Fragile promise: The role of justification in promise-breaking

People who consider themselves moral sometimes use self-serving justifications to rationalize their selfish behaviours. Previous studies have tested the role of ambiguity in justifying wrongdoings, but it remains unclear whether ambiguity also plays a role in justifying promise-breaking behaviour and whether heterogeneity exists. To investigate justification in promise-breaking, we introduced a new experimental paradigm called the card-guessing task and used hierarchical cluster analysis to classify participants based on their promise-breaking decisions in unambiguous and ambiguous conditions. Experiment 1 revealed three clusters of solutions: Cluster 1 always kept their promises (i.e., keepers); Cluster 2 only exploited the vague promises and broke their promises in the ambiguous condition (i.e., intermediates); Cluster 3 tended to take advantage of vague promises and broke their promises irrespective of ambiguity (i.e., breakers). Experiment 2 confirmed that participants in the three clusters differed in their norm-abiding preferences and social value orientations. Keepers were more altruistic and had a stronger sense of norm compliance than intermediates and breakers. In conclusion, our study demonstrates that self-serving justifications were more likely to be employed by people who are moderately sensitive to deviation from social norms, which has implications for strategic interventions and policy formulation concerning unethical behaviour.     

Worldviews about change: Their structure and their implications for understanding responses to sustainability,technology, and political change

People hold different perspectives about how they think the world is changing or should change. We examined five of these “worldviews” about change: Progress, Golden Age, Endless Cycle, Maintenance, and Balance. In Studies 1–4 (total N = 2733) we established reliable measures of each change worldview, and showed how these help explain when people will support or oppose social change in contexts spanning sustainability, technological innovations, and political elections. In mapping out these relationships we identify how the importance of different change worldviews varies across contexts, with Balance most critical for understanding support for sustainability, Progress/Golden Age important for understanding responses to innovations, and Golden Age uniquely important for preferring Trump/Republicans in the 2016 US election. These relationships were independent of prominent individual differences (e.g., values, political orientation for elections) or context-specific factors (e.g., self-reported innovativeness for responses to innovations). Study 5 (N = 2140) examined generalizability in 10 countries/regions spanning five continents, establishing that these worldviews exhibited metric invariance, but with country/region differences in how change worldviews were related to support for sustainability. These findings show that change worldviews can act as a general “lens” people use to help determine whether to support or oppose social change.     

Inspired to donate: How donors' social class impacts charitable donations

Previous research has found that donors' social class affects their own charitable giving. This research explores the effect of donors' social class on others' donation behavior. Specifically, we propose that individuals feel more inspired to engage in prosocial behavior after learning about low-social-class donors (vs. high-social-class donors) perform the giving behavior. A series of five studies, combining online and experimental data, provide converging support for this proposition and its underlying mechanism of inspiration. Furthermore, we show that the effect of donors' social class on individuals' donation behavior is attenuated when the donation currency is goods (instead of money). The article concludes with implications for the marketing of charities and prosocial behaviors.     

Mental health symptoms,well-being and experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods practice-based study

The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated abrupt and substantial changes in daily life, and public health strategies intended to protect physical health can negatively affect mental health and well-being, especially for individuals with pre-existing mental health challenges. For this study, we surveyed a sample of clients (N = 94) in the summer of 2020 from a community mental health clinic in the northeast United States. A mixed-methods, concurrent triangulation design was used to (a) identify client subgroups on indicators of mental health (i.e. anxious and depressive symptoms) and emotional, psychological, and social well-being using latent profile analysis (LPA), and (b) within these subgroups, examine qualitative, thematic patterns in self-described challenges, benefits and learning related to the pandemic. The LPA revealed five distinct subgroups with various levels of symptoms and well-being, including Stagnant (moderate symptoms/moderate well-being), Languishing (high symptoms/low well-being), Flourishing (low symptoms, high well-being), Fortitudinous (high symptoms, moderate well-being) and Mobilized (moderate symptoms, high well-being). These divergent subgroups support the need to conceptualise mental health symptoms apart from well-being and assess for heterogeneous constellations of such constructs among psychotherapy clients. Thematic analysis offered additional insight into pandemic experiences within each subgroup, including attention to psychological, emotional, behavioural/lifestyle, relational, physical and ecological/contextual dimensions of self-experience, as well as the ways clients had adjusted to the pandemic's circumstances. Findings support nuanced conceptualisations of positive mental health and offer insight into coping and adaptation during this public health crisis.     

An individual difference model for the multidimensional analysis of preference data

A model for the analysis of paired comparison data is presented which combines features of the BTL-model with features of the Unfolding model. The model is metric, mathematically tractable, and has an exact algebraic solution. Since it is multidimensional and allows for individual differences, it is thought to be more realistic for some choice situations than either the Thurstone model or the BTL-model. No claim is made that the present model will be appropriate for all conceivable choice situations. Rather, it is argued that the fact that it is explicitly falsifiable is a point in its favor.This work was supported by a grant of the United States Public Health Service (1 R03 MH19139 01 MSM) and a David Ross (XR) grant of the Purdue Research Foundation (PRF 2132), both of which are gratefully acknowledged. We also owe thanks to Dr. Terry Cooper, whose careful scrutiny of an earlier draft of this paper allowed us to reduce the number of errors from n to n-1.     

Some new results on factor indeterminacy

Some relations between maximum likelihood factor analysis and factor indeterminacy are discussed. Bounds are derived for the minimum average correlation between equivalent sets of correlated factors which depend on the latent roots of the factor intercorrelation matrix . Empirical examples are presented to illustrate some of the theory and indicate the extent to which it can be expected to be relevant in practice.     

Early judgments of semantic and syntactic acceptability by children

Judgments of the acceptability of correct, word order reversed, and semantically anomalous sentences were elicited from 2- and 3-year-old children in a game played with hand puppets. All of the sentences used were simple imperatives and each child was asked to correct those he called wrong. Performance on the judgment task was correlated with each child's mean length of utterance and with his comprehension of reversible active and passive sentences. Only the linguistically most advanced children were able to make a significant number of appropriate judgments and corrections of reversed word order imperatives. Less developed children could appropriately judge and correct semantically anomalous but not incorrect word order imperatives. The importance of semantic as opposed to syntactic factors in children's judgments of the acceptability of sentences is stressed.This research was supported in part by PHS Grant HD-02908 from the National Institute of Child Health and Development. Roger Brown is the principal investigator.     

Air-puff-elicited startle: Habituation over trials and measurement of a hypothetical emotional response

In the first of two experiments, it was demonstrated that an air puff elicited a reliable startle reflex in rats which showed no habituation over 50 trials. In the second study an attempt was made to measure an emotional response by recording startle reactions to the air puff during presentation of a presumed fear-eliciting CS. It was concluded that the air-puff-elicited startle reflex can be employed as an indirect measure of a hypothetical emotional response.