Retraction Note to: Happiness as alchemy: Positive mood leads to self-serving responses to social comparisons.

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.1007/s11031-011-9216-y.].

Power increases infidelity among men and women.

Data from a large survey of 1,561 professionals were used to examine the relationship between power and infidelity and the process underlying this relationship. Results showed that elevated power is positively associated with infidelity because power increases confidence in the ability to attract partners. This association was found for both actual infidelity and intentions to engage in infidelity in the future. Gender did not moderate these results: The relationship between power and infidelity was the same for women as for men, and for the same reason. These findings suggest that the common assumption (and often-found effect) that women are less likely than men to engage in infidelity is, at least partially, a reflection of traditional gender-based differences in power that exist in society.

Happiness as alchemy: Positive mood leads to self-serving responses to social comparisons.

People in a positive mood process information in ways that reinforce and maintain this positive mood. The current studies examine how positive mood influences responses to social comparisons and demonstrates that people in a positive mood interpret ambiguous information about comparison others in self-benefitting ways. Specifically, four experiments demonstrate that compared to negative mood or neutral mood participants, participants in a positive mood engage in effortful re-interpretations of ambiguously similar comparison targets so that they may assimilate to upward comparison targets and contrast from downward comparison targets.

Coping with chaos: how disordered contexts promote stereotyping and discrimination.

Being the victim of discrimination can have serious negative health- and quality-of-life-related consequences. Yet, could being discriminated against depend on such seemingly trivial matters as garbage on the streets? In this study, we show, in two field experiments, that disordered contexts (such as litter or a broken-up sidewalk and an abandoned bicycle) indeed promote stereotyping and discrimination in real-world situations and, in three lab experiments, that it is a heightened need for structure that mediates these effects (number of subjects: between 40 and 70 per experiment). These findings considerably advance our knowledge of the impact of the physical environment on stereotyping and discrimination and have clear policy implications: Diagnose environmental disorder early and intervene immediately.

What drives self-affirmation effects? On the importance of differentiating value affirmation and attribute affirmation.

In a series of studies, it is demonstrated that different types of self-affirmation procedures produce different effects. Affirming personally important values (value affirmation) increases self-clarity but not self-esteem. Affirming positive qualities of the self (attribute affirmation) increases self-esteem but not self-clarity (Study 1). As a consequence, attribute affirmation (which increases self-esteem) is more effective than value affirmation as a buffer against self-depreciating social comparison information. Attribute-affirmed participants more readily accept the self-evaluative consequences of threatening upward social comparisons than do value-affirmed participants (Study 2). However, value affirmation (which increases self-clarity) is a more effective buffer against dissonance threats. Value-affirmed participants showed less attitude change after writing a counterattitudinal essay than attribute-affirmed participants (Study 3).

When failure feels better than success: Self-salience, self-consistency, and affect.

People like self-consistent feedback because it induces feelings of predictability and control, but they like positive feedback because it induces positive self-esteem. We show that self-salience determines whether people are more consistency- or positivity-driven. When self-knowledge is salient, people's primary responses (i.e., under load) are consistency-driven (people with low self-esteem feel better after negative feedback than after positive feedback, whereas people with high self-esteem feel better after positive feedback than after negative feedback) and controlled responses are positivity-driven (people feel better after positive feedback than after negative feedback, regardless of self-consistency). Without salient self-knowledge this pattern reverses: people's primary responses are positivity-driven, whereas people's controlled responses are consistency-driven.

The influence of mood on attribution.

Four studies show that mood systematically affects attributions of observed behavior by altering relative attention to actor and context. When the actor is more salient, sad people are more inclined to perceive an actor in stable trait terms and favor dispositional over situational explanations, whereas the opposite is true for happy people (Studies 1-3). However, when the context is made more salient, this pattern reverses, such that those in a negative mood make more situational attributions than those in a positive mood (Study 4). Taken together, these findings provide strong support for our hypothesis that mood and salience interact to affect attributions.

Mood and context-dependence: Positive mood increases and negative mood decreases the effects of context on perception.

Five studies show that mood affects context-dependence, such that negative mood promotes attention to a salient target, whereas positive mood enhances attention to both target and context. Judgments of temperature (Study 1), weight (Study 2), and size (Studies 3 and 4) were more strongly affected by the context in a positive than in a negative mood. Moreover, these effects extend to the social domain: When perceiving a target person's emotions, happy people were more influenced by the context than were sad people (Study 5). Thus, positive mood enhanced, and negative mood reduced, the magnitude of perceptual context effects. The results suggest that this pattern is not easily explained in terms of effort or depth of processing differences.

Power increases hypocrisy: moralizing in reasoning, immorality in behavior.

In five studies, we explored whether power increases moral hypocrisy (i.e., imposing strict moral standards on other people but practicing less strict moral behavior oneself). In Experiment 1, compared with the powerless, the powerful condemned other people's cheating more, but also cheated more themselves. In Experiments 2 through 4, the powerful were more strict in judging other people's moral transgressions than in judging their own transgressions. A final study found that the effect of power on moral hypocrisy depends on the legitimacy of the power: When power was illegitimate, the moral-hypocrisy effect was reversed, with the illegitimately powerful becoming stricter in judging their own behavior than in judging other people's behavior. This pattern, which might be dubbed hypercrisy, was also found among low-power participants in Experiments 3 and 4. We discuss how patterns of hypocrisy and hypercrisy among the powerful and powerless can help perpetuate social inequality.

Affects of the unexpected: when inconsistency feels good (or bad).

Affective responses to disconfirmation of expectancies have paradoxical features: Incongruency is uncomfortable and elicits negative affect, but how do people feel when the incongruent outcome is positive? This article shows that affective responses to disconfirmed expectancies depend on whether people value consistency and thus focus on the expectancy-congruency of the outcome or on its valence. People with high need for structure, a prevention focus, or for whom mortality is salient, assign more value to consistency and are more congruency focused: They feel more positive after congruent outcomes than after incongruent outcomes (independent of valence). People with low need for structure, a promotion focus, or for whom mortality is not salient, value consistency less and are more outcome focused: They feel more positive after positive outcomes than after negative outcomes (independent of congruency). This article furthermore shows how responses to the unexpected unfold and that a congruency focus requires less cognitive resources than an outcome focus.

It depends on how you look at it: being versus becoming mindsets determine responses to social comparisons.

The current studies examine how focusing on evaluation of the current self (a 'being' mindset) or focusing on the projection of future selves (a 'becoming mindset') influences responses to social comparison information. The studies show that the mindset of individuals, independent of other situational variables, determines whether individuals regard targets as threatening, how targets influence self-evaluations, and how targets affect performance on relevant tasks. The studies also show that mindsets determine what kinds of social comparison information are influential. In a becoming mindset, people are influenced mainly by information from domains that are considered mutable, whereas in a being mindset, people are influenced by information from both immutable and mutable domains.

Being there with others: how people make environments norm-relevant.

In two studies we show that people make environments norm-relevant and this increases the likelihood that environments influence norm-relevant judgments. When people see environments without having people on their mind, this effect does not occur. Specifically, when exposed to an environment (a library), people's perceived importance of environment-relevant norms (be silent in libraries) increases, when the concept of 'people' is primed compared to when this is not the case. The impact on normative judgments of priming significant others (Study 1) is stronger than priming people in general (Study 2). Additional effects on conformism and public self-consciousness are discussed, as well as implications for future studies.

Differentiating social and personal power: opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach tendencies.

How does power affect behavior? We posit that this depends on the type of power. We distinguish between social power (power over other people) and personal power (freedom from other people) and argue that these two types of power have opposite associations with independence and interdependence. We propose that when the distinction between independence and interdependence is relevant, social power and personal power will have opposite effects; however, they will have parallel effects when the distinction is irrelevant. In two studies (an experimental study and a large field study), we demonstrate this by showing that social power and personal power have opposite effects on stereotyping, but parallel effects on behavioral approach.

How power influences moral thinking.

The authors conducted 5 studies to test the idea that both thinking about and having power affects the way in which people resolve moral dilemmas. It is shown that high power increases the use of rule-based (deontological) moral thinking styles, whereas low power increases reliance on outcome-based (consequentialist) moral thinking. Stated differently, in determining whether an act is right or wrong, the powerful focus on whether rules and principles are violated, whereas the powerless focus on the consequences. For this reason, the powerful are also more inclined to stick to the rules, irrespective of whether this has positive or negative effects, whereas the powerless are more inclined to make exceptions. The first 3 experiments show that thinking about power increases rule-based thinking and decreases outcome-based thinking in participants' moral decision making. A 4th experiment shows the mediating role of moral orientation in the effect of power on moral decisions. The 5th experiment demonstrates the role of self-interest by showing that the power-moral link is reversed when rule-based decisions threaten participants' own self-interests.

Who wants feedback? An investigation of the variables influencing residents' feedback-seeking behavior in relation to night shifts.

PURPOSE: The literature on feedback in clinical medical education has predominantly treated trainees as passive recipients. Past research has focused on how clinical supervisors can use feedback to improve a trainee's performance. On the basis of research in social and organizational psychology, the authors reconceptualized residents as active seekers of feedback. They investigated what individual and situational variables influence residents' feedback-seeking behavior on night shifts. METHOD: Early in 2008, the authors sent obstetrics-gynecology residents in the Netherlands--both those in their first two years of graduate training and those gaining experience between undergraduate and graduate training--a questionnaire that assessed four predictor variables (learning and performance goal orientation, and instrumental and supportive leadership), two mediator variables (perceived feedback benefits and costs), and two outcome variables (frequency of feedback inquiry and monitoring). They used structural equation modeling software to test a hypothesized model of relationships between variables. RESULTS: The response rate was 76.5%. Results showed that residents who perceive more feedback benefits report a higher frequency of feedback inquiry and monitoring. More perceived feedback costs result mainly in more feedback monitoring. Residents with a higher learning goal orientation perceive more feedback benefits and fewer costs. Residents with a higher performance goal orientation perceive more feedback costs. Supportive physicians lead residents to perceive more feedback benefits and fewer costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that some residents actively seek feedback. Residents' feedback-seeking behavior partially depends on attending physicians' supervisory style. Residents' goal orientations influence their perceptions of the benefits and costs of feedback-seeking.

Stereotyping based on voice in the presence of individuating information: vocal femininity affects perceived competence but not warmth.

In two experiments the authors examined the effect of vocal cues on warmth and competence judgments when other competing information was concurrently available. In Experiment 1, using male and female speakers posing as job applicants, the authors investigated how applicants' vocal cues and résumé information impacted judgments of competence and warmth. Results showed competence was solely affected by vocal femininity-applicants with masculine voices were rated as more competent than applicants with feminine voices, regardless of applicant gender or résumé information. Warmth was predominantly affected by résumés-applicants with feminine résumés were rated as warmer than applicants with masculine résumés. In Experiment 2, the potent effect of vocal femininity on competence was replicated even under conditions where the competing background information was directly diagnostic of warmth and competence. Furthermore, the authors found that the impact of vocal femininity on competence was largely due to the overlap between perceptions of vocal femininity and babyishness.

Why people stereotype affects how they stereotype: the differential influence of comprehension goals and self-enhancement goals on stereotyping.

In four studies, the authors examined the hypothesis that the way people stereotype is determined by the motives that instigate it. Study 1 measured and demonstrated the effectiveness of a commonly used priming technique to manipulate comprehension and self-enhancement goals. Study 2 demonstrated that why people stereotype determines how they stereotype: When a comprehension goal was salient, positive as well as negative stereotypes were applied, whereas a salient self-enhancement goal led to the application of negative but not positive stereotypes. Study 3 replicated these effects with different stereotypes. Study 4 replicated these effects and gave more insight in the consequences of goal fulfillment on stereotyping. Results indicated the fulfillment of a salient self-enhancement or comprehension goal led to the reduction of stereotyping. These effects were goal specific: Fulfillment of a self-enhancement goal decreased enhancement-driven but not comprehension-driven stereotyping; fulfillment of a comprehension goal decreased comprehension-driven but not enhancement-driven stereotyping.

Moods as spotlights: the influence of mood on accessibility effects.

Three studies explore the manner in which one's mood may affect the use and impact of accessible information on judgments. Specifically, the authors demonstrated that positive and negative moods differentially influence the direction of accessibility effects (assimilation, contrast) by determining whether abstract traits or concrete actor-trait links are primed. Study 1 investigated the impact of positive versus negative mood on the judgmental impact of trait-implying behaviors and found that positive moods lead to assimilation and negative moods to contrast. In Study 2, this effect was replicated in a subliminal priming paradigm. In Study 3, it was demonstrated that the type of information activated by trait-implying behaviors is indeed mood dependent, such that abstract trait information is activated in a positive mood, whereas specific actor-trait links are activated in a negative mood.

Emotion elicitor or emotion messenger? Subliminal priming reveals two faces of facial expressions.

Facial emotional expressions can serve both as emotional stimuli and as communicative signals. The research reported here was conducted to illustrate how responses to both roles of facial emotional expressions unfold over time. As an emotion elicitor, a facial emotional expression (e.g., a disgusted face) activates a response that is similar to responses to other emotional stimuli of the same valence (e.g., a dirty, nonflushed toilet). As an emotion messenger, the same facial expression (e.g., a disgusted face) serves as a communicative signal by also activating the knowledge that the sender is experiencing a specific emotion (e.g., the sender feels disgusted). By varying the duration of exposure to disgusted, fearful, angry, and neutral faces in two subliminal-priming studies, we demonstrated that responses to faces as emotion elicitors occur prior to responses to faces as emotion messengers, and that both types of responses may unfold unconsciously.

Silence and table manners: when environments activate norms.

Two studies tested the conditions under which an environment (e.g., library, restaurant) raises the relevance of environment-specific social norms (e.g., being quiet, using table manners). As hypothesized, the relevance of such norms is raised when environments are goal relevant ("I am going there later") and when they are humanized with people or the remnants of their presence (e.g., a glass of wine on a table). Two studies show that goal-relevant environments and humanized environments raise the perceived importance of norms (Study 1) and the intention to conform to norms (Study 2). Interestingly, in both studies, these effects reach beyond norms related to the environments used in the studies.