A test of vaccine endorsement by political in- versus out-group sources: Effect on vaccination likelihood and exploration of mediation through perceived bias and liking

This study investigated whether political endorsements from in- versus out-group political elites would influence likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination. In March 2021, we ran an experiment with Democrats and Republicans in the United States to examine whether they would be more likely to get vaccinated following endorsements by former Presidents Obama or Trump. Participants reported greater likelihood of getting vaccinated if the vaccine was endorsed by an elite from their own rather than the opposing party. This effect was driven by Trump, who increased vaccination likelihood among Republicans but decreased it among Democrats. We also investigated the mechanisms underlying this persuasion effect and found that perceived bias and liking were plausible mediators, whereas perceived trustworthiness and expertise were not. This study highlights the potential of having endorsements from both Democrat and Republican political elites to increase support for health behaviors in a politically charged climate.     

Intellectual humility predicts COVID-19 preventive practices through greater adoption of data-driven information and feelings of responsibility

Preventive health practices have been crucial to mitigating viral spread during the COVID-19 pandemic. In two studies, we examined whether intellectual humility—openness to one's existing knowledge being inaccurate—related to greater engagement in preventive health practices (social distancing, handwashing, mask-wearing). In Study 1, we found that intellectually humble people were more likely to engage in COVID-19 preventive practices. Additionally, this link was driven by intellectually humble people's tendency to adopt information from data-driven sources (e.g., medical experts) and greater feelings of responsibility over the outcomes of COVID-19. In Study 2, we found support for these relationships over time (2 weeks). Additionally, Study 2 showed that the link between intellectual humility and preventive practices was driven by a greater tendency to adopt data-driven information when encountering it, rather than actively seeking out such information. These findings reveal the promising role of intellectual humility in making well-informed decisions during public health crises.     

The myth of regaining control: Ostracism increases superstitious tendencies

Whether and how interpersonal experiences predispose people to show superstitious tendencies have been largely unexamined by past studies. By adopting a multimethod approach, three studies tested (a) whether ostracism increases superstitious tendencies through thwarted perceived control, (b) whether the dispositional need for closure moderates the effect of ostracism on superstitious tendencies and (c) whether restoring ostracized people's thwarted control weakens their superstitious tendencies. The results revealed that ostracized participants had higher superstitious tendencies than nonostracized participants did (Studies 1–3). Moreover, thwarted control mediated the effect of ostracism on superstitious tendencies (Study 2). In addition, the dispositional need for closure moderated the effect of ostracism on superstitious tendencies, such that the effect was stronger among participants with a high need for closure (Studies 1–2). Finally, restoring ostracized participants' perceived control weakened the effect of ostracism on superstitious tendencies (Study 3). Altogether, these findings feature the essential role of thwarted perceived control in understanding the link between ostracism and superstitious tendencies and the implication of control restoration in weakening the link. They also highlight the importance of dispositional characteristics in moderating people's responses to superstitions following ostracism and related forms of interpersonal maltreatment.     

The responsibility of engineers, appropriate technology, and lesser developed nations

Projects importing technology to lesser developed nations may raise five important concerns: famine resulting from substitution of cash crops for subsistence crops, the use of products banned in the United States but permitted overseas, the use of products safe in the U.S. but unsafe under local conditions, ecological consequences of technological change, and cultural disruption caused by displacing traditional ways of life. Are engineers responsible for the foreseeable hunger, environmental degradation, cultural disruption, and illness that results from the project? Are engineers guilty of paternalism if they refuse to accept the project for that reason? Criteria are given to help engineers assess the extent of their responsibility when working in lesser developed nations.     

Group Wrongs and Guilt Feelings

Can it ever be appropriate to feel guilt just because one's group has acted badly? Some say no, citing supposed features of guilt feelings as such. If one understands group action according to my plural subject account of groups, however, one can argue for the appropriateness of feeling guilt just because one's group has acted badly - a feeling that often occurs. In so arguing I sketch the plural subject account of groups, group intentions and group actions: for a group to intend (in the relevant sense) is for its members to be jointly committed to intend that such-and-such as a body. Individual group members need not be directly involved in the formation of the intention in order to participate in such a joint commitment. The core concept of joint commitment is in an important way holistic, not being reducible to a set of personal commitments over which each party holds sway. Parties to a group intention so understood can reasonably see the resulting action as "ours" as opposed to "theirs" and thus appropriately respond to the action's badness with a feeling of guilt, even when they themselves are morally innocent in the matter. I label the feeling in question a feeling of "membership guilt." A number of standard philosophical claims about the nature of guilt feelings are thrown into question by my argument.     

Social desirability,perceived stress,and PACT ratings in lung transplant candidates: A preliminary investigation

Some aspect of psychosocial criteria is commonly utilized by most transplant programs in assessing candidates' acceptability for transplantation. However, regardless of the assessment methodology, information obtained in pretransplant assessments may be limited given the evaluative nature of the assessment as well as the sensitive nature of the contents. Indeed, transplant candidates may present themselves in a favorable fashion, minimizing any negative traits or psychological dysfunction which they perceive might prevent transplantation. Unfortunately, there are limited data addressing the extent to which transplant candidates may present themselves in an overly positive light. This investigation surveys the prevalence of social desirability in lung transplant candidates as well as its association with self-reports of perceived stress. Further, the relationship between social desirability and interviewer ratings of transplant candidacy is examined. Subjects included 24 patients in end-stage organ failure being evaluated for lung transplant candidacy. Subjects completed the Perceived Stress Scale and a brief version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Additionally, subjects were interviewer-rated on the Psychosocial Assessment of Candidates for Transplantation. Results indicate social desirability is a prevalent phenomenon in lung transplant candidates, with more than half of the sample scoring at or above the 84th percentile on the social desirability measure. Further, self-reports of perceived stress are moderately and inversely associated with social desirability (r=–.55,p .01). Social desirability was unrelated to interviewer-ratings of transplant candidates acceptability (r=.13,p .56). Future research might include larger samples of subjects, other organ transplant candidates, and more detailed assessments of symptom distress.     

高中生感知教师支持与学习投入的关系:学业自我效能感和成就目标定向的链式中介作用

采用感知教师支持、学习投入、学业自我效能感和成就目标定向问卷对498名高中生进行问卷调查,探讨感知教师支持对学习投入的影响,以及学业自我效能感和成就目标定向的链式中介效应。结果显示：（1）感知教师支持能通过学业自我效能感间接预测高中生学习投入,感知教师支持可以通过掌握趋近、表现趋近、表现回避间接预测高中生学习投入;（2）学业自我效能感→掌握趋近、学业自我效能感→表现趋近、学业自我效能感→表现回避三者分别在感知教师支持与学习投入之间起链式中介作用,学业自我效能感→掌握回避的中介效应则不显著。上述结果表明,感知教师支持不仅能分别通过学业自我效能感、掌握趋近、表现趋近、表现回避预测高中生学习投入,还能通过学业自我效能感和成就目标定向的链式中介作用间接预测高中生学习投入。     

Perception of autonomic reactions and actual heart rate in phobic patients

The relationship between perceived physiological arousal and actual heart-rate reactions was studied in two behavioral test situations. The subjects were 70 phobic patients (34 social phobics and 36 claustrophobics) who were given the general form of the Autonomic Perception Questionnaire about 1 month before the respective behavioral test and the specific form immediately after the test. The results showed significant correlations between APQ and actual heart rate for the social phobics, while the picture was more complicated for the claustrophobics. The implications of these results are discussed.This research was supported by Grant 05452 from the Swedish Medical Research Council.     

Close‐knit ties through thick and thin: Sharing social exclusion and acceptance enhances social bond

Three experiments investigated whether and why sharing experiences of social exclusion or social acceptance with others strengthens social bonds. Participants experienced either social exclusion or social acceptance alongside another co‐participant who either also experienced the same outcome, or experienced a different outcome, as them. Multilevel modeling results showed that participant dyads who shared the experience of social exclusion or social acceptance felt closer to each other than those who experienced different outcomes, and that perceived similarity mediated the effect of shared experiences on social bonds. Interestingly, participants felt closer to one another after having shared social acceptance, more so than when they have shared social exclusion. Implications of the present findings are interpreted in light of theories of social exclusion, shared experiences, and social bonding.     

How expert witnesses' counterfactuals influence causal and responsibility attributions of mock jurors and expert judges

Past research has shown that counterfactual (“If…then…”) thoughts influence causal and responsibility attribution in the judicial context. However, little is known on whether and how the use of counterfactuals in communication affects lay jurors' and judges' evaluations. In two studies, we asked mock lay jurors (Study 1) and actual judges (Study 2) to read a medical malpractice case followed by an expert witness report, which included counterfactuals focused on either the physician, the patient, or external factors. Results showed that counterfactual focus had a strong effect on both lay jurors' and judges' causal and responsibility attributions. Counterfactual focus also moderated the effect of outcome foreseeability on responsibility attribution. Discussion focuses on how counterfactual communication can direct causal and responsibility attribution and reduce the importance of other factors known to influence judicial decision‐making. The potential implications of these findings in training programs and debiasing interventions are also discussed.