A newly detected bias in self-evaluation.

The widely observed positive bias on self-evaluation is mainly explained by the self-enhancement motivation which minimizes negative feedbacks and emphasizes positive ones. Recent agent based simulations suggest that a positive bias also emerges if the sensitivity to feedbacks decreases when the self-evaluation increases. This paper proposes a simple mathematical model in which these different biases are integrated. Moreover, it describes an experiment (N = 1509) confirming that the sensitivity to feedbacks tends to decrease when self-evaluation increases and that a directly related positive bias is detected.

Understanding individual and collective response to climate change: The role of a self-other mismatch.

Several scientists have shown the importance of mitigating global warming and have highlighted a need for major social change, particularly when it comes to meat consumption and collective engagement. In the present study (N = 486), we conducted a cross-sectional study to test the mismatch model, which aims at explaining what motivates individuals to participate in normative change. This model stipulates that perceiving a self-other difference in pro-environmental attitudes is the starting point and can motivate people to have high pro-environmental intentions. This mismatch effect is explained by participants' willingness to participate in normative and social change: people that perceive a gap between their personal attitude and the social norm should be more willing to participate in normative change. This should then motivate them to have high pro-environmental intentions on an individual and group level. The results confirm the hypothesized model on an individual and group level and explain how people can be motivated to participate in normative change. Implications of these findings and the need for further studies are discussed.

You read what you eat! Selective exposure effects as obstacles for environmental risk communication in the meat consumption debate.

The selective exposure effect describes people's tendency to prefer information that confirms rather than challenges existing beliefs. The present research replicates the selective exposure effect in the context of meat reduction as a proposed strategy to combat climate change. Additionally, we tested whether biased information selection can help explain polarization dynamics on the individual and group-level. We recruited a French crowd working sample (n = 351) to take part in an online study. Our research design included a selective exposure paradigm in which people could skip through a set of news headlines and decide for each headline whether to access an associated full text. The headlines either promoted or rejected meat reduction as effective environmental strategy. In accordance with the selective exposure effect, participants systematically preferred information in favor of their dietary habits. On a personal level, selective exposure indirectly accounted for attitudes towards meat reduction. On a social level, selective exposure indirectly accounted for indicators of group polarization. Overall, the findings demonstrate how psychological motives underlying information selection may hamper effective risk communication and could sharpen social divide in the climate change context. We discuss opportunities for future research and practical efforts to improve the efficacy of environmental risk communication.

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.

Basic human values during the COVID-19 outbreak, perceived threat and their relationships with compliance with movement restrictions and social distancing.

This study examines the evolution of Schwartz's Basic Human Values during the COVID-19 outbreak, and their relationships with perceived threat, compliance with movement restrictions and social distancing. An online questionnaire was administered to a heterogeneous sample of French citizens (N = 1025) during the first French lockdown related to the outbreak. Results revealed a significant evolution of values; the conservation value was higher during the outbreak than usual, and both self-enhancement and openness-to-change values were lower during the COVID-19 outbreak than usual. Conservation and perceived threat during the outbreak were robustly and positively related to both compliance with movement restrictions and social distancing. Conservation during the outbreak emerged as a significant partial mediator of the relationship between perceived threat and outcomes (i.e., compliance with movement restrictions and social distancing). Implications of these results for the malleability of values and the COVID-19 modelling are discussed.

Does increased interdisciplinary contact among hard and social scientists help or hinder interdisciplinary research?

Scientists across disciplines must often work together to address pressing global issues facing our societies. For interdisciplinary projects to flourish, scientists must recognise the potential contribution of other disciplines in answering key research questions. Recent research suggested that social sciences may be appreciated less than hard sciences overall. Building on the extensive evidence of ingroup bias and ethnocentrism in intergroup relations, however, one could also expect scientists, especially those belonging to high status disciplines, to play down the contributions of other disciplines to important research questions. The focus of the present research was to investigate how hard and social scientists perceive one another and the impact of interdisciplinary collaborations on these perceptions. We surveyed 280 scientists at Wave 1 and with 129 of them followed up at Wave 2 to establish how ongoing interdisciplinary collaborations underpinned perceptions of other disciplines. Based on Wave 1 data, scientists who report having interdisciplinary experiences more frequently are also more likely to recognise the intellectual contribution of other disciplines and perceive more commonalities with them. However, in line with the intergroup bias literature, group membership in the more prestigious hard sciences is related to a stronger tendency to downplay the intellectual contribution of social science disciplines compared to other hard science disciplines. This bias was not present among social scientists who produced very similar evaluation of contribution of hard and social science disciplines. Finally, using both waves of the survey, the social network comparison of discipline pairs shows that asymmetries in the evaluation of other disciplines are only present among discipline pairs that do not have any experience of collaborating with one another. These results point to the need for policies that incentivise new collaborations between hard and social scientists and foster interdisciplinary contact.

Resisting hostility generated by terror: An agent-based study.

We propose an agent-based model leading to a decrease or an increase of hostility between agents after a major cultural threat such as a terrorist attack. The model is inspired from the Terror Management Theory and the Social Judgement Theory. An agent has a cultural identity defined through its acceptance segments about each of three different cultural worldviews (i.e., Atheist, Muslim, Christian) of the considered society. An agent's acceptance segment is composed from its acceptable positions toward a cultural worldview, including its most acceptable position. An agent forms an attitude about another agent depending on the similarity between their cultural identities. When a terrorist attack is perpetrated in the name of an extreme cultural identity, the negatively perceived agents from this extreme cultural identity point of view tend to decrease the width of their acceptance segments in order to differentiate themselves more from the threatening cultural identity. We generated a set of populations with cultural identities compatible with data from a survey on attitudes among a large sample representative of the population of France; we then simulated the reaction of these agents facing a terrorist attack from Muslim extremists. For most populations, the average attitude toward Muslims becomes more negative. However, for some specific populations, we noticed the opposite effect as the average attitude of the population toward Muslims becomes less negative. In these populations, the Muslim agents strongly differentiate themselves from the terrorists' extreme cultural identity, and the other agents are aware of these changes. These reactions are due to particular properties of their cultural identities that are identified in this paper.

Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts.

In contrast to authors of previous single-nation studies, we propose that supporting multiculturalism (MC) or assimilation (AS) is likely to have different effects in different countries, depending on the diversity policy in place in a particular country and the associated norms. A causal model of intergroup attitudes and behaviors, integrating both country-specific factors (attitudes and perceived norms related to a particular diversity policy) and general social-psychological determinants (social dominance orientation), was tested among participants from countries where the pro-diversity policy was independently classified as low, medium, or high (N = 1,232). Results showed that (a) anti-Muslim prejudice was significantly reduced when the pro-diversity policy was high; (b) countries differed strongly in perceived norms related to MC and AS, in ways consistent with the actual diversity policy in each country and regardless of participants' personal attitudes toward MC and AS; (c) as predicted, when these norms were salient, due to subtle priming, structural equation modeling with country included as a variable provided support for the proposed model, suggesting that the effect of country on prejudice can be successfully accounted by it; and (d) consistent with the claim that personal support for MC and AS played a different role in different countries, within-country mediation analyses provided evidence that personal attitudes toward AS mediated the effect of social dominance orientation on prejudice when pro-diversity policy was low, whereas personal attitudes toward MC was the mediator when pro-diversity policy was high. Thus, the critical variables shaping prejudice can vary across nations.

Culture, gender, and the self: variations and impact of social comparison processes.

Psychological differences between women and men, far from being invariant as a biological explanation would suggest, fluctuate in magnitude across cultures. Moreover, contrary to the implications of some theoretical perspectives, gender differences in personality, values, and emotions are not smaller, but larger, in American and European cultures, in which greater progress has been made toward gender equality. This research on gender differences in self-construals involving 950 participants from 5 nations/cultures (France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United States, and Malaysia) illustrates how variations in social comparison processes across cultures can explain why gender differences are stronger in Western cultures. Gender differences in the self are a product of self-stereotyping, which occurs when between-gender social comparisons are made. These social comparisons are more likely, and exert a greater impact, in Western nations. Both correlational and experimental evidence supports this explanation.

Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals.

Four studies examined gender differences in self-construals and the role of social comparison in generating these differences. Consistent with previous research, Study 1 (N=461) showed that women define themselves as higher in relational interdependence than men, and men define themselves as higher in independence/agency than women. Study 2 (N=301) showed that within-gender social comparison decreases gender differences in self-construals relative to a control condition, whereas between-genders comparison increases gender differences on both relational interdependence and independence/agency. Studies 3 (N=169) and 4 (N=278) confirmed these findings and showed that changing self-construal changes gender differences in social dominance orientation. Across the 4 studies, strong evidence for the role of in-group stereotyping as mediator of the effect of gender on self-construal was observed on the relational dimension but not on the agentic dimension.

Social dominance orientation, prejudice, and discrimination: a new computer-based method for studying discriminatory behaviors.

A number of studies have shown that the scale of social dominance orientation (SDO), used to measure the degree of preference for inequality among social groups, is a predictive measure of social and political attitudes toward stigmatized outgroups. However, the relationship between SDO and discrimination has received little attention. The main goal of this study was to assess the validity of a new computer-based method used to measure discriminatory behaviors in a laboratory setting. An additional goal was to test the mediating role of prejudice in the relation between SDO and discrimination. The results provide a first validation of this new method and demonstrate that the effect of SDO on discrimination is mediated by prejudice.

Why are men more likely to support group-based dominance than women? The mediating role of gender identification.

Arguing from a sociobiological perspective, Sidanius and Pratto (1999) have shown that the male/female difference in social dominance orientation (SDO) is largely invariant across cultural, situational and contextual boundaries. The main objective of this study was to test the validity of Social Dominance Theory (SDT) by contrasting it with a model derived from Social Identity Theory (SIT). More specifically, while SIT predicts that gender identification mediates the effect of gender on SDO, SDT predicts the reverse. According to SDT, the degree to which men and women endorse status legitimizing ideology should determine to what extent they identify with their gender group. Using structural equation modelling, the results provide strong support for the SIT model and no support for SDT predictions. Implications of these results for social dominance theory and its sociobiologically based invariance hypothesis are discussed.

Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) has been proposed as an important variable in the explanation of prejudice. We distinguish between three conceptualizations of SDO: SDO as a personality trait (personality model), SDO as a moderator of the effects of situational variables (Person x Situation model), and SDO as a mediator of the effect of social position on prejudice (group socialization model [GSM]). Four studies (N = 1.657) looking at the relations between social positions, SDO, and prejudice in a natural setting and in a laboratory setting provide strong support for the GSM. In contrast to previous correlational findings, there is evidence of a cause (dominant social position), an effect (prejudice increases), and a mediator (SDO). These results suggest new perspectives on the integration of individual and contextual determinants of prejudice.