More human than you: attributing humanness to self and others

People typically evaluate their in-groups more favorably than out-groups and themselves more favorably than others. Research on infrahumanization also suggests a preferential attribution of the "human essence" to in-groups, independent of in-group favoritism. The authors propose a corresponding phenomenon in interpersonal comparisons: People attribute greater humanness to themselves than to others, independent of self-enhancement. Study 1 and a pilot study demonstrated 2 distinct understandings of humanness--traits representing human nature and those that are uniquely human--and showed that only the former traits are understood as inhering essences. In Study 2, participants rated themselves higher than their peers on human nature traits but not on uniquely human traits, independent of self-enhancement. Study 3 replicated this "self-humanization" effect and indicated that it is partially mediated by attribution of greater depth to self versus others. Study 4 replicated the effect experimentally. Thus, people perceive themselves to be more essentially human than others.     

How eudaimonic and hedonic motives relate to the well-being of close others

Past research has examined the link of eudaimonic and hedonic motives with personal well-being, but less is known about their link with the well-being of close others. Also, empirical data on the link with the well-being of close others would address an ongoing debate regarding whether eudaimonia is egoistic and possibly detrimental to others. Participants completed self-report measures of their typical degrees of eudaimonic and hedonic motivation. We then asked their friends and relatives to tell us how the participant affected their well-being. When entering eudaimonia and hedonia simultaneously as predictors of close other well-being in multiple regressions, only eudaimonia related positively to the well-being of close others. Thus, eudaimonia had a positive, not negative, impact on other people. Furthermore, while past research shows that both eudaimonic and hedonic motives benefit personal well-being, this study suggests that eudaimonic motivation has more positive influences on close others.     

Why we must leave our organs to others

Organ procurement presents several ethical concerns (from what constitutes acceptable criteria for death to issues involved in specifically designating to whom an organ can be given), but none is more central than the concern for what are appropriate means for acquiring organs. The following discussion attempts a different perspective on the issue of organ procurement by arguing that, rather than appealing to our charitable consciences or our pocketbooks, relinquishing our organs after death in this day and age is, in fact, obligatory for most people. Each of us is pressed by the growing demand for our organs should we die "rightly," and that desperate need has risen to such a level that not to release our organs for transplantation would constitute a serious moral wrong.     

Some situational determinants of the motives attributed to the person who performs a helping act

Two studies were directed at the assessment of donor motives for and appropriateness and evaluation of an unsolicited helping act directed at a high versus a low power person by self or other Results of the first study demonstrated no differences between self and other, but highly significant differences between high and low power on all three dependent measures, with an act directed at a high power person being seen as more self-seeking and being more negatively evaluated. A manipulation of liking for other in the second study resulted in significant differences between self and a disliked other on all three measures, with more negative attributions and evaluations of die disliked other As predicted, there were no differences between self and a liked other Power differences remained significant over all conditions of self and other Results were considered not to be attributable to trans-situational need states of the low power person, however, the act was consistently viewed as more appropriate when directed at a low power person.     

College students with tattoos and piercings: motives, family experiences, personality factors, and perception by others

The motives, family experiences, and personality characteristics of 341 college students with and without tattoos or piercings were studied. Participants completed Lippa's 1991 measures of the Big Five personality factors, a shortened version of the Body Cathexis Scale, a series of questions about their childhood experiences, and questions about risk-taking behaviors. In addition, reasons to have or not have body modifications and the perceptions of people with body modifications were investigated. Of the 116 men and 186 women, 25% and 33%, respectively, had at least one tattoo or body piercing. There were very few differences in the childhood experiences or personality characteristics of people with or without body modifications. Although people with body modifications did not differ from people without modifications on the Big Five personality measures, people without modifications perceived people with modifications as much different from themselves on these measures. These results indicate that tattoos and piercings in college students are associated with significantly more risk-taking behavior, greater use of alcohol and marijuana, and less social conformity. However, the traditional stereotype that body modifications are indicators of social or personal pathology does not describe contemporary college students.     

Models of self and others and their relation to positive and negative caregiving responses

The burden of providing informal care to a family member can lead to caregiver depression and potentially harmful caregiving behavior. Given the interpersonal nature of caregiving, the relationship between caregivers and care recipients may impact caregiver responses. We applied attachment theory to understanding caregiver depression, and both potentially harmful and exemplary caregiving responses. We present data from 430 caregivers in the Family Relationships in Late Life (FRILL 2) Project, a multisite, longitudinal study of caregiving. Age, gender, and model of self were related to caregiving responses, suggesting that model of self may help identify caregivers at risk for poor responses.     

Diversity in context: how organizational culture shapes reactions to workers with disabilities and others who are demographically different

Successfully integrating workers with disabilities into their organizations is both a challenge and an opportunity facing managers today. Despite laws and business practices prohibiting discrimination against those with disabilities, people with disabilities are consistently underutilized in organizations. This article applies theories of demographic diversity in organizations to assert that a richer understanding of organizational cultures and their implications for workers with disabilities may shed light on the question of how and why workers with disabilities may be excluded from mainstream work experiences and career progression. The article briefly reviews business arguments that support integration of workers with disabilities into organizations based on their contribution to the overall diversity within the organization, and reviews complications in the research on diversity to date that leave important questions of the potential gains or detriments from increasing this diversity unanswered. The article then goes on to introduce organizational culture as an underinvestigated but likely potent tool in explaining how and when workers who are demographically different, in general, and with disabilities, specifically, may be successfully integrated into an organization's work force. The article introduces three types of organizational culture: culture of differentiation, culture of unity, and culture of integration. Each is explained in terms of its content and its implications for managing diversity. A discussion of the implications of culture as a primary tool for managing the integration of workers with disabilities concludes the paper.     

Choosing to Report: Characteristics of employees who report the counterproductive work behavior of others

Managers typically expect employees to report counterproductive work behavior (CWB) when they see or have knowledge of other employees engaging in such acts. However, the degree to which individuals actually report CWB to company officials has not been addressed in the literature. Previous research has also not explored the personality traits, attitudes, and workplace behaviors of those employees who report CWB on the part of others. Hence, we conducted 2 studies with 2 independent samples to provide information on both of these points in an effort to assist organizations in curbing negative workplace acts and in making more informed personnel selection decisions.     

The diversity paradox: when people who value diversity surround themselves with like‐minded others

An anomaly exists between society's push for diversity and people's preference to be with like‐minded others—a diversity paradox. Research suggests it is endemic to group life to accentuate similarity within groups and maximize differences between groups. Drawing on uncertainty–identity theory, that uncertainty motivates identification with clearly defined groups, we explore whether increasing community identification to alleviate self‐uncertainty is impacted when diversity is important. In a naturalistic experiment, values match and placing importance on diversity each predicted community identification. Uncertainty decreased identification when diversity was important. Greater identification emerged when diversity and value similarity were important. This effect, strong under low uncertainty, did not emerge under high uncertainty. Findings are discussed in terms of the antagonism between society's push for diversity and research on the psychology of groups.     

Helping one's way to the top: self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom

The authors argue that high self-monitors may be more sensitive to the status implications of social exchange and more effective in managing their exchange relations to elicit conferrals of status than low self-monitors. In a series of studies, they found that high self-monitors were more accurate in perceiving the status dynamics involved both in a set of fictitious exchange relations and in real relationships involving other members of their social group. Further, high self-monitors elevated their social status among their peers by establishing a reputation as a generous exchange partner. Specifically, they were more likely than low self-monitors to be sought out for help and to refrain from asking others for help. This behavior provides one explanation for why high self-monitors acquire elevated status among their peers--they are more attuned to status dynamics in exchange relations and adapt their behavior in ways that elicit status.     

On the Rationality of our Response to Testimony

The assumption that we largely lack reasons for accepting testimony has dominated its epistemology. Given the further assumption that whatever reasons we do have are insufficient to justify our testimonial beliefs, many conclude that any account of testimonial knowledge must allow credulity to be justified. In this paper I argue that both of these assumptions are false. Our responses to testimony are guided by our background beliefs as to the testimony as a type, the testimonial situation, the testifier's character and the truth of the proposition testified to. These beliefs provide reasons for our responses. Thus, we usually do have reasons, in the sense of propositions believed, for accepting testimony and these reasons can provide evidence for the testimonial beliefs we form.     

Perceivers' responses to in-group and out-group members who blame a negative outcome on discrimination

The authors extend recent research concerning the social costs of claiming discrimination by examining men's and women's responses to in-group and out-group targets who either blamed a failing grade on discrimination or answer quality. Although participants generally responded more negatively to targets who blamed discrimination, rather than answer quality, dislike was greatest and gender group identification was lowest when participants evaluated an in-group target. Moreover, an in-group target who claimed discrimination was perceived as avoiding personal responsibility for outcomes to a greater extent than was a similar out-group target. Perceptions that the target avoided outcome responsibility by claiming discrimination were shown to mediate the relationship between attribution type and dislike of the in-group target. The authors discuss their results in terms of intragroup processes and suggest that social costs may especially accrue for in-group members when claiming discrimination has implications for the in-group's social identity.     

A cheat in our midst: How people evaluate and respond to fellow group members who cheat

Having a group cheat within a group can violate group trust and reduce the benefits gained from group membership. However, group members will sometimes cheat to get an advantage over other in‐group members. In two experiments, the present research investigated how group members evaluate and respond to fellow group members who cheat, and whether group prototypicality or evaluators’ group identification moderate evaluations and behavioral recommendations toward group cheats. In Study 1 (N = 146 undergraduate students), group members evaluated group cheats more negatively than a comparable group deviant. However, highly identified group members would spare a cheat who had high group prototypicality. In Study 2 (N = 227 undergraduate students), highly identified group members rated a one‐time cheat with high prototypicality more favorably than a one‐time cheat with low prototypicality. However, prototypicality did not moderate evaluations toward a multiple time group cheat. In both studies, target evaluations were associated with changes in behavioral recommendations. Overall, results indicate a pattern similar to research on transgression or deviance credit: having group prototypicality can save a group cheat from an initial negative evaluation from highly identified group members, but prototypicality does not buffer against negative evaluations toward multiple time group cheaters.     

All careproviders need more opportunities to share their ethical concerns with others

Attention to the ethical concerns of healthcare aides can provide important information about patients' needs to careproviders, improve the ethical environment of an institution, and benefit aides who suffer from bearing ethical concerns alone. All persons benefit from sharing their ethical concerns with others. Among other benefits, ethics consultation offers careproviders, caregivers, healthcare aides, patients, and patients' loved ones an opportunity to have their concerns heard. John Fletcher tried to follow every ethics consultation with a debriefing for all participants, including patients and family members, to increase the possibility for continued healing after the conclusion of the consultation, and there are good reasons to follow this practice.