Relational attributions for one's own resilience predict compassion for others.

Existing work on attribution theory distinguishes between external and internal attributions (i.e., "I overcame adversity due to luck" vs. "my own effort"). We introduce the construct of relational resilience attributions (i.e., "due to help from other people") as a critical, but overlooked form of external attribution that predicts compassion toward others. We first document the presence of internal, relational (social external), and situational (nonsocial external) resilience attributions among people who have overcome unemployment, showing the predominance of internal attributions (Study 1). Next, we show that relational attributions uniquely predict compassion toward people struggling to overcome a range of challenges, including losing a loved one (Study 2), quitting smoking (Study 3a), workplace bullying (Study 3b), divorce (Study 4a), and pandemic survival (Study 4b). To examine causality and the malleability of relational attributions, we experimentally induce relational attributions among ex-smokers (Study 5), advanced degree holders (Study 6), and those who completed a fatiguing task (Study 7). We further find that gratitude is one critical link between one's own relational attributions and compassion toward others. Despite the prevailing tendency for people to make internal attributions for their resilience, forming relational attributions is positively associated with greater compassion for others struggling to endure adversity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Beliefs About Linear Social Progress.

Society changes, but the degree to which it has changed can be difficult to evaluate. We propose that people possess beliefs that society has made, and will make, progress in a linear fashion toward social justice. Five sets of studies (13 studies in total) demonstrate that American participants consistently estimated that over time, society has made positive, linear progress toward social issues, such as gender equality, racial diversity, and environmental protection. These estimates were often not aligned with reality, where much progress has been made in a nonlinear fashion. We also ruled out some potential alternative explanations (Study 3) and explored the potential correlates of linear progress beliefs (Study 4). We further showed that these beliefs reduced the perceived urgency and effort needed to make further progress on social issues (Study 5), which may ultimately inhibit people's willingness to act.

Collective transcendence beliefs shape the sacredness of objects: The case of art.

Many objects are viewed as sacred even though few people have a strong personal connection to them. To explain this phenomenon, we used art as a case study to develop and test a theory wherein collective transcendence beliefs-beliefs that an object links the collective to something larger and more important than the self, spanning space and time-are a key determinant of the sacredness of objects. Initial inductive studies pointed to perceptions of collective spirituality, collective meaning, and historical significance to humanity as the primary collective transcendence beliefs underlying the sacredness of art (Study 1), and subsequent exploration indicated that collective meaning was a mechanism by which collective spirituality and historical significance to humanity influenced sacredness judgments (Study 2). In support of this, six experimental studies demonstrated that heightening the collective spirituality and historical significance of an artwork resulted in participants viewing the artwork as more collectively meaningful, and subsequently more sacred (Studies 3-6), worthy of protection from the profane (Studies 3c and 6), and eliciting moral outrage in the face of desecration (Study 5). In all, across these studies (N = 5,304), we found converging evidence that collective transcendence beliefs elevate various forms of art (sculpture, music, and painting) to be held as sacred, even an amateur sketch done by the first author. Our findings uncover a novel mechanism underlying sacredness judgments, theoretically advancing our understanding of the sacred while pointing to a number of important real-world implications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Making utilitarian choices but giving deontological advice.

The traditional focus in the moral decision-making literature has been on understanding when and why people choose a utilitarian option versus a deontological option. However, we suggest that when deciding between these two options, people prefer a third option: to seek out others' advice-which raises the question, what advice do people give others who are faced with a moral dilemma? In a meta-analysis of responses to 50 unique moral dilemmas, furnished by undergraduates, online panelists, and passers-by, we compared 8,696 self-choice responses (from participants who decided what option they choose) with 8,548 advisor responses (from participants who recommended what option others should choose). We found that when advising others, participants favored deontological options more, recommending these options over the more utilitarian options that participants chose for themselves (d = .112). Our research shows that when people seek advice from others, the two cents they receive are a deontological sense. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Instrumental use erodes sacred values.

A fundamental feature of sacred values like environmental-protection, patriotism, and diversity is individuals' resistance to trading off these values in exchange for material benefit. Yet, for-profit organizations increasingly associate themselves with sacred values to increase profits and enhance their reputations. In the current research, we investigate a potentially perverse consequence of this tendency: that observing values used instrumentally (i.e., in the service of self-interest) subsequently decreases the sacredness of those values. Seven studies (N = 2,785) demonstrate support for this value corruption hypothesis. Following exposure to the instrumental use of a sacred value, observers held that value as less sacred (Studies 1-6), were less willing to donate to value-relevant causes (Studies 3 and 4), and demonstrated reduced tradeoff resistance (Study 7). We reconcile the current effect with previously documented value protection effects by suggesting that instrumental use decreases value sacredness by shifting descriptive norms regarding value use (Study 3), and by failing to elicit the same level of outrage as taboo tradeoffs, thus inhibiting value protective responses (Studies 4 and 5). These results have important implications: People and organizations that use values instrumentally may ultimately undermine the very values from which they intend to benefit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The unexpected power of positivity: Predictions versus decisions about advisor selection.

In almost any profession, selecting a good advisor is crucial for success. The current research examines the discrepancy between predicted versus actual advisor selection decisions. We found that individuals make consistent predictions that they would rely primarily on competence-based characteristics (e.g., expertise, experience) when selecting an advisor (Studies 1, 2, and 4). This predicted preference remained even when all potential advisors had relatively similar levels of expertise (Study 4). Using data from the reality competition The Voice, we examined whether this prediction translates into actual, high-stakes decision-making (Study 3). The results showed that, contrary to predictions, individuals were more likely to select advisors who expressed high amounts of positivity toward them. We then extended our investigation by testing predicted versus actual advisor selections in a single experiment, again finding evidence that people failed to anticipate the influence that expressed positivity would exert on their selection of an advisor (Study 5). Finally, we examined the performance consequences of this pattern of advisor selection, demonstrating that reliance on expressed positivity over expertise when selecting an advisor can inhibit advisees' performance improvements (Study 6). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Having "been there" doesn't mean I care: when prior experience reduces compassion for emotional distress.

The current research found that participants who had previously endured an emotionally distressing event (e.g., bullying) more harshly evaluated another person's failure to endure a similar distressing event compared with participants with no experience enduring the event or those currently enduring the event. These effects emerged for naturally occurring (Studies 1, 3, and 4) and experimentally induced (Study 2) distressing events. This effect was driven by the tendency for those who previously endured the distressing event to view the event as less difficult to overcome (Study 3). Moreover, we demonstrate that the effect is specific to evaluations of perceived failure: Compared with those with no experience, people who previously endured a distressing event made less favorable evaluations of an individual failing to endure the event, but made more favorable evaluations of an individual managing to endure the event (Study 4). Finally, we found that people failed to anticipate this effect of enduring distress, instead believing that individuals who have previously endured emotionally distressing events would most favorably evaluate others' failures to endure (Study 5). Taken together, these findings present a paradox such that, in the face of struggle or defeat, the people we seek for advice or comfort may be the least likely to provide it.

Effects of anger, guilt, and envy on moral hypocrisy.

In the current article the authors examined the impact of specific emotions on moral hypocrisy, the tendency among people to judge others more severely than they judge themselves. In two studies, they found that (a) anger increased moral hypocrisy, (b) guilt eliminated moral hypocrisy, and (c) envy reversed moral hypocrisy. In particular, these findings were observed in two domains. In Study 1, participants responded to moral dilemmas describing unethical behavior and rated how acceptable it would be if others engaged in the unethical behavior, or alternatively, if they themselves engaged in the unethical behavior. In Study 2, participants were asked how much they would like to donate to research on cancer, or alternatively, how much they think others should donate. The results demonstrate that specific emotions influence moral decision making, even when real money is at stake, and that emotions of the same valence have opposing effects on moral judgment.