Social mindfulness and prosociality vary across the globe.

Humans are social animals, but not everyone will be mindful of others to the same extent. Individual differences have been found, but would social mindfulness also be shaped by one's location in the world? Expecting cross-national differences to exist, we examined if and how social mindfulness differs across countries. At little to no material cost, social mindfulness typically entails small acts of attention or kindness. Even though fairly common, such low-cost cooperation has received little empirical attention. Measuring social mindfulness across 31 samples from industrialized countries and regions (n = 8,354), we found considerable variation. Among selected country-level variables, greater social mindfulness was most strongly associated with countries' better general performance on environmental protection. Together, our findings contribute to the literature on prosociality by targeting the kind of everyday cooperation that is more focused on communicating benevolence than on providing material benefits.

Cross-Theoretical Compliance: An Integrative Compliance Analysis of COVID-19 Mitigation Responses in Israel.

To understand the question why people obey or break rules, different approaches have focused on different theories and subsets of variables. The present research develops a cross-theoretical approach that integrates these perspectives. We apply this in a survey of compliance with COVID-19 pandemic mitigation rules in Israel. The data reveal that compliance in this setting was shaped by a combination of variables originating from legitimacy, capacity, and opportunity theories (but not rational choice or social theories). This demonstrates the importance of moving beyond narrow theoretical perspectives of compliance, to a cross-theoretical understanding-in which different theoretical approaches are systematically integrated.

Coping with noise in social dilemmas: Group representatives fare worse than individuals because they lack trust in others' benign intentions.

Research on interindividual-intergroup discontinuity has illuminated distinct patterns of cognition, motivation, and behavior in interindividual versus intergroup contexts. However, it has examined these processes in laboratory environments with perfect transparency, whereas real-life interactions are often characterized by noise (i.e., misperceptions and unintended errors). This research compared interindividual and intergroup interactions in the presence or absence of noise. In a laboratory experiment, participants played 35 rounds of a dyadic give-some dilemma, in which they acted as individuals or group representatives. Noise was manipulated, such that players' intentions either were perfectly translated into behavior or could deviate from their intentions in certain rounds (resulting in less cooperative behavior). Noise was more detrimental to cooperation in intergroup contexts than in interindividual contexts, because (a) participants who formed benign impressions of the other player coped better with noise, and (b) participants were less likely to form such benign impressions in intergroup than interindividual interactions.

Beyond compensation? Examining the role of apologies in the restoration of victims' needs in simulated tort cases.

Tort law currently debates the value of facilitating apology to enhance the restoration of victims' nonmaterial needs, and to promote dispute resolution. However, the extent to which apology can augment these outcomes beyond conventional, monetary reparations is not yet clear. The present research aimed to provide some first insights into this question, by means of 2 experimental studies conducted among community members recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk; Study 1) and Prolific (Study 2). Participants imagined a scenario in which they became victims of a traffic accident. Study 1 (N = 81, 42 men, 39 women, Mage = 35.90) manipulated the resulting harm (personal injury or property loss) to examine which needs participants experienced, and what remedies (apology, compensation) they desired. Factor analysis revealed (nonmaterial) needs for interpersonal treatment, responsibility taking, closure, and punishment, and (material) needs for compensation; these needs were as prominent after property loss as after personal injury. Nonmaterial needs predicted greater desire for apology (and not compensation). Study 2 (N = 485, 286 men, 199 women, Mage = 31.03) examined how these remedies impacted the satisfaction of these needs and dispute resolution by manipulating apology (no apology, apology), compensation level (partial, approximate, or exact), and harm within the same scenario. Apologies enhanced the restoration of participants' nonmaterial needs. However, settlement remained mostly contingent on compensation: (modest) effects of apology were restricted to partial compensation. These findings, therefore, imply that apologies could augment victims' restoration after torts, but may be limited as a catalyst for settlement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Social distancing in America: Understanding long-term adherence to COVID-19 mitigation recommendations.

A crucial question in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks is how to ensure that people continue to adhere to mitigation measures for the longer duration. The present paper examines this question by means of a set of cross-sectional studies conducted in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, in May, June, and July of 2020. Using stratified samples that mimic the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population, it seeks to understand to what extent Americans continued to adhere to social distancing measures in the period after the first lockdown ended. Moreover, it seeks to uncover which variables sustained (or undermined) adherence across this period. For this purpose, we examined a broad range of factors, relating to people's (1) knowledge and understanding of the mitigation measures, (2) perceptions of their costs and benefits, (3) perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice, (4) personal factors, (5) social environment, and (6) practical circumstances. Our findings reveal that adherence was chiefly shaped by three major factors: respondents adhered more when they (a) had greater practical capacity to adhere, (b) morally agreed more with the measures, and (c) perceived the virus as a more severe health threat. Adherence was shaped to a lesser extent by impulsivity, knowledge of social distancing measures, opportunities for violating, personal costs, and descriptive social norms. The results also reveal, however, that adherence declined across this period, which was partly explained by changes in people's moral alignment, threat perceptions, knowledge, and perceived social norms. These findings show that adherence originates from a broad range of factors that develop dynamically across time. Practically these insights help to improve pandemic governance, as well as contributing theoretically to the study of compliance and the way that rules come to shape behavior.

Bad for me or bad for us? Interpersonal orientations and the impact of losses on unethical behavior.

The present research examines the role of allocations of losses versus gains on the emergence of unethical behavior as a function of people's social value orientation. The authors demonstrate that (a) proselfs regard unethical behavior to prevent losses as more justified than prosocials (Study 1) and (b) proselfs engage in more unethical behavior to prevent losses than prosocials (Study 2). These differences are explained by prosocials' greater concern for harm to interdependent others in the domain of losses. A third study further substantiates these findings by revealing that unethical behavior to prevent losses increases among prosocials as harm to others is reduced. In sum, these results reveal that depending on whether people attend only to their self-interest or also consider the outcomes of others, losses either may increase or curtail unethical conduct. Considering social value orientations thus may reconcile conflicting theoretical perspectives on the impact of losses on social decisions.