Support for increasing low-wage workers' compensation: The role of fixed-growth mindsets about intelligence.

Approximately 44% of U.S. workers are low-wage workers. Recent years have witnessed a raging debate about whether to raise their minimum wages. Why do some decision-makers support raising wages and others do not? Ten studies (four preregistered) examined people's beliefs about the malleability of intelligence as a key antecedent. The more U.S. human resource managers (Study 1) and Indian business owners (Study 2) believed that people's intelligence can grow (i.e., had a growth mindset), the more they supported increasing low-wage workers' compensation. In key U.S. swing states (Study 3a), and a nationally representative sample (Study 3b), residents with a more growth mindset were more willing to support ballot propositions increasing the minimum wage and other compensation. Study 4 provided causal evidence. The next two studies confirmed the specificity of the predictor. People's beliefs about the malleability of intelligence, but not personality (Study 5a) or effort (Study 5b), predicted their support for increasing low-wage workers' compensation. Study 6 examined multiple potential mechanisms, including empathy, attributions for poverty, and environmental affordances. The relationship between growth mindset and support for raising low-wage workers' wages was explained by more situational rather than dispositional attributions for poverty. Finally, Studies 7a and 7b replicated the effect of growth mindset on support for increasing low-wage workers' compensation and provided confirmatory evidence for the mediator-situational, rather than dispositional, attributions of poverty. These findings suggest that growth mindsets about intelligence promote support for increasing low-wage workers' wages; we discuss the theoretical and practical implications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Privacy please: Power distance and people's responses to data breaches across countries.

Information security and data breaches are perhaps the biggest challenges that global businesses face in the digital economy. Although data breaches can cause significant harm to users, businesses, and society, there is significant individual and national variation in people's responses to data breaches across markets. This research investigates power distance as an antecedent of people's divergent reactions to data breaches. Eight studies using archival, correlational, and experimental methods find that high power distance makes users more willing to continue patronizing a business after a data breach (Studies 1-3). This is because they are more likely to believe that the business, not they themselves, owns the compromised data (Studies 4-5A) and, hence, do not reduce their transactions with the business. Making people believe that they (not the business) own the shared data attenuates this effect (Study 5B). Study 6 provides additional evidence for the underlying mechanism. Finally, Study 7 shows that high uncertainty avoidance acts as a moderator that mitigates the effect of power distance on willingness to continue patronizing a business after a data breach. Theoretical contributions to the international business literature and practitioner and policy insights are discussed. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41267-022-00519-5.

La seguridad de la información y las filtraciones datos son quizás los mayores desafíos que enfrentan las empresas globales en la economía digital. Aunque las filtraciones datos pueden causar un daño significativo a los usuarios, las empresas y la sociedad, existe una variación individual y nacional significativa en las respuestas de las personas a las filtraciones datos en todos los mercados. Esta investigación investiga la distancia de poder como un antecedente de las reacciones divergentes de las personas a las filtraciones datos. Ocho estudios que utilizan métodos de archivo, correlacionales y experimentales encuentran que una mayor distancia al poder hace que los usuarios estén más dispuestos a continuar tratando con condescendencia un negocio después de una filtración datos (Estudios 1­3). Esto se debe a que es más probable que crean que la empresa, no ellos mismos, son los dueños de los datos comprometidos (Estudios 4­5A) y, por lo tanto, no disminuyen sus transacciones con la empresa. Hacer creer a las personas que ellos (no la empresa) es dueña de los datos compartidos atenúa este efecto (Estudio 5B). El estudio 6 proporciona evidencia adicional para el mecanismo subyacente. Finalmente, el Estudio 7 muestra que una mayor aversión a la incertidumbre actúa como un moderador que mitiga el efecto de la distancia al poder en la voluntad de continuar patrocinando un negocio después de una filtración de datos. Se discuten las contribuciones teóricas a la literatura de negocios internacionales y las apreciaciones de los profesionales y las políticas.

Segurança da informação e violações de dados são talvez os maiores desafios que empresas globais enfrentam na economia digital. Embora violações de dados possam causar danos significativos a usuários, empresas e sociedade, há uma significativa variação individual e nacional nas respostas das pessoas a violações de dados nos mercados. Esta pesquisa investiga a distância do poder como um antecedente das reações divergentes de pessoas a violações de dados. Oito estudos usando métodos de arquivo, correlacionais e experimentais descobriram que grande distância do poder torna usuários mais dispostos a continuar apoiar uma empresa após uma violação de dados (Estudos 1­3). Isso ocorre porque elas são mais propensas a acreditar que a empresa, e não eles próprios, possui os dados comprometidos (Estudos 4­5A) e, portanto, não reduzem suas transações com a empresa. Fazer com que as pessoas acreditem que elas (e não a empresa) são donas dos dados compartilhados atenua esse efeito (Estudo 5B). O estudo 6 fornece evidência adicional para o mecanismo subjacente. Por fim, o Estudo 7 mostra que alta evitação de incerteza atua como um moderador que mitiga o efeito da distância do poder na disposição de continuar apoiando uma empresa após uma violação de dados. Contribuições teóricas para a literatura de negócios internacionais e insights sobre práticas e políticas são discutidas.

How you look is who you are: The appearance reveals character lay theory increases support for facial profiling.

People are excessively confident that they can judge others' characteristics from their appearance. This research identifies a novel antecedent of this phenomenon. Ten studies (N = 2,967, 4 preregistered) find that the more people believe that appearance reveals character, the more confident they are in their appearance-based judgments, and therefore, the more they support the use of facial profiling technologies in law enforcement, education, and business. Specifically, people who believe that appearance reveals character support the use of facial profiling in general (Studies 1a and 1b), and even when they themselves are the target of profiling (Studies 1c and 1d). Experimentally inducing people to believe that appearance reveals character increases their support for facial profiling (Study 2), because it increases their confidence in the ability to make appearance-based judgments (Study 3). An intervention that undermines people's confidence in their appearance-based judgments reduces their support for facial profiling (Study 4). The relationship between the lay theory and support for facial profiling is weaker among people with a growth mindset about personality, as facial profiling presumes a relatively unchanging character (Study 5a). This relationship is also weaker among people who believe in free will, as facial profiling presumes that individuals have limited free will (Study 5b). The appearance reveals character lay theory is a stronger predictor of support for profiling than analogous beliefs in other domains, such as the belief that Facebook likes reveal personality (Study 6). These findings identify a novel lay theory that underpins people's meta-cognitions about their confidence in appearance-related judgments and their policy positions. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The salience of choice fuels independence: Implications for self-perception, cognition, and behavior.

More than ever before, people across the world are exposed to ideas of choice and have opportunities to make choices. What are the consequences of this rapidly expanding exposure to the ideas and practice of choice? The current research investigated an unexamined and potentially powerful consequence of this salience of choice: an awareness and experience of independence. Four studies (n = 1,288) across three cultural contexts known to differ in both the salience of choice and the cultural emphasis on independence (the United States, Singapore, and India) provided converging evidence of a link between the salience of choice and independence. Singaporean students who recalled choices rather than actions represented themselves as larger than their peers (study 1). Conceptually replicating this finding, study 2 found that Americans who recalled choices rather than actions rated themselves as physically stronger. In a word/nonword lexical decision task (study 3), Singaporean students who recalled choices rather than actions were quicker at identifying independence-related words, but not neutral or interdependence-related words. Americans, Singaporeans, and Indians all indicated that when working in an organization that emphasized choice, they would be more likely to express their opinions. Similarly, Americans, Singaporeans, and Indians reported a preference for working in such an organization (studies 4a and 4b). The findings suggest that the salience of personal choice may drive an awareness and experience of independence even in contexts where, unlike in the United States, independence has not been the predominant ethos. Choice may be an unmarked and proximate mechanism of cultural change and growing global individualism.

Support for Resettling Refugees: The Role of Fixed Versus Growth Mind-Sets.

In six studies ( N = 2,340), we identified one source of people's differential support for resettling refugees in their country-their beliefs about whether the kind of person someone is can be changed (i.e., a growth mind-set) or is fixed (i.e., a fixed mind-set). U.S. and UK citizens who believed that the kind of person someone is can be changed were more likely to support resettling refugees in their country (Studies 1 and 2). Study 3 identified a causal relationship between the type of mind-set people hold and their support for resettling refugees. Importantly, people with a growth mind-set were more likely to believe that refugees can assimilate in the host society but not that they should assimilate, and the belief that refugees can assimilate mediated the relationship between people's mind-sets and their support for resettling refugees (Studies 4-6). The findings identify an important antecedent of people's support for resettling refugees and provide novel insights into the science of mind-sets.