Students evaluate male professors higher than female professors. In a study that we presented to participants as a test of a new form for student evaluations of teaching (SETs), we examined if ...self-affirmation (contemplating elements that positively contribute to one’s self-image) reduced the gender bias. Belgian students (
n
= 568), who were randomly assigned to self-affirm (through either a value-affirmation task or self-superiority priming) or not, read a vignette prompting them to imagine that they had received a good or a bad grade from a male or a female professor. They evaluated the course, the professor, and the form. Non-self-affirmed participants showed a gender bias after a bad grade, disadvantaging the female professor. Self-affirmation eradicated the gender bias by lowering evaluations for the male professor, suggesting that the gender bias involves overvaluing male rather than derogating female professors. Without self-affirmation, the positivity of the SETs was correlated with participants’ evaluation of the SET form itself. Self-affirmation inflated the correlation for the male professor and eradicated it for the female professor. Having students self-affirm before SETs may be useful when SETs are obligatory only. An even better approach is asking SETs before students learn their grades or simply abolish SETs as a factor in hiring and promotion decisions.
People learn about social groups by reading and hearing verbal statements. We investigated if the perceived truth and acceptability of such statements depend on whether they are implicitly vs. ...explicitly comparative (e.g., “Women are brave” vs. “Women are braver than men”). Participants (Study 1: Ns = 259; Study 2: N = 246) rated the truth, acceptability, familiarity, and positivity of implicitly vs. explicitly comparative, stereotypical vs. counter-stereotypical statements about positive vs. negative features. Consistent with an Etiquette Hypothesis, implicitly (vs. explicitly) comparative statements about positive features were judged as truer and more acceptable, presumably because they adhered better to a positivity norm. Consistent with a Fluency Hypothesis, stereotypical explicitly (vs. implicitly) comparative statements about age groups were judged as truer, presumably because of higher ease-of-processing. Thus, mechanisms affecting judgments vary somewhat with the groups compared. We discuss the role of metacognitive and normative processes in stereotype maintenance and stereotype change.
We examined perceived self-other differences (self-uniqueness) in appraisals of one’s risk of an infectious disease (COVID-19), one’s adherence to behavioural precautionary measures against the ...disease, and the impact of these measures on one’s life. We also examined the relationship of self-uniqueness with information seeking and trust in sources of information about the disease. We administered an online survey to a community sample (N = 8696) of Dutch-speaking individuals, mainly in Belgium and The Netherlands, during the first lockdown (late April-Mid June 2020). As a group, participants reported that they were less likely to get infected or infect others or to suffer severe outcomes than average (unrealistic optimism) and that they adhered better than average to behavioural precautionary measures (illusory superiority). Except for participants below 25, who reported that they were affected more than average by these measures (egocentric impact bias), participants also generally reported that they were less affected than average (allocentric impact bias). Individual differences in self-uniqueness were associated with differences in the number of information sources being used and trust on these sources. Higher comparative optimism for infection, self-superiority, and allocentric impact perception were associated with information being sought from fewer sources; higher self-superiority and egocentric impact perception were associated with lower trust. We discuss implications for health communication.
People show a preference for the letters occurring in their name (Name-Letter Effect), a phenomenon that has inspired the development of a frequently used indirect measure of self-esteem. This ...article reviews the literature on the Name-Letter Effect as the basis for this measure. It discusses the tasks that have been used to measure name-letter preferences and the algorithms that have been designed to extract self-esteem scores from them. It also reviews the evidence that name-letter preferences are valid indicators of self-esteem. The article shows that current knowledge on the value of name-letter preferences as measures of self-esteem is limited by (a) the inherent difficulty of assessing the validity of implicit measures, (b) the use of different, insufficiently justified algorithms, (c) a historical focus on preferences for initials, and (d) neglect of the state-trait distinction. The article ends with recommendations for the use of name-letter preferences to measure self-esteem.
Differences between groups, individuals, or objects can be framed in multiple ways. One can, for instance, say that men generally earn more than women or that women generally earn less than men. ...Showing that these logically equivalent expressions are not psychologically equivalent, we demonstrate a robust more-less asymmetry in the use of and responses to comparative statements. More specifically, we show that people use "more than" statements more often than "less than" statements (Study 1); like "more than" statements better (Studies 2 and 3), agree more with opinions expressed through "more than" statements (Studies 4 and 5), and are more likely to consider factual "more than" statements to be true (Study 6). Supporting a cognitive fluency explanation, a manipulation that makes people expect disfluency while processing "less than" statements reduces this otherwise robust more-less asymmetry (Study 7). By combining comparative framing effects with cognitive fluency, the present research brings together 2 research fields in social cognition, shedding new light on both.
Objective: To examine if personal and comparative optimism, perceived effectiveness, and moralization of vaccination predict people's decision to get vaccinated. Methods: We measured self-reported ...vaccination decisions in a five-wave longitudinal study (N ≍ 5,000/wave) in Belgium over a six months period (December 2020-May 2021) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among the predictors were demographic factors, personal and comparative optimism for three aspects of COVID-19 (infection, severe disease, good outcome), perceived effectiveness of vaccination, and the extent to which vaccination is being viewed in prosocial terms (altruism, civic spirit) versus as instrumental in one's self-interest (common sense, concern about one's health). Results: The actual availability of vaccines changed people's outlook on vaccination. Marked differences emerged in vaccination decision between linguistic-cultural regions (Flemish Region, Walloon Region, Brussels Capital Region). Personal and comparative optimism predicted vaccination decisions to different extents depending on participants' age and on whether the optimism was for infection, severe disease, or a good outcome. In older participants, vaccination decision was mostly predicted by personal optimism; in younger participants, it was mostly predicted by comparative optimism. Moralizing vaccination predicted a lower likelihood of a positive vaccination decision, that is, higher vaccine hesitancy or refusal, particularly in older participants. Conclusions: Assessments of risk perception serving to inform vaccination campaigns should differentiate between expectations concerning the risk of infection and expectations concerning the outcome of an infection. Public health messages should address comparative optimism, particularly when targeting younger populations. Contrary to popular belief, moralizing vaccination may reduce the willingness to get vaccinated.
We tested the prediction, derived from the hubris hypothesis, that bragging might serve as a verbal provocation and thus enhance aggression. Experiments 1 and 2 were vignette studies where ...participants could express hypothetical aggression; Experiment 3 was an actual decision task where participants could make aggressive and/or prosocial choices. Observers disliked an explicit braggart (who claimed to be “better than others”) or a competence braggart as compared with an implicit braggart (who claimed to be “good”) or a warmth braggart, respectively. Showing that explicit and competence bragging function as verbal provocations, observers responded more aggressively to the explicit and competence braggart than to the implicit and warmth braggart, respectively. They did so because they inferred that an explicit and a competence braggart viewed other people and them negatively, and therefore disliked the braggart. Rather than praising the self, braggarts are sometimes viewed as insulting others.
Research on health-related self-uniqueness beliefs suggested that these beliefs might predict adherence to precautions against COVID-19.
We examined if comparative optimism (believing that one is ...less at less than others), self-superiority (believing that one already adheres better to precautions than others), and egocentric impact perception (believing that adverse events affect oneself more than others) predicted intended adherence to precautions.
We measured self-reported intentions, optimism for self and others, perceived past adherence by self and others, and perceived impact of the measures and the disease on self and others in a 5-wave longitudinal study in December 2020–May 2021 (N ≈ 5000/wave). The sample was in key respects representative for the Belgian population. We used joint models to examine the relationship between self-uniqueness beliefs and intended adherence to the precautions.
Believing that COVID-19 would affect one's own life more than average (egocentric impact perception) was associated with higher intentions to adhere to precautions, as was believing that the precautions affected one's life less than average (allocentric impact perception). Self-superiority concerning past adherence to precautions and comparative optimism concerning infection with COVID-19 were associated with higher intended adherence, regardless of whether their non-comparative counterparts (descriptive norm, i.e., perceived adherence to precautions by others, and personal optimism, respectively) were controlled for. Comparative optimism for severe disease and for good outcome were associated with lower intended adherence if personal optimism was not controlled for, but with higher intended adherence if it was controlled for.
Self-uniqueness beliefs predict intended adherence to precautions against COVID-19, but do so in different directions.
•Self-uniqueness beliefs about the risk and prevention of COVID-19 are widespread.•Egocentric perception of the impact of COVID-19 predicts adherence to precautions.•Egocentric perception of the impact of precautions predicts lower adherence to them.•Comparative optimism predicts higher, rather than lower adherence to precautions.•Illusory superiority concerning past adherence predicts higher intended adherence.
PDF
