This study explores identity shifts among part-White mixed-race individuals in response to identity acceptance and rejection. Two experiments (N = 256 and N = 337) examined how such experiences influence the strength of White, Minoritized, and Mixed identification. Participants recalled and described an experience of acceptance or rejection from a racial-ethnic ingroup. We assessed White, Minoritized, and Mixed identification both weeks before and immediately after this manipulation. Results consistently showed that participants increased identification with an accepting ingroup but did not decrease identification with a rejecting ingroup. Furthermore, changes in one identification did not correspond to complementary changes in another. These findings challenge the assumption that identity shifts follow a hydraulic zero-sum pattern, implying a more complex and fluid process. Our research advances understanding of identity dynamics of mixed-race individuals with one White and one Minoritized parent and suggests that models should be refined to account for non-compensatory identity changes.
Individuals often disclose their self-presentational vulnerabilities, including the use of counterfeit products or weight-loss medications. Yet, despite the commonality of such vulnerable self-disclosure, little is known about who discloses, why they do so, and when they choose to reveal or conceal these vulnerabilities. Addressing that gap, we examine how regulatory focus and relationship closeness jointly shape the disclosure of self-presentational vulnerabilities. Across eight studies, we find that prevention-focused (vs. promotion-focused) individuals are more willing to disclose self-presentational vulnerabilities to close others, but not to distant others. We further find that this effect occurs because prevention-focused (vs. promotion-focused) individuals more strongly believe that disclosing such vulnerable information to close others can strengthen their interpersonal relationships.
Across three studies (N = 896), we examined the effects of perceived deliberation and political (dis)agreement on moral character judgments. We tested whether targets who agree or disagree with the participant on a political issue are evaluated more positively when they are described as deliberating (vs. not deliberating). Results showed that in cases of agreement, there was no effect of deliberation on moral character judgments. This was because deliberators were seen as less certain (which was associated with more negative evaluations) but also more thoughtful (which was associated with more positive evaluations). However, in cases of disagreement, deliberation led to more positive moral character judgments. This was because deliberators were again seen as less certain and more thoughtful, but both perceptions were associated with more positive evaluations. These findings suggest that perceived deliberation makes disagreement more palatable and that people are less concerned with how like-minded people reach their conclusions.
Although online communication platforms provide convenience, they also bring a risk of ghosting, when one person unexpectedly stops responding to another without explanation. Extending prior research that examines the pain of being ghosted, we instead examine whether the act of ghosting itself is emotionally painful - and whether people recognize the extent of ghosters' bad feelings. Across three studies - recalled real ghosting experiences (N = 195), imagined ghosting scenarios (N = 601), and induced ghosting in a live interaction (N = 350) - we find that people who are ghosted underestimate how bad their conversation partners feel about ghosting them. This underestimation is larger when the ghosting is unintentional and mitigated when communicators do not perceive their actions as ghosting or send a short response (e.g., "sorry, can't talk") instead of ghosting. Overall, this research provides a window into the overlooked pain of ghosting others.
Humans have been singing with other humans across time and culture. Although past research found positive effects of singing with others, it has not disentangled those effects from being in an established collective. In the current research, we examined the hypothesis that singing in groups leads to increased feelings of well-being and self-expansion even without an established collective. Furthermore, we hypothesized that the main mechanism for these effects is a feeling of collective effervescence-an intertwining sense that one is connected to others and that something special is happening. Finally, we hypothesized that the positive effects of collective effervescence felt during a singing event can last weeks, even months, after the event. Across two experiments and a longitudinal study, we found support for our hypotheses. Singing in groups predicts positive outcomes (e.g., positive mood, satisfaction with life, self-concept change, donation intentions), primarily via the collective effervescence experienced at these events.
Current theories pose that intergroup competition elevates intragroup cooperation and put forward hypotheses about conditions that increase the magnitude of this effect. Here, we report a preregistered meta-analysis of studies using experimental games that manipulate the presence of intergroup competition and its effect on intragroup cooperation. Our investigation reveals the overall direction and magnitude of the effect, which addresses mixed empirical findings. We identified 25 articles to meet inclusion criteria, which yielded 70 effect sizes. A multilevel random effects model revealed a medium positive effect of intergroup competition on intragroup cooperation (g = .677, N = 6,051). Studies involving intergroup competition with interdependence produced a strong effect, whereas this effect was weaker for studies without interdependence. Our findings present meta-analytic evidence that intergroup competition promotes intragroup cooperation and identify opportunities for future research.
Shared goals are a pillar of effective intergroup contact, yet little research has examined the specific goals that motivate people to engage in intergroup discussions. Across two studies, we assessed the goals of Latine (Study 1) and Black (Study 2) participants, compared to White (Studies 1 and 2) participants, during race-related discussions with a racial ingroup or outgroup friend. Participants from all three racial groups expressed a greater desire to socially connect with racially minoritized versus White friends. White participants' goals to learn and express egalitarian values were higher in discussions about race with Latine and Black, versus White, friends. By contrast, White participants expressed a lower desire to challenge their friends and manage their group image relative to Latine and Black participants. Participants' primary conversation goals were to socially connect and learn; however, White participants' goals shifted more depending on whether they were speaking to a racial ingroup or outgroup friend.
People's beliefs about suffering may shape how they understand and respond to life's challenges. Across five studies, we tested whether two focal beliefs-that suffering is widely shared/universal and that suffering can be potentially enriching-predict adaptive psychological and prosocial outcomes. College undergraduates who saw their problems as more common reported less distress. U.S. adults who perceived that they experienced a similar amount of suffering as other people and who viewed suffering as enriching demonstrated better adjustment and more adaptive responses to hypothetical challenges. Among Jewish Israeli participants, an enriching view was associated with mental health, common humanity, and support for peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Finally, reading about suffering as enriching versus depressing increased affective well-being, and framing suffering as universal increased the common-humanity component of compassion. These findings suggest that viewing suffering as universal and potentially enriching supports psychological adjustment and prosocial orientation.
Four studies collectively investigate whether schematic and political biases predict how people conceptualize sincerely held religious beliefs and reason about religious exemptions. Studies 1a (N = 99) and 1b (N = 151) suggest that U.S. Americans schematically associate conservative (but not liberal) stances on religion-relevant issues with sincerely held religious belief. Studies 2 and 3 investigate how politically diverse U.S. Americans evaluate exemption requests that are either schema-consistent (conservative request; Study 2; N = 402) or inconsistent (liberal request; Study 3; N = 400) and reveal that people might not exclusively rely on these schemas for judgments about religious exemption requests, as people are more willing to grant exemptions to both conservative schema-consistent and liberal schema-inconsistent religious claims than to nonreligious claims. However, political ideology critically shapes judgments about the religious sincerity of beliefs, whether denying exemption requests constitutes First Amendment violations, and whether exemptions should ultimately be granted.
Despite extensive study of social rejectees, the little work on social rejectors may not apply to non-punitive social rejection. When people communicate social rejection, do their words convey language principles recommended to soften the blow (i.e. positive regard, sincere alternatives, more words, no apologies)? Is rejectors' use of recommended language related to their emotions and/or their perception of rejectees' emotions? Daily diaries and re-lived memories showed social rejectors chose words aligned with recommended language principles; this language use was associated with rejectors feeling more emotional drain and less imposition and less self-consciousness (Studies 1-2). Positive regard and sincere alternatives were associated with rejector and observer perceptions of rejectees' emotional ease, whereas more words and avoiding apologies were associated with rejector and observer perceptions that rejectees had more emotional struggle (Studies 2-3). The present work has implications for frameworks of non-punitive social rejection and for training people on softening the blow.
Academia values research that is quantitative, generalizable, or viewed as "objective" (centered research values), while research that is qualitative, concerned with marginalized groups, or social justice focused (marginalized research values) is often dismissed as subjective or less rigorous. We examined the relationship between faculty research values and the values they believe their departments prioritize, using survey data from 526 tenure-track faculty. We found that, for centered values, faculty-department research value incongruence did not differ by faculty race-gender, and both higher and lower endorsement of the values than the department were associated with greater epistemic exclusion. In contrast, incongruence in marginalized values varied by race-gender, with women of color faculty reporting the largest gap. Further, faculty endorsing more marginalized values than their department reported higher epistemic exclusion, whereas those endorsing less did not. In light of these results, we discuss how faculty-department research value incongruence shapes faculty's academic experiences.
What makes faces seem trustworthy versus untrustworthy? People often conflate facial trustworthiness with structural resemblances to specific emotions - angry-appearing faces seem untrustworthy, while happy-appearing faces seem trustworthy. Is this universal across the ethnicity of faces? Across two pre-registered studies, we built computational models of trustworthy appearance from perceivers' evaluations of Black, White, and East Asian synthetic faces (Study 1 Phase I: N = 405, 72% White; Study 2 Phase I: N = 436, 64% White). We manipulated new male faces to appear (un)trustworthy using the race-specific models, and raters assessed their expressions (Study 1 Phase II: N = 194, 68% White; Study 2 Phase II: N = 513, 70% White). For White targets, untrustworthiness judgments relied on structural resemblances with anger; for Black targets, on structural resemblances to fear and surprise; and for East Asian targets, on structural resemblances to multiple negatively valenced emotions. This inclusive approach broadens our understanding of how faces seem (un)trustworthy.
Personality scales use response formats ranging from dichotomous to continuous. Understanding how individuals respond to these formats is crucial for interpreting the consequences of those responses. This research examines the moderating role of holistic-analytic thinking style on the impact of response formats on fluency and subsequent behavioral outcomes. Across multiple personality scales and methodological approaches (N = 3,636), holistic (vs. analytic) thinkers experienced greater fluency with continuous (vs. dichotomous) scales. This effect was observed with measured and manipulated thinking styles (Studies 1 and 2) and replicated using cultural groups as a proxy (Study 3). We also explored psychological discomfort as a mechanism. A 3-point (Study 4) and a 6-point scale (Study 5) also elicited fluency among holistic individuals. Finally, matching thinking styles with scale formats affected behavioral intentions (Study 5) and behavior (Study 6). Our research indicates that choosing response formats should consider factors beyond psychometric properties, including cultural and individual differences.
Meat consumption contributes to climate change and has become a moralized issue. People may face moral criticism for meat consumption. Building on the central role of morality in person evaluation, this research tested the hypotheses that moral (vs. competence) and public (vs. private) criticism received online would elicit greater defensiveness among meat-eaters. Study 1 ( N = 307) supported the hypothesis that moral criticism heightened defensive responses (e.g. sensitivity, derogation, and avoidance). Study 2 ( N = 316) showed, unexpectedly, that private criticism led to greater defensiveness, potentially due to its “personal” nature. Further analysis revealed that the effects of moral framing and private criticism were mediated by perceived moral devaluation. Defensive responses were also generally stronger among individuals higher in narcissistic rivalry. In addition, perceived moral devaluation predicted lower intention to reduce meat consumption. Public messaging aimed at reducing meat consumption should avoid moral framing and personal-sounding negative feedback to minimize defensive responses.
Being single (i.e., not in a romantic relationship) offers people an important opportunity to self-expand and experience the associated well-being benefits. Drawing on self-expansion theory, we investigated the role of singlehood self-expansion potential (SSEP) across three pre-registered studies. In two diary studies (Studies 1 and 2), greater SSEP was associated with concurrent and (to a lesser extent in Study 2) lagged associations with greater self-expanding experiences, singlehood satisfaction, psychological need fulfillment, and life satisfaction, and lower fear of being single. We also examined the self-expanding activities that single people engage in and found that singlehood self-expansion predominately occurs with non-romantic close others (Study 2). Finally, in an experimental study (Study 3), individuals who imagined how singlehood could facilitate future novel (vs. routine) activities did not report greater SSEP but reported greater self-expansion experiences and positive mood. This research highlights the importance of viewing singlehood as having potential for self-expansion.
Research on ideological beliefs structure primarily focused on mapping the underlying dimensions of belief content . Beyond what beliefs people hold, it is also crucial to understand how they hold these beliefs. Drawing from diverse literature, we identified nearly 20 constructs and hypothesized three overarching factors of the psychological structure of ideology: importance, certainty, and metacognitive difficulty. Using 49 political issues across the United States, Poland, and India ( N total = 2,838), we found evidence for two primary dimensions: importance and metacognitive difficulty. Certainty did not emerge as a separate factor: in the United States, certainty items split between these two dimensions, whereas in Poland and India, importance and certainty converged. We also investigated the predictive power of these dimensions. Higher importance and certainty and lower metacognitive difficulty were linked to more extreme beliefs, and importance was a key predictor of advocacy intentions. These findings offer a comprehensive framework for understanding how ideological beliefs are held.
The impostor self-concept involves self-doubt and fear of being exposed as a fraud. While vulnerable narcissism shares substantial psychological similarities with the impostor self-concept, grandiose narcissism is associated with an overestimation of one's own capabilities. The present study explores the relationship between the personality constructs impostor self-concept and narcissism, considering parenting styles and adult attachment. In a sample of 339 participants, path analyses revealed that overprotective and controlling parenting fostered both impostor self-concept and vulnerable narcissism, while grandiose narcissism was linked to parental warmth. Impostor self-concept and vulnerable narcissism predicted higher attachment anxiety and lower trust, whereas grandiose narcissism had no significant effects on adult attachment. Despite substantial overlap in developmental predictors and relational consequences, factor analyses confirmed the impostor self-concept as distinct from vulnerable narcissism. Findings point to shared developmental pathways and distinct relational implications, and highlight the need for longitudinal research and interventions targeting self-esteem and attachment security.
Past research explored the beneficial and harmful effects of social media (SM), but no study has investigated how SM might change people's identities. Authors suggest that SM is a catalyst for a shift in two individual values, achievement and conformity, transforming the fabric of our societies. A difference-in-differences analysis found that countries with higher SM adoption compared to their culturally similar country show an increase in achievement and conformity orientation. Next, authors manipulated SM use and established a causal link between SM use and the activation of achievement and conformity values in Facebook users. These findings were replicated with objective SM usage data, and the pertinent mechanism was explored: people's SM use increases achievement and conformity orientation through an increased need for approval, particularly for those who self-ruminate. Findings suggest that SM use contributes to the emergence of a societal culture that places an emphasis on achievement-seeking and conformity.
Intellectual humility, lauded as an important intellectual virtue, is theorized to encompass metacognitive tendencies (i.e., appreciation of the limits of one’s knowledge and intellectual abilities) and interpersonal ones (i.e., appreciation of others’ knowledge and intellectual abilities). Although prior research has investigated potential epistemic benefits, it remains unclear whether intellectual humility is personally beneficial—i.e., conducive to individuals’ well-being. Two main studies and one supplemental study (total N = 4,049) tested for associations cross-sectionally, within and between persons, and in longitudinal changes over two years. Results indicated that, whereas interpersonal intellectual humility is associated with better well-being, metacognitive intellectual humility is generally associated with worse. These findings highlight the importance of the distinction between these two forms of intellectual humility, align with theoretical work on the determinants of well-being, and have implications for intellectual humility’s status as a virtue and for efforts to encourage people to cultivate intellectual humility.
As efforts to improve the credibility of psychological and other social sciences continue, researchers aim to conduct multi-study or multi-sample research and synthesize findings using different parameterizations of individual participant meta-analysis. No overarching organizational framework exists, and only a few simulation-based or empirical examples comparing these parameterizations. This article has two goals. First, we provide an overview of six common parameterizations of individual participant meta-analysis, organized into a taxonomy based on different features (e.g., sample-specific parameters, meta-analytic parameters, and number of models). Second, using empirical data from 26,205 participants across 11 longitudinal studies, we provide comparisons of each parameterization testing prospective associations between the personality traits and crystallized abilities. We found that openness was a robust predictor of crystallized abilities across samples. Across methods, we observed consistency in model estimates, with some exceptions. We conclude with recommendations for choosing an approach given a team’s goals, questions, data availability, and model features.
