Politicians polarize and experts depolarize public support for COVID-19 management policies across countries.

Political polarization impeded public support for policies to reduce the spread of COVID-19, much as polarization hinders responses to other contemporary challenges. Unlike previous theory and research that focused on the United States, the present research examined the effects of political elite cues and affective polarization on support for policies to manage the COVID-19 pandemic in seven countries (n = 12,955): Brazil, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Across countries, cues from political elites polarized public attitudes toward COVID-19 policies. Liberal and conservative respondents supported policies proposed by ingroup politicians and parties more than the same policies from outgroup politicians and parties. Respondents disliked, distrusted, and felt cold toward outgroup political elites, whereas they liked, trusted, and felt warm toward both ingroup political elites and nonpartisan experts. This affective polarization was correlated with policy support. These findings imply that policies from bipartisan coalitions and nonpartisan experts would be less polarizing, enjoying broader public support. Indeed, across countries, policies from bipartisan coalitions and experts were more widely supported. A follow-up experiment replicated these findings among US respondents considering international vaccine distribution policies. The polarizing effects of partisan elites and affective polarization emerged across nations that vary in cultures, ideologies, and political systems. Contrary to some propositions, the United States was not exceptionally polarized. Rather, these results suggest that polarizing processes emerged simply from categorizing people into political ingroups and outgroups. Political elites drive polarization globally, but nonpartisan experts can help resolve the conflicts that arise from it.

Children's self-evaluation of their prosociality when comparing themselves with a specific versus abstract other.

This study examines the development of children's self-assessment of their prosociality in normative social comparisons with an average peer, who was either a concrete individual, or an abstract one, at a school of average socioeconomic level in south Israel (N = 148, Age 6-12 years, 51% females; June 2021). Results show that older children exhibited the better-than-average (BTA) effect by perceiving themselves as more generous than their average peer. Conversely, younger children exhibited a worse-than-average effect, in that they assumed that their peers would act more generously than themselves ( η p 2 = .23 ). Only the older children (aged 8 years onward) were significantly affected by the concreteness of the target of comparison by exhibiting the BTA effect only when the average peer was abstract (not concrete).

Who's more generous than me? Children's self-evaluation of their prosociality in normative social comparisons.

We examined the development of children's self-evaluation of their prosociality in normative social comparisons (with an average peer). Results suggest that when comparing themselves with an average other in the abstract (i.e., without reference to actual behavior), elementary school children (aged 6-12 years) demonstrated the better than average (BTA) effect of perceiving themselves as more prosocial than their average peer (Study 1). However, when they evaluated other children's prosociality (sharing), after experiencing an actual opportunity to share their endowment with others (Studies 2 and 3), the younger children (at first-grade level) exhibited the worse than average (WTA) effect in that they assumed that their peers would act more generously than themselves. Task difficulty predicted relative self-evaluations across all examined ages, such that greater difficulty was related to a lower BTA effect (or a greater WTA effect). However, whereas the older children used abstract difficulty perceptions to evaluate themselves relative to others, the younger children's evaluations were affected only by the difficulty that they themselves experienced. In all age groups, the BTA effect was driven mostly by participants who were above the mean in the extent of their sharing, whereas the WTA effect was driven by those who shared below the mean of their age group.

Too Lonely to Help: Early Adolescents' Social Connections and Willingness to Help During COVID-19 Lockdown.

We examined early adolescents' social connections, their emotional state, and their willingness to act prosocially during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. In two studies-comparing fourth to sixth graders during lockdown with a similar sample in pre-pandemic times, and longitudinally examining the same sample of participants, twice-we found that overall, early adolescents' emotional state during lockdown was significantly worse than in normal times (before the pandemic). This decline was explained by the participants' ratings of their loneliness, which was linked to their social (virtual) connections during lockdown. Importantly, participants with fewer social connections (in the virtual world as well as in face-to-face interactions) were less willing to help a lonely peer-even though they experienced similar pangs of loneliness.

Effect of media presentations on willingness to commit to organ donation.

We examine how presentations of organ donation cases in the media may affect people's willingness to sign organ donation commitment cards, donate the organs of a deceased relative, support the transition to an "opt-out" policy, or donate a kidney while alive. We found that providing identifying information about the prospective recipient (whose life was saved by the donation) increased the participants' willingness to commit to organ donation themselves, donate the organs of a deceased relative, or support a transition to an "opt-out" policy. Conversely, identifying the deceased donor tended to induce thoughts of death rather than about saving lives, resulting in fewer participants willing to donate organs or support measures that facilitated organ donation. A study of online news revealed that identification of the donor is significantly more common than identification of the recipient in the coverage of organ donation cases-with possibly adverse effects on the incidence of organ donations.

Feel good, do good? Subjective well-being and sharing behavior among children.

The current study examined the association between children's subjective well-being (SWB) and their sharing behavior. School children (second and fifth graders) were interviewed in private and had an opportunity to share candy with a recipient under one of two between-participants conditions: Perceived-High Obligation (a recipient in poverty) and Perceived-Low Obligation (a temporarily needy recipient). Results provide initial evidence of an increased association between SWB and sharing decisions with age; whereas SWB was not significantly correlated with the incidence of sharing by younger children (second graders), it was a positive predictor of sharing behavior among fifth graders. Manipulating the perceived obligation to share (by emphasizing the causes beyond the recipient's need), we found that higher levels of SWB were linked to sharing only in the Perceived-Low Obligation condition. Children with lower SWB behaved as expected by the norm and shared to a similar degree as children with higher SWB when sharing felt obligatory. However, when sharing was less obligatory, higher levels of SWB were linked to higher levels of sharing.

Perceived Physical Vulnerability Promotes Prosocial Behavior.

Our research examines the association between perceived physical vulnerability and prosocial behavior. Studies 1 to 4 establish a positive association between individuals' vulnerability and their prosociality. To increase generality, these studies looked at different behaviors (volunteering vs. monetary donations), various physical harms (e.g., war vs. illness), and different samples (students vs. MTurk workers). Study 4 also provides initial evidence of a partial mediating effect of closeness on the observed association. In Study 5, perceived vulnerability is experimentally manipulated, demonstrating a causal link between vulnerability and willingness to donate. Study 6 further demonstrates that closeness partially mediates the association between vulnerability and donation, while ruling out an alternative explanation of the effect-such as that vulnerable people donate in expectation of future reciprocity. Together, our research demonstrates a consistent positive association between perceived physical vulnerability and prosociality. This effect appears small when considering daily threats and stronger when vulnerability becomes more salient.

Structured reflection increases intentions to reduce other people's health risks during COVID-19.

People believe they should consider how their behavior might negatively impact other people, Yet their behavior often increases others' health risks. This creates challenges for managing public health crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined a procedure wherein people reflect on their personal criteria regarding how their behavior impacts others' health risks. We expected structured reflection to increase people's intentions and decisions to reduce others' health risks. Structured reflection increases attention to others' health risks and the correspondence between people's personal criteria and behavioral intentions. In four experiments during COVID-19, people (N  = 12,995) reported their personal criteria about how much specific attributes, including the impact on others' health risks, should influence their behavior. Compared with control conditions, people who engaged in structured reflection reported greater intentions to reduce business capacity (experiment 1) and avoid large social gatherings (experiments 2 and 3). They also donated more to provide vaccines to refugees (experiment 4). These effects emerged across seven countries that varied in collectivism and COVID-19 case rates (experiments 1 and 2). Structured reflection was distinct from instructions to carefully deliberate (experiment 3). Structured reflection increased the correlation between personal criteria and behavioral intentions (experiments 1 and 3). And structured reflection increased donations more among people who scored lower in cognitive reflection compared with those who scored higher in cognitive reflection (experiment 4). These findings suggest that structured reflection can effectively increase behaviors to reduce public health risks.

The role of perspective taking and emotions in punishing identified and unidentified wrongdoers.

We present two studies examining the effect of identifiability on willingness to punish, emphasising that identifiability of the wrongdoer may increase or decrease willingness to punish depending on the punisher's perspective. When taking the wrongdoer's perspective, identifiability increases pity and decreases anger towards the wrongdoer, leading to a lighter punishment. On the other hand, when adopting the injured perspective, identifiability decreases pity and increases anger, resulting in a severe punishment. We show that while deliberation and rational factors affect the decision regardless of identification, the role of emotions in the decision is greater in the identified condition. Possible implications for public and educational policy are discussed.

Happy to help-if it's not too sad: The effect of mood on helping identifiable and unidentifiable victims.

People's preference to help single victims about whom they have some information is known as the identifiable victim effect. Previous research suggests that this effect stems from an intensive emotional reaction toward specific victims. The findings of two studies consistently show that the identifiability effect is attenuated when the subject is in a positive mood. Study 1 (along with a pilot study) demonstrate causal relationships between mood and identifiability, while using different manipulations to induce moods. In both studies, donations to identified victims exceeded donations to unidentified people-in the Negative Mood manipulations-while participants in the Positive Mood conditions showed no such preference. In Study 2, individual differences in people's moods interacted with the recipient's identifiability in predicting donations, demonstrating that the identifiability effect is attenuated by a positive mood. In addition, emotional reactions toward the victims replicate the donation pattern, suggesting emotions as a possible explanation for the observed donation pattern.

Sharing and belonging: Children's social status and their sharing behavior with in-group and out-group members.

The association between children's social-status within their peer-group and their prosociality was examined among fourth and sixth graders (N = 276), using sociometric nominations, and actual sharing with a fellow in-group member, or a member of an out-group. Results show an overall increase in sharing with age, and an overall correlation between children's social status among peers and their sharing behavior-however, across both age groups, this association was significant only in the in-group condition, not when the recipient child was an out-group member. Specifically, less accepted children behaved in a less prosocial manner only toward in-group members, not toward out-group ones. This suggests that situational factors and characteristics of the prospective recipient play an important part in the degree to which less socially accepted children are willing to act prosocially. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The Effect of the Number and Identification of Recipients on Organ-Donation Decisions.

We examined how presentations of organ donation cases in the media may affect people's decisions about organ donation issues. Specifically, we focused on the combined effect of the information about the number of recipients saved by the organs of one deceased person (one vs. four) and the identifiability of the donor and the recipient(s) in organ donation descriptions, on people's willingness to donate the organs of a deceased relative. Results suggest that reading about more people who were saved by the organs of a deceased donor does not increase willingness to donate. Replicating earlier research, we found that reading about a case of organ donation involving an identified deceased donor, deceased willingness to donate. However, this effect was attenuated when participants read about more recipients who were saved by the donation. Importantly, the presentation that prompted the greatest willingness to donate a deceased relative's organs was the one that featured an unidentified donor and only one identified recipient. Finally, an explorative investigation into participants' subconscious thoughts of death following the organ donation story revealed that identifying a deceased organ donor prompts more thoughts of death in the perceiver (regardless of the number of recipients).

The development of prosociality among Christian Arab children in Israel: The role of children's household religiosity and of the recipient's neediness.

We examined the development of sharing behavior of children (aged 6 to 12) within the unique, minority population of Christian Arab children in Israel (N = 319). Children had the opportunity to share candy with a needy or non-needy recipient. Parents' level of religiosity was assessed using the Duke University Religion Index questionnaire (DUREL). Results replicate previous research that focused primarily on the majority populations of the societies in question, by demonstrating an overall increase in the incidence of sharing with age. Furthermore-as previously found among the majority of Jewish children in Israel-the recipient's neediness moderated the association between household religiosity and sharing, such that religiosity predicted greater levels of sharing only when the recipient was described as "poor" (a child whose parents have little money), not when the prospective recipient was not specified as such. Finally, the neediness of the recipient increased the incidence of sharing regardless of age, suggesting that in this unique minority population, sensitivity to the recipient's neediness emerges already at the age of 6. We discuss possible mechanisms behind this developmental pattern. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Attitudes, knowledge, and preferences of the Israeli public regarding the allocation of donor organs for transplantation.

BACKGROUND: There is a stark disparity between the number of patients awaiting deceased-donor organ transplants and the rate at which organs become available. Though organs for transplantation are assumed to be a community resource, and the organ supply depends on public willingness to donate, current allocation schemes do not explicitly incorporate public priorities and preferences. This paper seeks to provide insights regarding the Israeli public's preferences regarding criteria for organ (specifically, kidney) allocation, and to determine whether these preferences are in line with current allocation policies. METHODS: A market research company administered a telephone survey to 604 adult participants representing the Jewish-Israeli public (age range: 18-95; 50% male). The questionnaire comprised 39 questions addressing participants' knowledge, attitudes, and preferences regarding organ donation and criteria for organ allocation, including willingness to donate. RESULTS: The criteria that respondents marked as most important in prioritizing waitlist candidates were maximum medical benefit (51.3% of respondents) and waiting time (21%). Donor status (i.e., whether the candidate is registered as an organ donor) was ranked by 43% as the least significant criterion. Most participants expressed willingness to donate the organs of a deceased relative; notably, they indicated that they would be significantly more willing to donate if organ allocation policies took their preferences regarding allocation criteria into account. Unlike individuals in other countries (e.g., the UK, the US, and Australia) who responded to similar surveys, Israeli survey respondents did not assign high importance to the candidate's age (24% ranked it as the least important factor). Interestingly, in some cases, participants' declared preferences regarding the importance of various allocation criteria diverged from their actual choices in hypothetical organ allocation scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this survey indicate that Israel's citizens are willing to take part in decisions about organ allocation. Respondents did not seem to have a strict definition or concept of what they deem to be just; yet, in general, their preferences are compatible with current policy. Importantly, participants noted that they would be more willing to donate organs if their preferences were integrated into the allocation policy. Accordingly, we propose that allocation systems must strive to respect community values and perceptions while maintaining continued clinical effectiveness.

It depends: Partisan evaluation of conditional probability importance.

Policies to suppress rare events such as terrorism often restrict co-occurring categories such as Muslim immigration. Evaluating restrictive policies requires clear thinking about conditional probabilities. For example, terrorism is extremely rare. So even if most terrorist immigrants are Muslim-a high "hit rate"-the inverse conditional probability of Muslim immigrants being terrorists is extremely low. Yet the inverse conditional probability is more relevant to evaluating restrictive policies such as the threat of terrorism if Muslim immigration were restricted. We suggest that people engage in partisan evaluation of conditional probabilities, judging hit rates as more important when they support politically prescribed restrictive policies. In two studies, supporters of expelling asylum seekers from Tel Aviv, Israel, of banning Muslim immigration and travel to the United States, and of banning assault weapons judged "hit rate" probabilities (e.g., that terrorists are Muslims) as more important than did policy opponents, who judged the inverse conditional probabilities (e.g., that Muslims are terrorists) as more important. These partisan differences spanned restrictive policies favored by Rightists and Republicans (expelling asylum seekers and banning Muslim travel) and by Democrats (banning assault weapons). Inviting partisans to adopt an unbiased expert's perspective partially reduced these partisan differences. In Study 2 (but not Study 1), partisan differences were larger among more numerate partisans, suggesting that numeracy supported motivated reasoning. These findings have implications for polarization, political judgment, and policy evaluation. Even when partisans agree about what the statistical facts are, they markedly disagree about the relevance of those statistical facts.

The association between religiousness and children's altruism: The role of the recipient's neediness.

We examined the role of the recipient's neediness as a moderator in the relation between children's household religiosity and prosocial behavior. Examining the behavior of children (2nd and 5th graders) from religious and nonreligious households in the dictator game, we found that the extent of sharing did not differ significantly between the 2 groups when the recipient was not described as needy. However, when the recipient was presented as a poor (needy) child, the religious group exhibited significantly more sharing behavior. Although the religious children's tendency to share more with needy recipients compared with the not-needy ones appeared already in the 2nd grade, it increased with age as children grew and internalized the norms of their immediate society. Among the major religions, the recipient's neediness is an important variable in the decision to give, which shapes religious children's prosocial behavior from an early age. Thus, future research should take this moderator into account when studying the relation between religiousness and prosociality in general and in the development of prosociality in children in particular. (PsycINFO Database Record

Altruistic behavior in cohesive social groups: The role of target identifiability.

People's tendency to be more generous toward identifiable victims than toward unidentifiable or statistical victims is known as the Identifiable Victim Effect. Recent research has called the generality of this effect into question, showing that in cross-national contexts, identifiability mostly affects willingness to help victims of one's own "in-group." Furthermore, in inter-group conflict situations, identifiability increased generosity toward a member of the adversary group, but decreased generosity toward a member of one's own group. In the present research we examine the role of group-cohesiveness as an underlying factor accounting for these divergent findings. In particular, we examined novel groups generated in the lab, using the minimal group paradigm, as well as natural groups of students in regular exercise sections. Allocation decisions in dictator games revealed that a group's cohesiveness affects generosity toward in-group and out-group recipients differently, depending on their identifiability. In particular, in cohesive groups the identification of an in-group recipient decreased, rather than increased generosity.

The development of scope insensitivity in sharing behavior.

The singularity effect of identifiable victims is described as the greater willingness to help a single, identified victim than to help a group of victims with the same need (whether victims are identified or not), which occurs even when the single victim is 1 of the group's members. The current research examines the development of this phenomenon in early childhood examining children's actual sharing behavior from the ages of 3.8 to 8.2. Our results show that although younger children are overall less willing to share with others, they give more of their endowment to a group of recipients than to a single recipient. However, this tendency reverses for older children and children with higher level of Theory of Mind, who exhibit the singularity effect by giving more of their endowment to a single, identified target. We discuss possible mechanisms behind this developmental pattern. (PsycINFO Database Record

Careful Cheating: People Cheat Groups Rather than Individuals.

Cheating for material gain is a destructive phenomenon in any society. We examine the extent to which people care about the victims of their unethical behavior-be they a group of people or an individual-and whether they are sensitive to the degree of harm or cost that they cause to these victims. The results of three studies suggest that when a group (rather than a single individual) is the victim of one's behavior, the incidence of cheating increases only if the harm to the group is presented in global terms-such that the cheating might be justified by the relatively minor harm caused to each individual in the group (Studies #1 and #3). However, when the harm or cost to each individual in the group is made explicit, the tendency to cheat the group is no longer apparent and the tendency to cheat increases when the harm caused is minor-regardless of whether the victim is an individual or a group of people (Study #2). Individual differences in rational and intuitive thinking appear to play different roles in the decision to cheat different type of opponents: individual opponents seem to trigger the subject's intuitive thinking which restrains the urge to cheat, whereas groups of opponents seem to trigger the subject's rational mode of thinking which encourage cheating.

Scope insensitivity in helping decisions: Is it a matter of culture and values?

The singularity effect of identifiable victims refers to people's greater willingness to help a single concrete victim compared with a group of victims experiencing the same need. We present 3 studies exploring values and cultural sources of this effect. In the first study, the singularity effect was found only among Western Israelis and not among Bedouin participants (a more collectivist group). In Study 2, individuals with higher collectivist values were more likely to contribute to a group of victims. Finally, the third study demonstrates a more causal relationship between collectivist values and the singularity effect by showing that enhancing people's collectivist values using a priming manipulation produces similar donations to single victims and groups. Moreover, participants' collectivist preferences mediated the interaction between the priming conditions and singularity of the recipient. Implications for several areas of psychology and ways to enhance caring for groups in need are discussed.