Prosocial behaviour enhances evaluation of physical beauty.

Ten studies (N = 4192) demonstrated that individuals depicted as prosocial were judged to be more physically beautiful. This evaluation of prosocial individuals as more beautiful is influenced by a motivation to be associated with prosocial others. This phenomenon was observed in real-world settings (Study 1) and applied to both men and women, both as targets and observers (Studies 2a-2b). The effect persisted in scenarios where participants imagined the target without any visual aid (Study 2c) and extended beyond metaphorical interpretations of beauty (Study 3). The effect weakened when prosocial behaviour was an isolated incident, not indicative of the target's prosocial personality (Study 4). The influence of prosociality on beauty evaluations surpassed that of other positive traits such as intelligence or humour (Study 5) and remained significant despite physical imperfections in the target's appearance (Study 6). The effect diminished in situations where forming a relationship was not feasible, thus supporting the motivated cognition rationale (Studies 7-8). These findings highlight the substantial role of prosocial behaviour in influencing evaluations of physical beauty, a crucial element in social interactions and relationship formation, often outweighing other attributes typically linked to physical appearance evaluation.

Beautiful Strangers: Physical Evaluation of Strangers Is Influenced by Friendship Expectation.

People tend to evaluate themselves as better than they actually are. Such enhanced positive evaluation occurs not only for the self but also for close others. We extend the exploration of enhanced evaluation of close others to that of strangers. We predict that when individuals consider becoming friends with a stranger, their preference for a pleasant physical experience will drive an enhanced evaluation of that person. In two experiments, participants who considered friendship with a stranger evaluated the stranger as looking, sounding, and smelling better than how control participants evaluated them. The amount of time participants expected to spend with the stranger predicted their evaluation (Studies 1-2). In a large-scale third study, using various target stimuli, we found that when participants have an interest in a friendship but then are unable to physically spend time together, the enhanced-evaluation effect is weaker compared with when they could spend time together.

The Influence of Proportion Dominance and Global Need Perception on Donations.

Many donation-raising platforms request that first-time donors choose the charitable causes they most care about so that future campaign recommendations can best match donors' charitable preferences. While matching charitable campaigns to donors' reported preferences has its benefits, little is known about other effects that choosing charitable causes may evoke. We focus on how choosing charitable causes influences charitable behavior. We find two effects of the number of charitable causes donors choose on their subsequent charitable behavior. In studies 1 and 2, we show that a reference number of the maximum charitable causes donors can choose has a negative effect on charitable behavior. A small (versus large) reference number yields a greater likelihood to donate and a higher donation amount. This effect is aligned with the proportion dominance rationalization. In studies 3 and 4, we show that the number of charitable causes donors voluntarily choose as important to them is positively associated with subsequent charitable behavior. This association is mediated by global need perception. As the number of causes donors choose increases, donors experience an escalation in their perception of global neediness, which in turn motivates their willingness to donate and the donation amount. In Study 5, we show how the two effects together shape charitable behavior. These effects are observed while controlling the donors' inherent prosocial attitudes toward help giving. With more than 1.5 million registered non-profit organizations operating in the United States (National Center for Charitable Statistics, 2019), it has become almost impossible for donors to easily choose which charitable campaigns to support. Online charitable fundraising platforms (e.g., One Today by Google, Round Up, and Charity Miles), websites (e.g., AmazonSmile) and crowdfunding platforms (e.g., Fundly, JustGiving, and GoFundMe) try to ease donors' search and decision processes by offering them personalized charitable options. First-time donors are asked to indicate the charitable causes they care most about, and then asked to donate to charitable campaigns that best match their preferences. Interestingly, little is known about how this initial stage of choosing charitable causes influences subsequent donation behavior. In this research, we ask how choosing the charitable causes one cares most about influences subsequent response to a charitable appeal. Obviously, the mere selection of preferred causes enables charities to offer personalized campaigns and create a better fit between non-profits and donors, which has a generally positive effect on charitable giving. However, in this research we focus on an overlooked aspect of these practices. We examine how the number of charitable causes donors indicate as important to them influences their donation giving. We test two opposite effects: the proportion dominance effect, an effect driven by prior research, and the global need perception effect, a new effect identified in this article. Both effects are driven by the number of causes donors choose.

Self-control and Task Timing Shift Self-efficacy and Influence Willingness to Engage in Effortful Tasks.

Self-efficacy constitutes a key factor that influences people's inclination to engage in effortful tasks. In this study, we focus on an interesting interplay between two prominent factors known to influence engagement in effortful tasks: the timing of the task (i.e., whether the task is scheduled to take place in the near or distant future) and individuals' levels of self-control. Across three studies, we show that these two factors have an interacting effect on self-efficacy. Low self-control (LSC) individuals report higher self-efficacy for distant-future effortful tasks than for near-future tasks, whereas high self-control (HSC) individuals report higher self-efficacy for near-future tasks than for distant future tasks. We further demonstrate how self-efficacy then molds individuals' willingness to engage in those effortful tasks. Given that a particular task may comprise effortful aspects alongside more enjoyable aspects, we show that the effects we observe emerge with regard to a task whose effortful aspects are salient and that the effects are eliminated when the enjoyable aspects of that same task are highlighted.

Overriding "doing wrong" and "not doing right": validation of the Dispositional Self-Control Scale (DSC).

We present the Dispositional Self-Control (DSC) Scale, which reflects individuals' tendency to override 2 types of temptations, termed doing wrong and not doing right. We report a series of 5 studies designed to test the reliability and validity of the scale. As hypothesized, high DSC predicts distant future orientation and low DSC predicts deviant behaviors such as aggression, alcohol misuse, and aberrant driving. DSC also predicts task performance among resource-depleted participants. Taken together, these findings suggest that the DSC Scale could be a useful tool toward further understanding the role of personality in overcoming self-control challenges.

Not all great minds think alike: systematic and intuitive cognitive styles.

Individuals process information and make decisions in different ways. Some plan carefully and analyze information systematically, whereas others follow their instincts and do what "feels right." We aimed to deepen our understanding of the meaning of the intuitive versus systematic cognitive styles. Study 1 (N = 130, 39% female, M(age) = 24) compared cognitive styles of arts, accounting, and mathematics students. Cognitive styles were associated with values (Study 2: N = 154, 123, 78; female = 59%, 49%, 85.9%; M(age) = 22, 23, 27) and traits (Study 3: N = 77, 140, 151; female = 59%, 66%, 46%; M(age) = 22, 25, 23), and they interacted with experience in predicting performance (Study 4: N = 63, 48% female, M(age) = 23; Study 5: N = 44, 39% female, M(age) = 23). All participants were Caucasian Israeli students. The systematic style was most frequent among accountants, and the intuitive style was most frequent among artists, validating the meaning of the styles. Systematic style was positively correlated with Conscientiousness and with security values and negatively correlated with stimulation values. The intuitive style had the opposite pattern and was also positively correlated with Extraversion. Experience improved rule-based performance among systematic individuals but had no effect on intuitive ones. Cognitive style is consistent with other personal attributes (traits and values), with implications for decision making and task performance.