Public discourse on immigration has seemed to polarize over recent years—with some people strongly trusting, but others strongly distrusting immigrants. We examined whether a cognitive strategy could ...mitigate these biased outgroup judgments. Given that subtractive counterfactual thoughts (“If only I had not done X. . .”) facilitate cognitive flexibility and especially a relational processing style, we hypothesized that these thoughts (vs. additive counterfactuals “If only I had done X. . .” and no counterfactuals) would weaken the relationship between people’s political orientation and the perceived trustworthiness of immigrants. In five experiments (two preregistered; total N = 1,189), we found that inducing subtractive (but not additive) counterfactuals—either via rhetorical questions in a political speech or via mindset priming—had the predicted debiasing effect. Taken together, subtle means such as using subtractive counterfactual questions in political communication seem to be a promising way to reduce biased outgroup judgments in heated public debates.
Successful leadership requires leaders to make their followers aware of expectations regarding the goals to achieve, norms to follow, and task responsibilities to take over. This awareness is often ...achieved through leader-follower communication. In times of economic globalization and digitalization, however, leader-follower communication has become both more digitalized (virtual, rather than face-to-face) and less frequent, making successful leader-follower-communication more challenging. The current research tested in four studies (three preregistered) whether digitalization and frequency of interaction predict task-related leadership success. In one cross-sectional (Study 1, N = 200), one longitudinal (Study 2, N = 305), and one quasi-experimental study (Study 3, N = 178), as predicted, a higher frequency (but not a lower level of digitalization) of leader-follower interactions predicted better task-related leadership outcomes (i.e., stronger goal clarity, norm clarity, and task responsibility among followers). Via mediation and a causal chain approach, Study 3 and Study 4 (N = 261) further targeted the mechanism; results showed that the relationship between (higher) interaction frequency and these outcomes is due to followers perceiving more opportunities to share work-related information with the leaders. These results improve our understanding of contextual factors contributing to leadership success in collaborations across hierarchies. They highlight that it is not the digitalization but rather the frequency of interacting with their leader that predicts whether followers gain clarity about the relevant goals and norms to follow and the task responsibilities to assume.
Thought about the future can take many forms, from goal planning to intentions and from fantasies to magical thinking. The term prefactual has guided some past research, yet its potential impact has ...been hampered by inconsistency in its definition. Here we define prefactual thought as a conditional (if-then) proposition about an action-outcome linkage that may (or may not) take place in the future, such as "If I take action X, it will lead to outcome Y." A prefactual embraces a causal belief that an action (if taken) will result in the outcome with a high degree of certainty. A form of mental simulation, prefactuals often derive from counterfactuals (which focus on the past) and feed into intentions (which center on the future). This article provides an overview of extant findings, draws connections to goal pursuit and affect regulation, and clarifies the value of the prefactual construct for conceptualizations of prospection.
Power usually lowers stress responses. In stressful situations, having high (vs. low) power heightens challenge and lowers threat. Yet, even power-holders may experience threat when becoming aware of ...the responsibility that accompanies their power. Power-holders can construe (i.e., understand) a high-power position primarily as opportunity to “make things happen” or as responsibility to “take care of things.” Power-holders construing power as responsibility (rather than opportunity) may be more likely to experience demands—such as taking care of important decisions under their control—as outweighing their resources, resulting in less challenge and more threat. Four experiments with subjective and cardiovascular threat-challenge indicators support this. Going beyond prior work on structural aspects (e.g., power instability) that induce stress, we show that merely the way how power-holders construe their power can evoke stress. Specifically, we find that power construed as responsibility (vs. opportunity) is more likely to imply a “burden” for the power-holder.
Good team decisions require that team members share information with each other. Yet, members often tend to selfishly withhold important information. Does this tendency depend on their power within ...the team? Power-holders frequently act more selfishly (than the powerless)-accordingly, they might be tempted to withhold information. We predicted that given a task goal to 'solve a task', power-holders would selfishly share less information than the powerless. However, a group goal to 'solve the task together' would compensate for this selfishness, heightening particularly power-holders' information sharing. In parallel, an individual goal to 'solve the task alone' may heighten selfishness and lower information sharing (even) among the powerless. We report five experiments (N = 1305), comprising all studies conducted in their original order. Analyses yielded weak to no evidence for these predictions; the findings rather supported the beneficial role of a group goal to ensure information sharing for both the powerful and the powerless.
Official contact tracing apps have been implemented and recommended for use across nations to track and contain the spread of COVID-19. Such apps can be effective if people are willing to use them. ...Accordingly, many attempts are being made to motivate citizens to make use of the officially recommended apps.
The aim of this research was to contribute to an understanding of the preconditions under which people are willing to use a COVID-19 contact tracing app (ie, their use intentions and use). To go beyond personal motives in favor of app use, it is important to take people's social relationships into account, under the hypothesis that the more people identify with the beneficiaries of app use (ie, people living close by in their social environment) and with the source recommending the app (ie, members of the government), the more likely they will be to accept the officially recommended contact tracing app.
Before, right after, and 5 months after the official contact tracing app was launched in Germany, a total of 1044 people participated in three separate surveys. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses, examining the same model in all studies at these critical points in time.
Across the three surveys, both identification with the beneficiaries (people living in their social environment) and with the source recommending the app (members of the government) predicted greater intention to use and use (installation) of the official contact tracing app. Trust in the source (members of the government) served as a mediator. Other types of identification (with people in Germany or people around the world) did not explain the observed results. The findings were highly consistent across the three surveys.
Attempts to motivate people to use new health technology (or potentially new measures more generally) not only for their personal benefit but also for collective benefits should take the social context into account (ie, the social groups people belong to and identify with). The more important the beneficiaries and the sources of such measures are to people's sense of the self, the more willing they will likely be to adhere to and support such measures.
Social power implies responsibility. Yet, power‐holders often follow only their own interests and overlook this responsibility. The present research illuminates how a previously adopted cognitive ...focus guides perceived responsibility when a person receives high (vs. low) power. In three experiments, adopting a cognitive focus on another person (vs. on the self or taking over another person's perspective) promoted perceived responsibility among individuals receiving high (but not low) power in a subsequent context. This effect was specific for perceived responsibility – a cognitive focus on another person did not change the perceived opportunity to pursue goals or the perceived relationship to an interaction partner (e.g., interpersonal closeness). While prior research examined how social values (i.e., chronically caring about others) guide responsibility among those holding power, the current findings highlight that mere cognitive processes (i.e., situationally focusing attention on others) alter perceived responsibility among those just about to receive power.
Self-regulation research has flourished for the last three decades. In social psychology and beyond, a number of motivational approaches have been developed and these have provided new insights about ...numerous phenomena. However, a theoretical integration of these approaches is lacking, as are empirical comparisons across theories. This article seeks to make a step towards closing this gap. We do so by suggesting a model that specifies the relation between threat and challenge - as defined by the Biopsychosocial Model of arousal regulation - on the one hand, and promotion and prevention focus - as defined by Regulatory Focus Theory - on the other hand. In addition, the literature on the relation between these four motivational states and their impact on (a) the processing of valenced information and (b) the preference for (social) contexts is reviewed. Finally, we identify avenues for further research.
Abstract Powerholders make decisions that impact others' lives. To be effective, powerholders need those with lower power to trust them—often without the chance to establish a good interpersonal ...relationship beforehand. Yet, societal developments in many countries suggest that willingness to trust powerholders is eroding; this makes the (re)establishment of trust a pressing though potentially difficult endeavour. What makes it likely, then, that people are willing to spontaneously trust a powerholder they barely know? We examined the role of powerholders' expression that they see (i.e., cognitively construe) power as a responsibility (vs. an opportunity). Doing so, the present work examines the consequences of unknown powerholders' construal of power from observers' perspective for the first time and connects it with research on trust. We reasoned that people would be more willing to trust an unknown powerholder who recognizes and expresses their responsibility (vs. opportunity) as a powerholder. Five preregistered studies ( N = 1196) support this prediction for willingness to trust and a downstream effect on powerholder choice in a trust‐relevant context. The findings highlight how powerholders' construal of power affects observers and show that powerholders can promote others' willingness to trust them by expressing a sense of responsibility (vs. opportunity). Implications for powerholders' communication in times of distrust and populism are discussed.
Power shapes relations within social contexts—often with relevant consequences for those lower and higher in power. To inspire novel ideas and dialogue on this topic, this special issue presents a ...collection of articles that illustrates important aspects of power research that have often received little attention to date. Specifically, we present four aspects that, from our perspective, for now as well as in the future can contribute to understanding the effects of power even better: (1) Going beyond main effects and considering contextual moderators; (2) Studying the mechanisms that bring the effects of social power about; (3) Examining the way those high in power behave towards each other; and (4) Taking into account that lay persons’ perception of power might affect how they deal with power. To conclude, while we already know many answers to how power shapes social interactions within hierarchies, there are also open questions that remain to be addressed in future research. This special issue gives four examples that may contribute towards targeting these future avenues — in the hope that many more research on aspects like this will follow.
PDF
