Traffic stops are common and consequential for citizens' legal socialization and for racial gaps in police-community trust. Efforts to change the tenor of police interactions, however, may discount the discretionary context of stops-the degree of choice in the decision to stop a driver-and how organizations influence those circumstances. Discretionary stops entail more choice and thus create more ambiguity for the driver regarding the officer's intent. We examine racial disparities in the discretionary context of traffic stops, their disparate influence on community members' impressions, and the power of departmental guidance to close them. We find that stops of Black (vs. White) drivers are more likely to be for high-discretion equipment violations, and Black community members evaluate recordings of high-discretion, but not low-discretion, stops more negatively than White participants. At the same time, we find promising evidence that organizational directives to curtail equipment stops can reduce this disparity.

In this symposium, we advance feedback research by considering how perceptions guide effective feedback interactions. By perceptions, we mean how providers and recipients view one another and their relationship, as well as how they view the feedback being relayed and tasks being evaluated. This symposium brings together leading scholars to consider the role of perceptions at each stage of a feedback interaction – at the beginning, when givers are considering feedback delivery, in the middle, when it is delivered and interpreted, and after the interaction, when its consequences unfold. In doing so, the symposium examines the implications of feedback interactions across multiple levels, building from the dyadic level, to the group level, crowd level, and ultimately, the societal level, yielding policy-relevant insights. The presentations were also selected to exhibit the breadth of methodologies that are being applied to explore the role of perceptions in feedback interactions. The papers include findings from surveys, archival field data, and experiments. Together, these presentations propose theories and offer practical implications that will advance our understanding of – and insight into how to improve – feedback processes. Mistaking Employee Silence for Satisfaction and Other Manager Misperceptions Author: Erik Santoro; - Author: Frank Flynn; Stanford U. Author: Benoit Monin; Stanford Graduate School of Business Unpacking the Power of Feedback: Investigating the Structure of Effective Feedback Author: Yingyue Luan; Cambridge Judge Business School Author: YeunJoon Kim; U. of Cambridge Author: Myung Chung; Cambridge Judge Business School Interpreter of Maladies: How Feedback Aggregators Interpret Conflicting Feedback Author: Ting Zhang; Harvard Business School Author: Michael White; Columbia Business School Author: Tuna Cem Hayirli; Harvard Business School Candid Disclosure in Team Debriefs Author: Nate Fulham; - Author: Matthew A. Diabes; Carnegie Mellon U. - Tepper School of Business Author: Binyamin Cooper; Morgan State U. Author: Taya R. Cohen; Carnegie Mellon U. - Tepper School of Business The Failure Gap Author: Lauren Eskreis-Winkler; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management Author: Kaitlin Woolley; Cornell SC Johnson College of Business Author: Eliana Polimeni; Northwestern Kellogg School of Management

The purpose of this symposium is to connect two previously disconnected literatures— voice and allyship. Allyship while it encompasses an array of behaviors, includes speaking up with the purpose of ending oppression faced by disadvantaged people and voice, when intended to support or advocate for minority groups, fits the definition of allyship. Yet, voice scholars have only recently acknowledged voice from an allyship lens and the allyship literature has yet to directly acknowledge voice as a form of allyship. Therefore, in this symposium, our goal is to illuminate the connection between these two literatures by examining the antecedents and consequences of voice as allyship. Our hope is to build on each respective body of work and create synergy that enhances and benefits our understanding of both voice and allyship. Speaking up for DEI: How the Sense of Belonging Affects the Willingness to Engage in DEI Voice Author: Stephanie J. Creary; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania Author: Nancy Rothbard; U. of Pennsylvania Author: Jared Scruggs; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania Author: Michael Parke; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania Decisions, Decisions: How Frame of Reference Affects the Choice to Contront Prejudice Author: Claire Sandman Malcomb; ILR, Cornell U. Author: Chade Darby; Cornell U. Author: Elizabeth McClean; Cornell SC Johnson College of Business Endorsing Outsiders: Ampliciation of Voice Across Faultlines Author: Coco Liu; U. of Utah, David Eccles School of Business Author: Elizabeth R. Tenney; U. of Utah, David Eccles School of Business Not All Allyship Looks the Same! Author: Chi Nguyen; Oklahoma State U. Author: Alexis Nicole Smith; Oklahoma State U. Author: Yurianna S. Kimmons; Oklahoma State U.

The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N=10,535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported beta = 0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported beta = 0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates.

As news reports describing Artificial Intelligence (AI) proliferate, will people's perceptions of human nature change such that they rate distinctively human attributes as more essential? Five studies (N = 5111) demonstrate this “AI Effect.” Study 1 first establishes a two-part classification of human attributes used in subsequent studies, distinguishing human attributes that AI are perceived as capable of (“shared” attributes such as using logic or language) from ones that humans are seen as uniquely capable of (“distinctive” attributes such as having a personality or beliefs). Study 2 demonstrates the AI Effect: compared to reading an article about the attributes of trees, reading an article describing AI advances leads participants to rate distinctive attributes as more essential to being human. Study 3 tests whether this effect is due to anthropomorphizing a non-human entity. Study 4 considers the alternative that this effect is solely driven by demand. Study 5 shows that it is enough to simply mention AI advances to observe this effect. This research suggests that as people learn about increasingly sophisticated AI, conceptions of human nature may shift in reaction to regard what makes humans unique as more essential.

Quantification has been constitutive of psychology since its inception and is core to its scientific status. The adoption of qualitative methods eschewing inferential statistics is therefore unlikely to obtain. Rather than discarding useful tools because of improper use, we recommend highlighting how inferential statistics can be more thoughtfully applied.

From systematic racism to climate change, institutions in contemporary American society are increasingly expected to wake up to and take a stance on major social and political issues that challenge our societal well-being. Yet such communicative efforts are not always met with unanimous positive reactions. The public, or some social groups, may question the underlying motivation for such efforts, seeing them as nothing more than political performance (Anderson & McClain, 2020). Certain narratives may backfire, too, especially when the effort is described as intending to benefit the bottom line rather than supporting social justice (Carlos & Lewis, 2018; Kim, 2014). Finally, despite the unprecedented wave of public support for BLM in summer 2020, many people were hesitant to rejoice over the “victory” because promises may never become progresses, especially considering that the past sixty years have witnessed a decrease, rather than an increase, in racial equity despite all the talking (e.g., a greater racial wealth gap; Miller, 2011, Shapiro, Meschede & Osoro, 2013). Stating an organization’s intention to contribute to a better, more equitable society is a must, but a deep understanding on how organizations should communicate such intentions, and how their words influence the public’s perception is still lacking. In response to the need for more rigorous and systematic research on how organizations communicate their intention to engage in social justice and how the public responds, this symposium has curated five interrelated empirical papers on this timely topic. Embracing a mixed method approach, these papers have combined the strength of archival analysis with experimental methods to showcase various aspects of an organizations’ decisions around rhetoric and communication style, how these decisions are perceived, and why certain strategies are perceived more favorably than others. Predicting People’s Perceptions of Organizational Statements Following George Floyd's Death Presenter: Xuan Zhao; Stanford U. Presenter: Rachel Song; U. of Washington Presenter: MarYam Hamedani; Stanford U. Presenter: Amrita Maitreyi; Stanford U. Presenter: Clarissa Gutierrez; Stanford U. Presenter: Hazel Markus; Stanford U. Presenter: Jennifer Eberhardt; Stanford U. Perceptions of Organizational DEI Messages that Leverage Moral Claims and Instrumental Claims Presenter: Preeti Vani; Stanford Graduate School of Business Presenter: Benoit Monin; Stanford Graduate School of Business Pain & Punishment: How University Diversity Rationales Affect Responses to Interracial Conflicts Presenter: Jordan Starck; Stanford U. Presenter: Stacey Sinclair; Princeton U. The Efficacy of Leader Rhetoric to Promote Inclusion During Periods of Intergroup Conflict Presenter: McKenzie Preston; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania Presenter: Arianna M. Beetz; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania Presenter: Andrew Carton; The Wharton School, U. of Pennsylvania “But Are They Walking the Talk?”:How People Make Sense of Diversity Communications and Demographics Presenter: James T. Carter; Columbia Business School Presenter: Mabel Abraham; Columbia Business School

When tasked with responding to an employee's offensive remarks, managers face the Confronter's Quandary: They must decide on an appropriate course of action to balance addressing the employee's problematic behavior and suspected attitudes (Correction goals) while preserving their working relationship and the offender's sense of belonging to the organization (Connection goals). This paper proposes a conceptual framework to organize strategies that fall at different levels of this Correction/Connection trade-off: YOU-Strategies focus on the offender and prioritize correction; ME-Strategies focus on the confronter and leverage an existing connection; THEY-Strategies highlight third parties to deemphasize the confronter-offender relationship; and WE-Strategies highlight shared organizational values and norms to affirm group connection in the service of correction. We describe four classes of strategies within each type (sixteen total), we include examples of uses excerpted from a hypothetical online survey, and we illustrate how existing literature can be organized within our framework. At a theoretical level, this YOU-ME-THEY-WE framework should help organize past literature and suggest areas in need of further investigation. At a practical level, it should help would-be confronters gain insight into additional strategies available to them, and orient field researchers designing interventions and testing best practices for confrontation in organizations.

Will people redefine what they see as essential to the human experience as the human species loses ground to Artificial Intelligence (AI) on such attributes as logic and language? Four studies using U.S. samples (N = 2,101) test this possibility. Study 1 supports a two-part classification of human attributes that we then use in subsequent studies. Studies 2a-2c demonstrate that, compared to reading a control prime about trees, reading a treatment prime about AI progress leads participants to view those attributes not shared with AI (e.g., humor and having desires) as more essential to being human. We found no evidence that this exposure leads to devaluation of those attributes shared with AI (e.g., logic and language). This research suggests that as AI becomes ubiquitous and increasingly capable, conceptions of human nature may shift in reaction to value what makes humans unique.

Viral outrage—the piling up of online condemnation in response to offensive remarks—is a common expression of moral judgment in the digital age. We examined whether viral outrage is effective in convincing observers that an offender is blameworthy. Across seven studies, participants ( N = 3,406) saw racist, sexist, or disrespectful posts with accompanying expressions of outrage and evaluated the offender. As more people expressed outrage, observers believed it was more normative to express condemnation but also felt that the outrage was more excessive, thus inspiring both more outrage and more sympathy toward the offender. Greater outrage increased condemnation toward the offender; greater sympathy decreased it. These two processes operated in opposition and suppressed one another. These findings held even when the offense was relatively benign and even when the offender was a high-status public figure. Overall, people’s ambivalent reactions of outrage and sympathy limit the influence of viral outrage in inspiring condemnation.

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from 2 separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete 1 version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: Materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for 4 of 5 hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to + 0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for 2 hypotheses and a lack of support for 3 hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, whereas considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Previous research has emphasized corporate lobbying as a pathway through which businesses influence government policy. This article examines a less-studied mode of influence: private regulation, defined as voluntary efforts by firms to restrain their own behavior. We argue that firms can use modest private regulations as a political strategy to preempt more stringent public regulations. To test this hypothesis, we administered experiments to three groups that demand environmental regulations: voters, activists, and government officials. Our experiments revealed how each group responded to voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) by firms. Relatively modest VEPs dissuaded all three groups from seeking more draconian government regulations, a finding with important implications for social welfare. We observed these effects most strongly when all companies within an industry joined the voluntary effort. Our study documents an understudied source of corporate power, while also exposing the limits of private regulation as a strategy for influencing government policy.

As organizations become increasingly more diverse, the potential for microaggressions may likewise increase due to the increased presence of members of underrepresented groups. In order to promote inclusive and healthy workplace cultures, it is important to examine how individuals can address, and hopefully reduce, these microaggressions via confrontation. Previous research on confronting prejudice has examined factors that influence whether individuals will confront someone who expresses prejudice and their motivations for doing so, but has not delved into the specific strategies that people tend to employ and the effectiveness of these strategies. Two experiments examine the use of different confrontation strategies and these strategies’ effectiveness for behavioral, attitudinal, and interpersonal outcomes. In the first study, participants were asked to confront a coworker who had used a derogatory word (e.g., “retarded”). Participants were most likely to utilize direct confrontation strategies (e.g., using threat or moral judgement). However, a second study found that third-party observers judged these types of direct strategies to be less effective at producing desirable outcomes than more indirect strategies (e.g., appeals to rules or descriptive norms). Additionally, for some outcomes, third-party observers judged direct strategies to backfire, relative to a baseline strategy. Results suggest that potential confronters may misjudge which confrontation strategies are likely to be the most effective and provide insight into alternative strategies that may lead to more desirable outcomes.

Moral outrage has traditionally served a valuable social function, expressing group values and inhibiting deviant behavior, but the exponential dynamics of Internet postings make this expression of legitimate individual outrage appear excessive and unjust. The same individual outrage that would be praised in isolation is more likely to be viewed as bullying when echoed online by a multitude of similar responses, as it then seems to contribute to disproportionate group condemnation. Participants (N = 3,377) saw racist, sexist, or unpatriotic posts with accompanying expressions of outrage and formed impressions of a single commenter. The same commenter was viewed more negatively when accompanied by a greater number of commenters (i.e., when outrage was viral vs. nonviral), and this was because viral outrage elicited greater sympathy toward the initial offender. We examined this effect and its underlying processes across six studies.

Should experts always practice what they preach? When an expert displays exemplary behavior, individuals who fear negative devaluation sometimes anticipate that this expert will look down on them. As a result, displays of excellence can paradoxically turn off the very people they are trying to inspire. Five studies document this in the medical domain, showing that individuals who are overweight or obese and concerned about their weight avoid physicians who advertise their fitness, for fear that these doctors will judge them negatively. People (erroneously) believe that doctors have healthier habits than other individuals (Study 1), doctors advertise healthy habits (Study 2), and overweight individuals anticipate devaluation from, and thus avoid and feel less comfortable with, doctors who portray themselves as fitness-focused (Study 3). Studies 4 and 5 test strategies for physicians to emphasize their own fitness without turning off weight-sensitive patients. This work demonstrates that it is critical to take into account ego-defensive processes when attempting to lead by example.

Ebersole et al.'s (2016) attempt to replicate Monin and Miller (2001) raises important questions about choosing beforehand which statistical test is the target of a replication. While our original theory a priori only predicted a main effect of the credentials manipulation, we had observed in the study reproduced here an unexpected interaction with participant gender. The current paper fails to replicate this originally unpredicted interaction, which it initially codes as a failure (Table 3), but significantly replicates the main effect of the credentials manipulation as an “added effect.” Ebersole et al. graciously acknowledge that the latter effect is of greater theoretical importance to our original theory, but the fact remains that the main pre-registered prediction for this replication (the interaction with gender) failed to garner empirical support. In this brief commentary I discuss issues with deciding a priori what should count as a replication, and own up to my responsibility making the ill-fated gender interaction be the centerpiece of this replication attempt.

Moral opportunities and moral tests confront actors with the behavioral means of substantiating or undermining, respectively, an identity claim that they are a moral person. Kant's distinction between perfect and imperfect duties bears instructive similarities to the difference between moral tests and moral opportunities. The desire to avoid future moral tests can even lead people to shun moral opportunities if embracing them will sow the seeds for future moral tests. If moral tests are to be avoided, moral opportunities are to be embraced, especially when one's moral image has been threatened. Seizing a moral opportunity, unlike passing a moral test, has the potential to restore a tarnished moral self-image. If the moral opportunity provided by a behavior is insufficient to prompt enough people to engage in the behavior, it might seem reasonable to augment the existing psychological incentive with an economic one. The distinction between moral opportunities and moral tests deepens people understanding of moral self-regulation and social behavior broadly.

Monin, Sawyer, and Marquez (2008) demonstrated that a rebel who refused to participate in a racially prejudiced decision task was derogated by actors who had themselves taken part in the task, but exalted by uninvolved observers. These authors argued that this rejection resulted from actors who expected and resented imagined moral reproach from the rebel. Two new studies address alternative explanations for such rejection of moral rebels. Study 1 rules out both (a) self-presentation and (b) a more cognitive alternative wherein anchoring on one's first impression of a task leads to do-gooder derogation. Study 2 breaks down the principled rebellion into its two components, a principled stance and rebellion itself, to show that both seem to play a part in derogation. Individuals imagine that moral others would reject them, which in turn leads to rejecting those deviants.

Erectile dysfunction is a major complication affecting the quality of life of patients and partners after radical prostatectomy. Evolving evidence suggests that early penile rehabilitation may provide better erectile function after surgery. Phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5) inhibitors are routinely considered a first-line treatment option in most algorithms for penile rehabilitation owing to their efficacy, ease of use, wide availability and minimal morbidity. Tadalafil is a long-acting, potent PDE-5 inhibitor for erectile dysfunction, with demonstrated effect in animal studies at preserving penile smooth muscle content and prevention of fibrosis of cavernosal tissue. This article evaluates the existing literature on tadalafil and critically analyzes its impact on erectile function following radical prostatectomy.

The current paper investigates two basic strategies that men use to recover from masculinity threats: (i) avoiding stereotypically feminine preferences and (ii) exaggerating their masculinity. In two experiments, males were either given false feedback that threatened their masculinity (i.e., underperforming on a masculinity test in Study 1, being physically weak in Study 2) or told they were average for their gender (control). Males who had their masculinity threatened expressed lower preference for stereotypically feminine products but did not express greater preference for stereotypically masculine products (Studies 1 and 2). Additionally, threatened men claimed more stereotypically masculine attributes, such as height, number of past sexual relationships, and aggressiveness (Study 2). These findings provide insight into how people react to identity threats by deploying specific strategies that most effectively restore their questioned identities.