the SCS holds and that its dimensions are best considered facets of neuroticism., acceptedVersion

Recent research on humans' prosociality has highlighted the crucial role of Honesty-Humility, a basic trait in the HEXACO personality model. There is overwhelming evidence that Honesty-Humility predicts prosocial behavior across a vast variety of situations. In the present contribution, we cloud this rosy picture, examining a condition under which individuals high in Honesty-Humility reduce prosocial behavior. Specifically, we propose that under self-uncertainty, it is particularly those individuals high in Honesty-Humility who reduce trust in unknown others and become less prosocial. In 5 studies, we assessed Honesty-Humility, manipulated self-uncertainty, and measured interpersonal trust or trust in social institutions using behavioral or questionnaire measures. In Study 1, individuals high (vs. low) in Honesty-Humility showed higher levels of trust. This relation was mediated by their positive social expectations about the trustworthiness of others. Inducing self-uncertainty decreased trust, particularly in individuals high in Honesty-Humility (Studies 2-5). Making use of measuring the mediator (Studies 2 and 3) and applying a causal chain design (Studies 4a and 4b), it is shown that individuals high in Honesty-Humility reduced trust because self-uncertainty decreased positive social expectations about others. We end with an applied perspective, showing that Honesty-Humility is predictive of trust in social institutions (e.g., trust in the police; Study 5a), and that self-uncertainty undermined trust in the police especially for individuals high in Honesty-Humility (Study 5b). By these means, the present research shows that individuals high in Honesty-Humility are not unconditionally prosocial. Further implications for Honesty-Humility as well as for research on self-uncertainty and trust are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Social psychology has demonstrated that people behave differently in social attention, compared to when alone. First and foremost, being in social attention affects people's performance and their interpersonal behavior by increasing arousal and reputational concerns, respectively. However, newer work demonstrates more fundamental intra-psychological effects of social attention. As mere reminders of social attention can activate reputational concerns, people's thoughts and behavior are affected by such reminders even when people's reputation is not at stake. These findings provide a deeper look at more intra-personal effects of social attention. As a result, recent research focuses on how social attention fundamentally influences people's subjective perceptions and experiences. In this review, we provide an overview of the far-reaching effects of social attention, identify relevant moderators and mediators, discuss socio-motivational and cognitive processes underlying these effects, and highlight avenues f...

Human prosociality is a fascinating and complex phenomenon. The present research takes this complexity into account by examining the interplay of three prominent factors that past research has shown to promote prosocial behavior. In two studies (total N = 1,799), we tested the impact of (a) a basic prosocial personality trait (the Honesty-Humility dimension from the HEXACO personality model), (b) intuitive decision making, and (c) the possibility of being rewarded (i.e., a reward system) in the emergence of prosocial behavior (i.e., dictator game giving). Replicating previous research, we found that (1) a reward system increased prosocial behavior and (2) Honesty-Humility was positively related to prosocial behavior. In addition, given that there was no reward system, we show that intuition (vs. a control condition) reduced prosocial behavior in individuals low in Honesty-Humility, whereas no effect was found for individuals high in Honesty-Humility. Implications for the understanding of prosocial behavior are discussed., publishedVersion

Many (elite) universities emphasize ‘excellence’. In doing so, universities may communicate excellence norms—that is, highest performance standards that students should achieve. For some students, such norms might be motivating, but for others, these norms may create external pressure to perform. Stress research suggests that excellence norms can pose high demands that evoke negative affect and have negative downstream consequences. The Social Identity Approach, however, proposes that the more students identify with the university, the more they integrate university norms into their self-concept; this means that norms become students' internal standards (rather than represent external pressure). As a result, only weakly, but not strongly, identified students should feel (externally) pressured by and respond to excellence norms with negative affect. Two studies supported this, highlighting how the ingroup (‘elite’ university) can induce negative affect (via its norms), but also how identifying with said group can prevent such negative affect.

Mindfulness is a state of paying conscious and nonjudgmental attention to present‐moment experiences. Previous research relates this state to more effective emotion regulation and less emotion reactivity. We therefore hypothesized an attenuating effect of a mindfulness exercise on moral reactions that usually results from a bad conscience when having caused harm. Across five studies, we experimentally induced mindfulness via a short breathing exercise and then assessed harm‐based moral reactions. As hypothesized, participants in the mindfulness (vs. control) exercise condition showed a) attenuated repair intentions after having read a scenario in which participants caused harm to a friend (Study 3) and b) attenuated intentions to change harm‐causing eating habits (Study 4). Results of Studies 1, 2 and 5 did not provide evidence for our hypothesis. A following meta‐analysis across all five studies yielded an overall significant effect of mindfulness in the harm‐condition, providing preliminary evidence for a potential downside to mindfulness.

Occasionally, people trade monetary gains for moral costs and engage in dishonest behavior. Based on research showing that people react more sensitively toward a possible loss compared to a possible gain (i.e., loss aversion), the present contribution examines the idea that people will more likely engage in dishonest behavior to reduce the extent of a loss compared to increasing the extent of a gain. In the two experimental studies, participants could engage in dishonest behavior either to avoid a loss (loss condition) or to approach an equivalent gain (gain condition). To assess dishonest behavior, a die-under-the-cup paradigm ( Study 1 ) and a coin-toss task ( Study 2 ) was applied. Results of both studies demonstrated the predicted effect of framing, supporting the idea that people show more dishonest behavior to avoid a loss compared to approaching an equivalent gain.