The nonmeek inherit the earth: Children generalize dominance, but not submissiveness.

Children and even infants have clear intuitions about power early in development; they can infer who is dominant and subordinate from observing a single interaction. However, it is unclear what children infer about each individual's status from these interactions-do they think dominants and subordinates will maintain their status when interacting with novel partners? In three experiments, we investigate this question. Children (4- to 10-year-olds, N = 365) heard stories about a dominant and subordinate agent and predicted the dominant or subordinate agent's behavior with a novel agent. In all studies, we found that 7- to 10-year-olds generalized dominance, thinking the dominant would again be dominant or "in charge," both for social power (e.g., granting permission) in Study 1 and physical dominance (e.g., a fistfight) in Studies 2 and 3. Furthermore, although they believed dominant agents would win dominance contests (fistfights), they did not believe they would win contests unrelated to dominance (math contests). Younger children did not generalize social power (Study 1) but did generalize physical dominance (Studies 2 and 3). However, even for physical dominance, their generalizations were less selective (i.e., they believed the dominant would win fistfights and math contests). Notably, neither age group generalized an agent's submissiveness in any of the studies-they did not believe a subordinate agent would again be subordinate when paired with a novel partner. We discuss how these results extend past work on children's developing intuitions about dominance and prompt deeper questions about the inferences children draw from dominance interactions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

When and Why People Evaluate Negative Reciprocity as More Fair Than Positive Reciprocity.

If you are kind to me, I am likely to reciprocate and doing so feels fair. Many theories of social exchange assume that such reciprocity and fairness are well aligned with one another. We argue that this correspondence between reciprocity and fairness is restricted to interpersonal dyads and does not govern more complex multilateral interactions. When multiple people are involved, reciprocity leads to partiality, which may be seen as unfair by outsiders. We report seven studies, conducted with people from the United States, in which participants were asked to evaluate situations involving resource distribution in contexts such as economic games, government, and the workplace. Specifically, we find that equal resource distribution in multilateral interactions is seen as more fair than engaging in reciprocity. We also find that negative reciprocity is seen as more fair than positive reciprocity in these multilateral situations because positive reciprocity is perceived as based in favoritism. We rule out alternative explanations and demonstrate that there are contexts where favoritism is not viewed as unfair. These findings are important for theories of fairness and reciprocity as they demonstrate the central role of perceived partiality in the evaluation of multi-party resource allocation.

The influence of social stress on time perception and psychophysiological reactivity.

Time perception is a fundamental component of everyday life. Although time can be measured using standard units, the relationship between an individual's experience of perceived time and a standard unit is highly sensitive to context. Stressful and threatening stimuli have been previously shown to produce time distortion effects, such that individuals perceive the stimuli as lasting for different amounts of time as compared to a standard unit. As a highly social species, humans are acutely sensitive to social stressors; however, time distortion effects have not been studied in the context of social stress. We collected psychophysiological (electrocardiogram and impedance cardiography) and time perception data before, during, and after a modified version of the Trier Social Stress Test for 42 participants. Based on prior theories and evidence from the time perception literature, we hypothesized that experiencing a stressful event would result in time distortion. This hypothesis was supported by the data, with individuals on average reproducing short and long duration negative and positive stimuli as lasting longer after experiencing social stress, t(41) = -3.55, p = .001, and t(41) = -4.12, p < .001 for negative stimuli, and t(41) = -2.43, p = .02, and t(41) = -3.07, p = .004 for positive stimuli. However, changes in time perception were largely unrelated to psychophysiological reactivity to social stress. These findings are in line with some other studies of time distortion, and provide evidence for the interoceptive salience model of time perception. Implications for mechanisms of time distortion are discussed.