Peaceable
Null Effects of Game Violence, Game Difficulty, and 2D:4D Digit Ratio on Aggressive Behavior
Joseph Hilgard et al.
Psychological Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Researchers have suggested that acute exposure to violent video games is a cause of aggressive behavior. We tested this hypothesis by using violent and nonviolent games that were closely matched, collecting a large sample, and using a single outcome. We randomly assigned 275 male undergraduates to play a first-person-shooter game modified to be either violent or less violent and hard or easy. After completing the game-play session, participants were provoked by a confederate and given an opportunity to behave aggressively. Neither game violence nor game difficulty predicted aggressive behavior. Incidentally, we found that 2D:4D digit ratio, thought to index prenatal testosterone exposure, did not predict aggressive behavior. Results do not support acute violent-game exposure and low 2D:4D ratio as causes of aggressive behavior.
Better to overestimate than to underestimate others’ feelings: Asymmetric cost of errors in affective perspective-taking
Nadav Klein
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, March 2019, Pages 1-15
Abstract:
Accurately assessing other people’s perspective in general, and other people’s emotional responses in particular, is essential for successful social interaction. However, substantial research finds that accurate perspective taking is the exception rather than the norm. Although errors in perspective taking are common, little is known about their consequences. Is it worse to overestimate or to underestimate other people’s emotional responses? Seven experiments find that underestimating the intensity of other people's emotional responses leads to more negative evaluations than overestimating others’ emotions (Experiments 1–5). These results replicate across emotional valence and across observers and targets and occur because people believe that underestimation is indicative of lower effort and empathy in trying to understand the target. Additional experiments identify moderators of these effects, including stereotypical emotions and socially undesirable emotions (Experiments 6–7). The cost of errors in affective perspective taking is asymmetric, leading to important implications for social coordination.
The effects of celebrity gossip on trust are moderated by prosociality of the gossipers
Konrad Rudnicki, Charlotte De Backer & Carolyn Declerck
Personality and Individual Differences, 1 June 2019, Pages 42-46
Abstract:
Previous research suggests that gossip serves several functions in regulating group dynamics (e.g. bonding, entertainment) and is preferentially used by prosocial individuals to protect the group from exploitation. However, it is still unclear what mechanisms underlie these functions and compel prosocial people to gossip. Because gossip provides information about the attitudes and moral views of an interaction partner we hypothesized that for prosocial individuals it functions as a cue that enables trust to be established, even among strangers. We conducted an experiment with 122 female participants who did not know each other prior to the study. They were asked to gossip about celebrities (the most likely form of gossip between strangers) or perform a creativity task for 20 min in pairs before playing a trust game. Participants were categorized as prosocial or proself based on their social value orientation (SVO). To additionally test if the effect of gossip on trust differs in real-life interactions and online, participants interacted either face-to-face or online. The results show that, irrespective of the environment, prosocial women trusted their interaction partners more after gossiping, whereas proself women trusted their partners less.
Experimental evidence for a pure collaboration effect
Mary McGrath & Alan Gerber
Nature Human Behaviour, forthcoming
Abstract:
What makes us willing to sacrifice our own self-interest for another person? Humans can forgo short-term individual gain to achieve long-term benefits — but long-run self-interest cannot fully explain unselfish behaviour. Collaboration in our evolutionary past may have played a role in shaping an innate human sense of distributive justice, influencing who we consider deserving of our aid or generosity. Previous research has not been able to isolate this response to collaboration as an independent effect, distinct from other motivations to share. Here we present evidence of a pure collaboration effect, distinct from motivations of future reciprocity, in-group favouritism or concern for accountability. We demonstrate this effect among adult subjects in an economic setting, showing that the effect constitutes a psychological phenomenon with relevance for real-world social and political behaviour. This collaboration effect is substantial: it motivates sharing among people otherwise inclined to share nothing and increases the proportion of participants willing to give up half of their allotted money. We find evidence supporting our hypothesis that the collaboration effect operates by creating a sense of debt owed to one’s collaborator.
Sentiment Spillover: Evidence from Two Environmental Disasters
Hongbum Lee
NYU Working Paper, February 2019
Abstract:
This paper studies the spillover effects of sentiment facilitated by social connection following the outbreak of two environmental disasters. Utilizing individual-level survey data from Gallup and county-level social connectivity data from Facebook, the paper finds that residents who are residing in more socially connected counties report significantly lower level of sentiment on the month of the event, and the effect persists through the next month. The findings are robust to alternative hypotheses, such as possible ties other than social connection and differing set of observable characteristics that alters underlying distribution of respondents’ sentiments in different regions.
Voicing One’s Ideas: Intragroup Respect as an Antecedent of Assertive Behavior
Daniela Renger et al.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, January-February 2019, Pages 34-47
Abstract:
In this research, we tested equality-based respect from ingroup members as a social antecedent of positive assertiveness (i.e., voicing one’s opinions) and group performance. A pretest with employees at the workplace supported that the variables of interest were indeed correlated. The main experimental study then confirmed that participants who had received high as compared with low intragroup respect displayed more assertive behavior and yielded higher group performance in dyadic intragroup discussions. In contrast, high intergroup respect (i.e., from outgroup members) lowered assertiveness and performance levels in intergroup interactions relative to low respect. We discuss implications for social interactions and discourses.