Effective management of negative follower emotions in the workplace is critical for organizational success, yet how leaders can do this effectively is unclear. In 9 studies (combined N = 4,434 leaders, N = 1,006 followers), we introduce here the Compassion-Emotion Sharing Leader Focus task, a situational-judgment task to index leaders' tendency to focus on sharing emotion (emotion sharing) or caring (compassion) when engaging with negative follower emotions. In Studies 1-5 we provide evidence for the construct, predictive, and incremental validity of our task, highlighting the practical implications of a compassion focus for leader well-being. In Study 6 we leverage a diverse global sample of over 2,000 leaders and more than a thousand followers to show that a leader's compassion focus benefits not only the leader but their followers as well. In Studies 7, 8, and 9, we revised the task to improve content validity, but this traded off predictive validity. Our research suggests that training programs for leaders should emphasize a compassion focus to engage wisely with negative emotions, and ensure this focus is communicated to followers. These findings have important implications for current issues in management, including the growing importance of employee well-being in the workplace.

People sometimes inflict harm with the intent to help the very target of their aggression. Across six studies (N=1,527), we examined the nature of such prosocial aggression. Many participants believed that altruistically-motivated aggression exists and exhibited a self-serving bias in which most believed their aggression was more altruistic than others’ — beliefs that were linked to greater antisocial and prosocial traits. Translating these beliefs to behavior, participants were often prosocially-aggressive when given the chance — inflicting more harm when their aggression could also help (versus only hurt) the target. Such prosocial aggression also exhibited features of both aggression (i.e., it was positively correlated with dispositional aggressiveness) and altruism (i.e., it was preferentially doled out to people who had been previously kind to participants and even when it was personally costly to do so). We also independently varied the amount of harm and help that prosocial aggression provided, revealing that participants sought to maximize the help and minimize the harm done to people who had been kind to them but not towards those who had provoked them. Our findings argue against models that conceptualize harm- and help-based motives as opponent processes, showing that these motives readily coexist and dynamically interact to shape aggressive behavior — even towards the same target.

With more than half the global population on social media, there is a critical need to understand how to engage it in a way that improves rather than worsens user well-being. Here, we show that positive empathy is a promising tool. Participants who received brief positive empathy instructions before 10 min of browsing their own Instagram feed showed greater affective well-being (Studies 1-4) and life satisfaction (Study 4) at posttest relative to participants who were instructed to browse as usual. The positive empathy intervention showed an average effect size on well-being of about a quarter of a standard deviation (mean Cohen's d = 0.25). We included unique active control groups in each study. We found using positive empathy on social media was about as beneficial to well-being as watching a nature video (Study 1, N = 298) and was better than instructions to focus on positive content (Study 2, N = 302), empathize with all emotions (Study 3, N = 301), or reappraise one's own emotions (Study 4, N = 426). We used structural equation modeling to demonstrate the effect of the intervention on subjective well-being is mediated by changes in positive emotion sharing, appreciative joy, and self-compassion. These experiences form a latent factor we term positive empathy. Our results show that a brief intervention successfully manipulates positive empathy on Instagram, which increases well-being. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Approximately 200 million people consume cannabis annually, with a significant proportion of them using it chronically. Using experience sampling, we describe the effects of chronically getting high on emotions, motivation, effort, and self-regulation in everyday life. We queried chronic users (N=260) 5 times per day over 7 days (3,701 observations) to assess immediate effects of getting high and longer-term, between-person effects. Getting high was associated with more positive emotions and fewer negative emotions. Contrary to stereotypes, we observed minimal effects on motivation or objective effort willingness. However, getting high was associated with lower scores on facets of conscientiousness. Surprisingly, there was no evidence of a weed hangover. Relative to less frequent users, very frequent users exhibited more negative emotions dispositionally, but they were more motivated. They also reported less self-control and willpower. As attitudes about cannabis are changing, our findings provide a rich description of its chronic use.

According to cognitive-dissonance theory, performing counterattitudinal behavior produces a state of dissonance that people are motivated to resolve, usually by changing their attitude to be in line with their behavior. One of the most popular experimental paradigms used to produce such attitude change is the induced-compliance paradigm. Despite its popularity, the replication crisis in social psychology and other fields, as well as methodological limitations associated with the paradigm, raise concerns about the robustness of classic studies in this literature. We therefore conducted a multilab constructive replication of the induced-compliance paradigm based on Croyle and Cooper (Experiment 1). In a total of 39 labs from 19 countries and 14 languages, participants (N = 4,898) were assigned to one of three conditions: writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice, writing a counterattitudinal essay under low choice, or writing a neutral essay under high choice. The primary analyses failed to support the core hypothesis: No significant difference in attitude was observed after writing a counterattitudinal essay under high choice compared with low choice. However, we did observe a significant difference in attitude after writing a counterattitudinal essay compared with writing a neutral essay. Secondary analyses revealed the pattern of results to be robust to data exclusions, lab variability, and attitude assessment. Additional exploratory analyses were conducted to test predictions from cognitive-dissonance theory. Overall, the results call into question whether the induced-compliance paradigm provides robust evidence for cognitive dissonance.

While the importance of social affect and cognition is indisputable throughout the adult lifespan, findings of how empathy and prosociality develop and interact across adulthood are mixed, and real-life data are scarce. Research using ecological momentary assessment recently demonstrated that adults commonly experience empathy in daily life. Furthermore, predictors of empathy were linked to higher prosocial behavior and subjective well-being. However, to date, it is not clear whether there are adult age differences in daily empathy and daily prosociality and whether age moderates the relationship between empathy and prosociality across adulthood. Here we analyzed experience-sampling data collected from participants across the adult lifespan to study age effects on empathy, prosocial behavior, and well-being under real-life circumstances. Linear and quadratic age effects were found for the experience of empathy, with increased empathy across the three younger age groups (18 to 45 years) and a slight decrease in the oldest group (55 years and older). Neither prosocial behavior nor well-being showed significant age-related differences. We discuss these findings with respect to (partially discrepant) results derived from lab-based or traditional survey studies. We conclude that studies linking in-lab experiments with real-life experience-sampling might be a promising venue for future lifespan studies.

Effort is aversive and often avoided, even when earning benefits for oneself. Yet, people sometimes work hard for others. How do people decide who is worth their effort? Prior work shows people avoid physical effort for strangers relative to themselves, but invest more physical effort for charity. Here, we find that people avoid cognitive effort for others relative to themselves, even when the cause is a personally meaningful charity. In two studies, participants repeatedly decided whether to invest cognitive effort to gain financial rewards for themselves and others. In Study 1, participants (N = 51; 150 choices) were less willing to invest cognitive effort for a charity than themselves. In Study 2, participants (N = 47; 225 choices) were more willing to work cognitively for a charity than an intragroup stranger, but again preferred cognitive exertion that benefited themselves. Computational modeling suggests that, unlike prior physical effort findings, cognitive effort discounted the subjective value of rewards linearly. Exploratory machine learning analyses suggest that people who represented others more similarly to themselves were more willing to invest effort on their behalf, opening up new avenues for future research.

Social behaviours have been proposed to follow circadian patterns across the course of the day, but empirical support is mixed. As a within-subject test of circadian effects on everyday behaviour, we conduct an experience-sampling study with a near-representative population of 285 Americans (7,405 observations). Prosocial behaviour and empathy were both somewhat more frequent in the morning (d = 0.08). However, these non-linear patterns only described morning-type participants; evening-types had consistent (and lower) rates of prosocial behaviour and empathy across time-of-day. These patterns were explained by morning-types reporting more social opportunities earlier in the day. These findings suggest that small, within-subject diurnal effects on social behaviour occur in daily life, and that some circadian effects may be driven by situation selection.

We used experience sampling to examine perceptions of empathy in the everyday lives of a group of 246 U.S. adults who were quota sampled to represent the population on key demographics. Participants reported an average of about nine opportunities to empathize per day; these experiences were positively associated with prosocial behavior, a relationship not found with trait measures. Although much of the literature focuses on the distress of strangers, in everyday life, people mostly empathize with very close others, and they empathize with positive emotions 3 times as frequently as with negative emotions. Although trait empathy was negatively associated only with well-being, empathy in daily life was generally associated with increased well-being. Theoretically distinct components of empathy-emotion sharing, perspective taking, and compassion-typically co-occur in everyday empathy experiences. Finally, empathy in everyday life was higher for women and the religious but not significantly lower for conservatives and the wealthy.