When linguistic uncertainty spreads across pieces of information: Remembering facts on the news as speculation.

Modern media enable rapid reporting that does not refer to facts alone but is often interspersed with unconfirmed speculations. Whereas previous research has concentrated primarily on how unconfirmed contents might propagate, potential memory effects of reporting confirmed facts among speculations have so far been widely disregarded. Across four experiments, we show that the presence of speculative news (indexed by uncertainty cues such as "might") can reduce the remembered certainty of unrelated facts. The participants read headlines with exclusively speculative news, exclusively factual news, or a mixture of both. Our results indicate that uncertainty cues spread onto one's recollection of unrelated facts after having read a mixture of facts and speculations. This tendency persisted when both types of news were presented sequentially (e.g., factual news first), suggesting that the presence of speculative news does not specifically affect encoding-but can overshadow memories of facts in retrospect. Further, the tendency to misremember facts as speculations emerged even when the proportion of speculations among factual news was low (6/24 headlines) but increased linearly with the number of speculations intermingled. Given the widespread dissemination of speculative news, this bias poses a challenge in effectively getting confirmed information across to readers. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Let's stay in touch: Frequency (but not mode) of interaction between leaders and followers predicts better leadership outcomes.

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.

In case of doubt for the speculation? When people falsely remember facts in the news as being uncertain.

Modern media report news remarkably fast, often before the information is confirmed. This general tendency is even more pronounced in times of an increasing demand for information, such as during pressing natural phenomena or the pandemic spreading of diseases. Yet, even if early reports correctly identify their content as speculative (rather than factual), recipients may not adequately consider the preliminary nature of such information. Theories on language processing suggest that understanding a speculation requires its reconstruction as a factual assertion first-which can later be erroneously remembered. This would lead to a bias to remember and treat speculations as if they were factual, rather than falling for the reverse mistake. In six experiments, however, we demonstrate the opposite pattern. Participants read news headlines with explanations for distinct events either in form of a fact or a speculation (as still being investigated). Both kinds of framings increased participants' belief in the correctness of the respective explanations to an equal extent (relative to receiving no explanation). Importantly, however, this effect was not mainly driven by a neglect of uncertainty cues (as present in speculations). In contrast, our memory experiments (recognition and cued recall) revealed a reverse distortion: a bias to falsely remember and treat a presented "fact" as if it were merely speculative. Based on these surprising results, we outline new theoretical accounts on the processing of (un)certainty cues which incorporate their broader context. Particularly, we propose that facts in the news might be remembered differently once they are presented among speculations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

How Identification With the Social Environment and With the Government Guide the Use of the Official COVID-19 Contact Tracing App: Three Quantitative Survey Studies.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

A matter of flexibility: Changing outgroup attitudes through messages with negations.

Attitudes toward outgroups are an important determinant of peaceful coexistence in diverse societies, but it is difficult to improve them. The current research studies the impact of messages with negations on outgroup attitudes, more specifically on outgroup trust. All studies were preregistered. Using different target groups, Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence for the prediction that communicating negations (e.g., "they are not deceptive") enhances outgroup trust (more so than affirmations, such as "they are reliable," and no messages) among people who are initially low in outgroup trust. Three additional studies (Studies 3a, 3b, and 4), using both a causal chain approach and (moderated) mediation analysis, demonstrate that negations promote cognitive flexibility which in turn enhances outgroup trust among those initially low in outgroup trust. One final study suggests that these findings generalize to outgroup attitude change per se by showing that communicating negations also results in more moderate attitudes when the dominant initial attitude is positive (Study 5: high warmth) rather than negative (Studies 1-4: low trustworthiness). As such, communication that negates people's initial outgroup attitudes could be an effective (previously discounted) intervention to reduce prejudice in intergroup settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Responsible power-holders: when and for what the powerful may assume responsibility.

Being in power means that one's actions impact others' situation. Accordingly, power can be seen as opportunity to 'make things happen', which often leads to selfish behavior among the powerful. Yet, power-holders at times also assume responsibility towards others, treating those with low power with more care. Multiple findings support these two sides of power. The present paper adds that power-holders may also take responsibility for the tasks at hand (taking care of organizational success and tasks associated with their role). As such, many findings that power facilitates goal-directedness can be interpreted either in a way that the powerful 'selfishly' make use of opportunities-or rather that they assume task responsibility and make sure to reach (task) goals. Doing so allows to connect power and leadership, gaining a deeper understanding of what power-holders may feel responsible for and how their (social and task) responsibility may contribute to the functioning of hierarchies.

The power to adapt: How sense of power predicts number processing.

When people solve numerical tasks, they are able to adapt their responses to characteristics of the task. This suggests that number processing is under cognitive control. Yet, such prior research on cognitive control in numerical cognition largely focused on the role of task stimuli-neglecting the role of predictors that are not directly linked to cognitive and numerical capacities. Do people who sense control in other domains (such as their interpersonal relationships) employ cognitive control differently when processing numbers? As a first step to examine this, we investigated how a person's sense of power (as a predictor known to facilitate cognitive control in other domains) predicts number processing. People sensing relatively high (rather than low) power in their everyday lives usually exert more cognitive control, which enables them to better adapt to a given task setting. Building upon this, we predicted that sense of power facilitates number processing-but, only when the task setting provides valid decision-relevant information that people can adapt to. As indicator of adaptation to the task setting, we assessed the unit-decade compatibility effect. Indeed, sense of power predicted a smaller compatibility effect (better adaptation) when valid information was available; in contrast, sense of power tended to predict a larger compatibility effect when only ambiguous information was available. These findings highlight that cognitive control in number processing not only depends on stimuli, but can also depend on broader individual factors, such as people's sensed control in interpersonal situations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

When those who know do share: Group goals facilitate information sharing, but social power does not undermine it.

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.

The Burden of Power: Construing Power as Responsibility (Rather Than as Opportunity) Alters Threat-Challenge Responses.

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.

Highly identified power-holders feel responsible: The interplay between social identification and social power within groups.

Power relations affect dynamics within groups. Power-holders' decisions not only determine their personal outcomes, but also the outcomes of others in the group that they control. Yet, power-holders often tend to overlook this responsibility to take care of collective interests. The present research investigated how social identification - with the group to which both the powerful and the powerless belong - alters perceived responsibility among power-holders (and the powerless). Combining research on social power and social identity, we argue that power-holders perceive more responsibility than the powerless when strongly (rather than when weakly) identifying with the group. A study among leaders and an experiment supported this, highlighting that although power-holders are often primarily concerned about personal outcomes, they do feel responsible for considering others' interests when these others are included in the (social) self.

Physiological threat responses predict number processing.

Being able to adequately process numbers is a key competency in everyday life. Yet, self-reported negative affective responses towards numbers are known to deteriorate numerical performance. Here, we investigated how physiological threat responses predict numerical performance. Physiological responses reflect whether individuals evaluate a task as exceeding or matching their resources and in turn experience either threat or challenge, which influences subsequent performance. We hypothesized that, the more individuals respond to a numerical task with physiological threat, the worse they would perform. Results of an experiment with cardiovascular indicators of threat/challenge corroborated this expectation. The findings thereby contribute to our understanding of the physiological mechanism underlying the influence of negative affective responses towards numbers on numerical performance.

A matter of focus: Power-holders feel more responsible after adopting a cognitive other-focus, rather than a self-focus.

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.

Attracted to power: challenge/threat and promotion/prevention focus differentially predict the attractiveness of group power.

Depending on their motivation, individuals prefer different group contexts for social interactions. The present research sought to provide more insight into this relationship. More specifically, we tested how challenge/threat and a promotion/prevention focus predict attraction to groups with high- or low-power. As such, we examined differential outcomes of threat and prevention focus as well as challenge and promotion focus that have often been regarded as closely related. According to regulatory focus, individuals should prefer groups that they expect to "feel right" for them to join: Low-power groups should be more attractive in a prevention (than a promotion) focus, as these groups suggest security-oriented strategies, which fit a prevention focus. High-power groups should be more attractive in a promotion (rather than a prevention) focus, as these groups are associated with promotion strategies fitting a promotion focus (Sassenberg et al., 2007). In contrast, under threat (vs. challenge), groups that allow individuals to restore their (perceived) lack of control should be preferred: Low-power groups should be less attractive under threat (than challenge) because they provide low resources which threatened individuals already perceive as insufficient and high-power groups might be more attractive under threat (than under challenge), because their high resources allow individuals to restore control. Two experiments (N = 140) supported these predictions. The attractiveness of a group often depends on the motivation to engage in what fits (i.e., prefer a group that feels right in the light of one's regulatory focus). However, under threat the striving to restore control (i.e., prefer a group allowing them to change the status quo under threat vs. challenge) overrides the fit effect, which may in turn guide individuals' behavior in social interactions.

Better know when (not) to think twice: how social power impacts prefactual thought.

Before approaching situations, individuals frequently imagine "what would happen, if . . . ." Such prefactual thought can promote confidence and facilitate behavior preparation when the upcoming situation can benefit from forethought, but it also delays action. The present research tested how social power predicts prefactual thought when its benefits are clear versus ambiguous. Power enhances flexible behavior adaptation and action tendencies-presumably without much forethought. We therefore proposed that power diminishes prefactual thought, unless the situation suggests that such thought is adaptive (i.e., could benefit performance). Power-holders indeed generated less prefactuals than the powerless (Experiments 1 and 2), but only if benefits for performance were ambiguous rather than clear (Experiment 3). These findings indicate that social context factors related to confidence affect prefactual thought, and that power-holders' flexible adaptation to the situation sometimes elicits inaction (i.e., prefactual thought) rather than spontaneous action.

"While you still think, I already type": experienced social power reduces deliberation during e-mail communication.

E-mail allows individuals to deliberate on their communication before sending it off. For instance, communication partners can easily take their time to ponder how best to frame a request before they actually send a message. Individuals at times strategically exploit this opportunity to deliberate in order to tailor messages to their communication partner, such as when communicating with a relatively more powerful person. As social power reduces concerns about impression management, we predicted that individuals deliberate more while composing e-mail messages under low (vs. high) power. This assumption was tested with well-established power priming. As such, we expected that experienced power in one context would diminish deliberation times during a subsequent e-mail communication. An experiment manipulating the experience of (low vs. high) power and measuring deliberation times during e-mail composition supported this hypothesis. The findings thus indicate how social power alters deliberation times. More importantly, the results show that individuals not only strategically deliberate during e-mail communication in line with their current situation, but also in line with their social standing in a previous situation (here, their experience of power).