The narcissism-overclaiming link revisited

The present research investigated how different dimensions of narcissism (i.e., assertive, antagonistic, and vulnerable) and content-specific forms of assertive narcissism (i.e., intellectual ability, physical attractiveness, social dominance) are related to overclaiming bias (i.e., the tendency to illegitimately claim knowledge). In the data from a large-scale online study (N = 1,658), the associations between overclaiming bias and any kind of narcissism were smaller than in many previous studies. Furthermore, assertive narcissism was more positively related to overclaiming bias than antagonistic and vulnerable narcissism were. Intellectual-ability-specific and social-dominance-specific assertive narcissism were more positively related to overclaiming bias than physical-attractiveness-specific assertive narcissism was. Finally, multiple regression analyses suggested that the narcissism-overclaiming link is most robust for social-dominance-specific assertive narcissism.     

Asymmetric dominance and phantom decoy effects in games

In individual choices between alternatives x and y, the availability of a third alternative z, judged inferior to x but not to y, tends to increase preferences for x. Two experiments investigated corresponding strategic asymmetric dominance effects in games. In Experiment 1, 72 players chose strategies in six symmetric 3 × 3 games, each having one strategy dominating just one other, or in reduced 2 × 2 games constructed by deleting the dominated strategies. Asymmetrically dominated strategies, even when unavailable (phantom decoy), increased choices of the strategies that dominated them and bolstered decision confidence. In Experiment 2, 81 participants played 12 similar but asymmetric games with or without dominated strategies, and similar asymmetric dominance, phantom decoy, and confidence effects were found.     

A group construal account of drop-in-the-bucket thinking in policy preference and moral judgment

Decisions, both moral and mundane, about saving individuals or resources at risk are often influenced not only by numbers saved and lost, but also by proportions of groups saved and lost. Consider choosing between a program that saves 60 of 240 lives at risk and one that saves 50 of 100. The first option maximizes absolute number saved; the second, proportion saved. In two studies, we show that the influence of proportions on such decisions depends on how items at risk are mentally represented. In particular, we show that proportions have greater influence on people's decisions to the extent that the items at risk are construed as forming groups, as opposed to distinct individuals. Construal was manipulated by means of animated displays in which resources at risk moved either independently (promoting individual construal) or jointly (promoting group construal). Results support the hypothesis that (a) decision makers form mental representations which vary in the degree to which resources at risk are construed as groups versus individuals and (b) construal of resources as groups promotes the influence of proportions on decisions and moral judgments.     

The power of generosity to change views on social power

Intergroup helping behavior by high status group members typically functions to support and further entrench systems of social hierarchy (Nadler, 2002). This research examined whether the virtue of generosity could increase support for more egalitarian group relations, as indexed by reduced social dominance orientation (SDO; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Pilot testing (N = 367) revealed a negative relationship between self-reported generosity and SDO. In Study 1, two long-term experimental manipulations of generosity in 110 college students reduced SDO. One manipulation involved a nine week community service learning project, and the other involved a five-part reflection paper assignment on generous individuals. In Study 2, a brief generosity prime in 58 college students reduced SDO scores. The potential benefits of targeting SDO directly, and the importance of examining the motives behind generosity are discussed.     

Social Dominance and the Cultural Politics of Immigration

We argue that conflict over immigration largely concerns who bears the burden of cultural transaction costs, which we define as the costs associated with overcoming cultural barriers (e.g., language) to social exchange. Our framework suggests that the ability of native‐born citizens to push cultural transaction costs onto immigrant out‐groups serves as an important expression of social dominance. In two novel studies, we demonstrate that social dominance motives condition emotional responses to encountering cultural transaction costs, shape engagement in cultural accommodation behavior toward immigrants, and affect immigration attitudes and policy preferences.