Does the devil wear Prada? Luxury product experiences can affect prosocial behavior. Yajin Wang et al. International Journal of Research in Marketing, April 28 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2020.04.001
Abstract: Despite the explosive growth of luxury consumption, researchers have yet to examine how the experience of using luxury products affects us both psychologically and behaviorally. In this research, we explore how the experience of using a luxury product can alter a user's perceptions of themselves and their behavior toward other people. We gave women either a luxury product (e.g., Prada handbag) or a non-luxury product (e.g., unbranded handbag) to use, and afterwards, we presented women with opportunities to exhibit either selfish or generous behaviors toward others. We found that, after using a luxury product, women exhibited more selfish behavior, such as sharing fewer resources with others and contributing less money to charity than women who used a non-luxury handbag. We also found this pattern can be reversed, with luxury users exhibiting more generous behavior when the generous behavior can be performed in front of other people. Further, we show that these patterns of selfish and generous behaviors are mediated by changes in perceived status and superiority that are triggered when women experience using a luxury product.
Keywords: LuxuryConsumer experienceProsocial behavior
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
Not Only Decibels: Exploring Human Judgments of Laughter Intensity
Rychlowska, Magdalena, Gary J. McKeown, Ian Sneddon, and Will Curran. 2020. “Not Only Decibels: Exploring Human Judgments of Laughter Intensity.” PsyArXiv. April 28. psyarxiv.com/x7qea
Abstract. Paper presented at the 5th Laughter Workshop, Paris, 27-28 September 2018: While laughter intensity is an important characteristic immediately perceivable for the listeners, empirical investigations of this construct are still scarce. Here, we explore the relationship between human judgments of laughter intensity and laughter acoustics. Our results show that intensity is predicted by multiple dimensions, including duration, loudness, pitch variables, and center of gravity. Controlling for loudness confirmed the robustness of these effects and revealed significant relationships between intensity and other features, such as harmonicity and voicing. Together, the findings demonstrate that laughter intensity does not overlap with loudness. They also highlight the necessity of further research on this complex dimension.
Abstract. Paper presented at the 5th Laughter Workshop, Paris, 27-28 September 2018: While laughter intensity is an important characteristic immediately perceivable for the listeners, empirical investigations of this construct are still scarce. Here, we explore the relationship between human judgments of laughter intensity and laughter acoustics. Our results show that intensity is predicted by multiple dimensions, including duration, loudness, pitch variables, and center of gravity. Controlling for loudness confirmed the robustness of these effects and revealed significant relationships between intensity and other features, such as harmonicity and voicing. Together, the findings demonstrate that laughter intensity does not overlap with loudness. They also highlight the necessity of further research on this complex dimension.
Participants who were told that another person got a better meal than they did liked their own meal less than if they were told that another person received either the same meal as they did
Food-based social comparisons influence liking and consumption. Jennifer S.Mills, Janet Polivy, Ayesha Iqbal. Appetite, April 26 2020, 104720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104720
Abstract: This study examined the effects of food-based social comparisons on hedonic ratings and consumption of a meal. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions in which they were led to believe that they got a worse meal, a better meal, or the same meal as another participant. They then tasted and rated their own meal. Subsequent liking and ad lib food consumption were measured. Participants who were told that another person got a better meal than they did (upward comparison) liked their meal less than if they were told that another person received either the same meal as they did or a worse meal (downward comparison). Similarly, participants who were in the upward comparison condition ate less food than if they were in the control or downward comparison conditions. Consumption was mediated by liking. The results suggest that being told that someone else is eating a meal that is higher or lower in hedonic value than one's own meal induces hedonic contrast and influences liking and consumption.
Keywords: Social comparisonFood hedonicsHedonic contrastEating behaviour
Abstract: This study examined the effects of food-based social comparisons on hedonic ratings and consumption of a meal. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions in which they were led to believe that they got a worse meal, a better meal, or the same meal as another participant. They then tasted and rated their own meal. Subsequent liking and ad lib food consumption were measured. Participants who were told that another person got a better meal than they did (upward comparison) liked their meal less than if they were told that another person received either the same meal as they did or a worse meal (downward comparison). Similarly, participants who were in the upward comparison condition ate less food than if they were in the control or downward comparison conditions. Consumption was mediated by liking. The results suggest that being told that someone else is eating a meal that is higher or lower in hedonic value than one's own meal induces hedonic contrast and influences liking and consumption.
Keywords: Social comparisonFood hedonicsHedonic contrastEating behaviour
Emotional empathy is more heritable than cognitive empathy; is affected by environment shared by siblings; found no find evidence for age differences in empathy heritability
The genetic and environmental origins of emotional and cognitive empathy: Review and meta-analyses of twin studies. Lior Abramson et al. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, April 27 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.03.023
Highlights
• We meta-analyzed the twin literature of emotional and cognitive empathy.
• Emotional empathy is more heritable than cognitive empathy.
• Cognitive empathy as examined by tests is affected by environment shared by siblings.
• We did not find evidence for age differences in empathy heritability.
• We propose future directions to examine the processes behind genes-empathy relations.
Abstract: Empathy is considered a cornerstone of human social experience, and as such has been widely investigated from psychological and neuroscientific approaches. To better understand the factors influencing individual differences in empathy, we reviewed and meta-analyzed the behavioral genetic literature of emotional empathy- sharing others’ emotions (k=13), and cognitive empathy-understanding others’ emotions (k = 15), as manifested in twin studies. Results showed that emotional empathy is more heritable, 48.3% [41.3%-50.6%], than cognitive empathy, 26.9% [18.1%-35.8%]. Moreover, cognitive empathy as examined by performance tests was affected by the environment shared by family members, 11.9% [2.6%-21.0%], suggesting that emotional understanding is influenced, to some degree, by environmental factors that have similar effects on family members beyond their genetic relatedness. The effects of participants’ age and the method used to asses empathy on the etiology of empathy were also examined. These findings have implications for understanding how individual differences in empathy are formed. After discussing these implications, we suggest theoretical and methodological future research directions that could potentially elucidate the relations between genes, brain, and empathy.
Highlights
• We meta-analyzed the twin literature of emotional and cognitive empathy.
• Emotional empathy is more heritable than cognitive empathy.
• Cognitive empathy as examined by tests is affected by environment shared by siblings.
• We did not find evidence for age differences in empathy heritability.
• We propose future directions to examine the processes behind genes-empathy relations.
Abstract: Empathy is considered a cornerstone of human social experience, and as such has been widely investigated from psychological and neuroscientific approaches. To better understand the factors influencing individual differences in empathy, we reviewed and meta-analyzed the behavioral genetic literature of emotional empathy- sharing others’ emotions (k=13), and cognitive empathy-understanding others’ emotions (k = 15), as manifested in twin studies. Results showed that emotional empathy is more heritable, 48.3% [41.3%-50.6%], than cognitive empathy, 26.9% [18.1%-35.8%]. Moreover, cognitive empathy as examined by performance tests was affected by the environment shared by family members, 11.9% [2.6%-21.0%], suggesting that emotional understanding is influenced, to some degree, by environmental factors that have similar effects on family members beyond their genetic relatedness. The effects of participants’ age and the method used to asses empathy on the etiology of empathy were also examined. These findings have implications for understanding how individual differences in empathy are formed. After discussing these implications, we suggest theoretical and methodological future research directions that could potentially elucidate the relations between genes, brain, and empathy.
Why are Women More Religious than Men? Do Risk Preferences and Genetic Risk Predispositions Explain the Gender Gap?
Why are Women More Religious than Men? Do Risk Preferences and Genetic Risk Predispositions Explain the Gender Gap? YI LI ROBERT WOODBERRY HEXUAN LIU GUANG GUO. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, April 23 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12657
Abstract: Risk preference theory argues that the gender gap in religiosity is caused by greater female risk aversion. Although widely debated, risk preference theory has been inadequately tested. Our study tests the theory directly with phenotypic and genetic risk preferences in three dimensions—general, impulsive, and sensation‐seeking risk. Moreover, we examine whether the effects of different dimensions of risk preferences on the gender gap vary across different dimensions of religiosity. We find that general and impulsive risk preferences do not explain gender differences in religiosity, whereas sensation‐seeking risk preference makes the gender gap in self‐assessed religiousness and church attendance insignificant, but not belief in God, prayer, or importance of religion. Genetic risk preferences do not remove any of the gender gaps in religiosity, suggesting that the causal order is not from risk preference to religiosity. Evidence suggests that risk preferences are not a strong predictor for gender differences in religiosity.
Abstract: Risk preference theory argues that the gender gap in religiosity is caused by greater female risk aversion. Although widely debated, risk preference theory has been inadequately tested. Our study tests the theory directly with phenotypic and genetic risk preferences in three dimensions—general, impulsive, and sensation‐seeking risk. Moreover, we examine whether the effects of different dimensions of risk preferences on the gender gap vary across different dimensions of religiosity. We find that general and impulsive risk preferences do not explain gender differences in religiosity, whereas sensation‐seeking risk preference makes the gender gap in self‐assessed religiousness and church attendance insignificant, but not belief in God, prayer, or importance of religion. Genetic risk preferences do not remove any of the gender gaps in religiosity, suggesting that the causal order is not from risk preference to religiosity. Evidence suggests that risk preferences are not a strong predictor for gender differences in religiosity.
Casual sex is increasingly socially acceptable, but negative stereotypes about women remain; in this paper, both men & women stereotype women (but not men) who have casual sex as having low self-esteem
Krems, Jaimie, Ahra Ko, Jordan W. Moon, and Michael E. W. Varnum, PhD. 2020. “Lay Beliefs About Gender and Sexual Behavior: First Evidence for a Pervasive, Robust (but Seemingly Unfounded) Stereotype.” PsyArXiv. April 27. psyarxiv.com/rc2d3
Abstract: Although casual sex is increasingly socially acceptable, negative stereotypes toward women pursuing casual sex appear to remain pervasive. Specifically, a common trope in media (e.g., television, film) is that such women have low self-esteem. Despite robust work on prejudice against women who engage in casual sex, little empirical work investigates the lay theories individuals hold about such women. Across six experiments with US participants (N = 1,469), we find that both men and women stereotype women (but not men) who have casual sex as having low self-esteem. This stereotype is held explicitly and semi-implicitly, not driven by individual differences in religiosity, conservatism, or sexism, is mediated by inferences that women having casual sex are unsatisfied with their mating strategy, yet persists when these women are explicitly described as choosing to have casual sex. Finally, it appears unfounded; across experiments, these same participants’ sexual behavior is uncorrelated with their own self-esteem.
Abstract: Although casual sex is increasingly socially acceptable, negative stereotypes toward women pursuing casual sex appear to remain pervasive. Specifically, a common trope in media (e.g., television, film) is that such women have low self-esteem. Despite robust work on prejudice against women who engage in casual sex, little empirical work investigates the lay theories individuals hold about such women. Across six experiments with US participants (N = 1,469), we find that both men and women stereotype women (but not men) who have casual sex as having low self-esteem. This stereotype is held explicitly and semi-implicitly, not driven by individual differences in religiosity, conservatism, or sexism, is mediated by inferences that women having casual sex are unsatisfied with their mating strategy, yet persists when these women are explicitly described as choosing to have casual sex. Finally, it appears unfounded; across experiments, these same participants’ sexual behavior is uncorrelated with their own self-esteem.
Those who acted to benefit others were seen as egalitarian and less selfish, although expressing pride strongly overturned these judgments
McLatchie, Neil, and Jared Piazza. 2020. “The Challenge of Expressing Pride in Moral Achievements: The Advantage of Joy and Vicarious Pride.” PsyArXiv. April 27. psyarxiv.com/9f8pb
Abstract: Recent findings suggest bodily expressions of pride communicate a person is self-interested and meritocratic. Across two studies (combined N=721), we investigated whether these implications retain when pride is expressed with regards to moral achievements where the activity has benefited others. In Study 1, achievers that attained self-benefiting, competence-based achievements were judged to be self-interested and meritocratic, and expressing pride somewhat enhanced these evaluations. By contrast, those who acted to benefit others were seen as egalitarian and less selfish, although expressing pride strongly overturned these judgments. Study 2 replicated these findings and found that expressions of joy following a moral achievement, and pride expressed by a companion, enhanced the do-gooder’s perceived status without reducing attributions of egalitarianism. Our findings highlight the costs of displaying moral pride, but point to joy and vicarious pride as promising alternative routes for circumventing these costs. Datasets and analysis scripts are available at: https://osf.io/ra3gy/?view_only=5329461bfda84c0bb8c34df967d98398.
Abstract: Recent findings suggest bodily expressions of pride communicate a person is self-interested and meritocratic. Across two studies (combined N=721), we investigated whether these implications retain when pride is expressed with regards to moral achievements where the activity has benefited others. In Study 1, achievers that attained self-benefiting, competence-based achievements were judged to be self-interested and meritocratic, and expressing pride somewhat enhanced these evaluations. By contrast, those who acted to benefit others were seen as egalitarian and less selfish, although expressing pride strongly overturned these judgments. Study 2 replicated these findings and found that expressions of joy following a moral achievement, and pride expressed by a companion, enhanced the do-gooder’s perceived status without reducing attributions of egalitarianism. Our findings highlight the costs of displaying moral pride, but point to joy and vicarious pride as promising alternative routes for circumventing these costs. Datasets and analysis scripts are available at: https://osf.io/ra3gy/?view_only=5329461bfda84c0bb8c34df967d98398.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
