1
|
Chng S, Chew HSJ, Joireman J. When time is of the essence: Development and validation of brief consideration of future (and immediate) consequences scales. Personality and Individual Differences 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.111362] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
2
|
Van Doesum NJ, Murphy RO, Gallucci M, Aharonov-Majar E, Athenstaedt U, Au WT, Bai L, Böhm R, Bovina I, Buchan NR, Chen XP, Dumont KB, Engelmann JB, Eriksson K, Euh H, Fiedler S, Friesen J, Gächter S, Garcia C, González R, Graf S, Growiec K, Guimond S, Hřebíčková M, Immer-Bernold E, Joireman J, Karagonlar G, Kawakami K, Kiyonari T, Kou Y, Kyrtsis AA, Lay S, Leonardelli GJ, Li NP, Li Y, Maciejovsky B, Manesi Z, Mashuri A, Mok A, Moser KS, Moták L, Netedu A, Platow MJ, Raczka-Winkler K, Reinders Folmer CP, Reyna C, Romano A, Shalvi S, Simão C, Stivers AW, Strimling P, Tsirbas Y, Utz S, van der Meij L, Waldzus S, Wang Y, Weber B, Weisel O, Wildschut T, Winter F, Wu J, Yong JC, Van Lange PAM. Reply to Komatsu et al.: From local social mindfulness to global sustainability efforts? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2022; 119:e2119303118. [PMID: 35046048 PMCID: PMC8794841 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2119303118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Niels J Van Doesum
- Social, Economic and Organisational Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands;
- Knowledge Centre for Psychology and Economic Behaviour, Leiden University 2312 HS Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Ryan O Murphy
- Department of Economics, University of Zürich 8006 Zürich, Switzerland
- Morningstar Investment Management, Chicago, IL 60602
| | - Marcello Gallucci
- Faculty of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca 20126 Milan, Italy
| | - Efrat Aharonov-Majar
- Department of Psychology, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva 8410501, Israel
| | - Ursula Athenstaedt
- Department of Social Psychology, Institute of Psychology, University of Graz 8010 Graz, Austria
| | - Wing Tung Au
- Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong, China
| | - Liying Bai
- Department of Applied Psychology, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China
| | - Robert Böhm
- Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark
- Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark
- Copenhagen Center for Social Data Science, University of Copenhagen 1353 Copenhagen K, Denmark
| | - Inna Bovina
- Department of Clinical and Legal Psychology, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, Moscow 127051, Russia
| | - Nancy R Buchan
- Sonoco International Business Department, Darla Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208
| | - Xiao-Ping Chen
- Department of Management and Organization, Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
| | - Kitty B Dumont
- School of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, University of South Africa 0003 Pretoria, South Africa
| | - Jan B Engelmann
- Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making, Amsterdam School of Economics, University of Amsterdam 1001 NJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Behavioral and Experimental Economics, The Tinbergen Institute 1082 MS Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kimmo Eriksson
- Center for Cultural Evolution, Stockholm University 114 18 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Hyun Euh
- Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455
| | - Susann Fiedler
- Department of Strategy & Innovation, Institute of Cognition & Behavior, Vienna University of Economics and Business 1020 Vienna, Austria
| | - Justin Friesen
- Department of Psychology, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB R3N 0G1, Canada
| | - Simon Gächter
- Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, United Kingdom
| | - Camilo Garcia
- Laboratory of Social Interaction, Psychology Department, Universidad Veracruzana, Veracruz 91095, Mexico
| | - Roberto González
- Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago 7820436, Chile
| | - Sylvie Graf
- Department of Personality and Social Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences 602 00 Brno, The Czech Republic
| | - Katarzyna Growiec
- Department of Social and Personality Psychology, Institute of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities 03-815 Warsaw, Poland
| | - Serge Guimond
- Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, Université Clermont Auvergne (CNRS, LAPSCO), Clermont-Ferrand F-63000 , France
| | - Martina Hřebíčková
- Department of Personality and Social Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences 602 00 Brno, The Czech Republic
| | | | - Jeff Joireman
- Department of Marketing and International Business, Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4730
| | - Gokhan Karagonlar
- Department of Business, School of Business, Dokuz Eylül University 35390 Izmir, Turkey
| | - Kerry Kawakami
- Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada
| | - Toko Kiyonari
- School of Social Informatics, Aoyama Gakuin University, Kanagawa 252-5258, Japan
| | - Yu Kou
- Institute of Developmental Psychology, Beijing Normal University 100875 Beijing, China
| | - Alexandros-Andreas Kyrtsis
- Department of Political Science and Public Administration, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens 10678 Athens, Greece
| | - Siugmin Lay
- Centro de Medición Mide UC, Escuela de Psicología, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile 7820436 Santiago, Chile
| | - Geoffrey J Leonardelli
- Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3E6, Canada
- Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 3E6, Canada
| | - Norman P Li
- School of Social Sciences, Singapore Management University, Singapore 178903
| | - Yang Li
- Graduate School of Informatics, Nagoya University, Nagoya 4648610, Japan
| | | | - Zoi Manesi
- Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 1018 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ali Mashuri
- Department of Psychology, University of Brawijaya, Malang 65145, Indonesia
- Department of Social Sciences, University of Brawijaya, Malang 65145, Indonesia
| | - Aurelia Mok
- Department of Management, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
| | - Karin S Moser
- Business School, London South Bank University, London SE1 0AA, United Kingdom
- School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
| | - Ladislav Moták
- Centre de Recherche en Psychologie de la Cognition, du Langage et de l'Emotion, Maison de la Recherche, Aix-Marseille Université 13100 Aix-en-Provence, France
| | - Adrian Netedu
- Department of Sociology and Social Work, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi 700460 Iasi, Romania
| | - Michael J Platow
- Research School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
| | - Karolina Raczka-Winkler
- Institute of Experimental Epileptology and Cognition Research, University of Bonn 53127 Bonn, Germany
| | - Christopher P Reinders Folmer
- Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University 9000 Ghent, Belgium
- Center for Law and Behavior, Department of Jurisprudence, Amsterdam Law School, University of Amsterdam, 1001 NA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cecilia Reyna
- Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba 5000 Córdoba, Argentina
| | - Angelo Romano
- Social, Economic and Organisational Psychology, Institute of Psychology, Leiden University 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Shaul Shalvi
- Center for Research in Experimental Economics and Political Decision Making, Amsterdam School of Economics, University of Amsterdam 1001 NJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Cláudia Simão
- Católica-Lisbon School of Business and Economics, Universidade Católica Portuguesa 1649-023 Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Adam W Stivers
- Psychology Department, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA 99258
| | | | - Yannis Tsirbas
- Department of Political Science and Public Administration, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens 10678 Athens, Greece
| | - Sonja Utz
- Social Media Lab, Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien 72076 Tübingen, Germany
- Department of Psychology, University of Tübingen 72074 Tübingen, Germany
| | - Leander van der Meij
- Department of Industrial Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
| | - Sven Waldzus
- Centro de Investigação e Intervenção Social, Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, Lisboa 1649-026, Portugal
| | - Yiwen Wang
- Institute of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou 350108, China
| | - Bernd Weber
- Institute of Experimental Epileptology and Cognition Research, University of Bonn 53127 Bonn, Germany
| | - Ori Weisel
- Coller School of Management, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel 6997801
| | - Tim Wildschut
- Center for Research on Self and Identity, School of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom
| | - Fabian Winter
- Mechanisms of Normative Change, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 53115 Bonn, Germany
| | - Junhui Wu
- Key Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences 100101 Beijing, China
- Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences 100049 Beijing, China
| | - Jose C Yong
- School of Social Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798
| | - Paul A M Van Lange
- Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam 1018 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Romano A, Spadaro G, Balliet D, Joireman J, Van Lissa C, Jin S, Agostini M, Bélanger JJ, Gützkow B, Kreienkamp J, Leander NP. Cooperation and Trust Across Societies During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2021. [DOI: 10.1177/0022022120988913] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
Cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust among strangers in the provision of public goods may be key to understanding how societies are managing the COVID-19 pandemic. We report a survey conducted across 41 societies between March and May 2020 ( N = 34,526), and test pre-registered hypotheses about how cross-societal differences in cooperation and trust relate to prosocial COVID-19 responses (e.g., social distancing), stringency of policies, and support for behavioral regulations (e.g., mandatory quarantine). We further tested whether cross-societal variation in institutions and ecologies theorized to impact cooperation were associated with prosocial COVID-19 responses, including institutional quality, religiosity, and historical prevalence of pathogens. We found substantial variation across societies in prosocial COVID-19 responses, stringency of policies, and support for behavioral regulations. However, we found no consistent evidence to support the idea that cross-societal variation in cooperation and trust among strangers is associated with these outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic. These results were replicated with another independent cross-cultural COVID-19 dataset ( N = 112,136), and in both snowball and representative samples. We discuss implications of our results, including challenging the assumption that managing the COVID-19 pandemic across societies is best modeled as a public goods dilemma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Giuliana Spadaro
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
| | - Daniel Balliet
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
| | | | | | - Shuxian Jin
- Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands
| | | | | | - Ben Gützkow
- University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Abstract
Can psychological science offer evidence-based solutions to climate change? Using insights and principles derived from the literature on social dilemmas and human cooperation, we discuss evidence in support of three solutions: crossing the borders of thought, time, and space. First, borders of thought could be crossed by using persuasion that is concrete and tailored to local circumstances and by highlighting information about people’s efforts as evidence against the myth of self-interest. Second, borders of time could be crossed by using kinship cues, which can help make the future less distant, and relatively uninvolved advisors, who may help make the future salient. And third, borders of space could be crossed by showing group representatives how they might benefit from a frame of altruistic competition—focusing on the benefits of being seen as moral and global in orientation. Our overall conclusion is that psychological science can offer evidence-based solutions to climate change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Paul A M Van Lange
- Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
| | - Jeff Joireman
- Department of Marketing, Washington State University
| | - Manfred Milinski
- Department of Evolutionary Ecology, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology, Plön, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Pletzer JL, Balliet D, Joireman J, Kuhlman DM, Voelpel SC, Van Lange PA. Social Value Orientation, Expectations, and Cooperation in Social Dilemmas: A Meta–Analysis. Eur J Pers 2018. [DOI: 10.1002/per.2139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 91] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Interdependent situations are pervasive in human life. In these situations, it is essential to form expectations about the others’ behaviour to adapt one's own behaviour to increase mutual outcomes and avoid exploitation. Social value orientation, which describes the dispositional weights individuals attach to their own and to another person's outcome, predicts these expectations of cooperation in social dilemmas—an interdependent situation involving a conflict of interests. Yet, scientific evidence is inconclusive about the exact differences in expectations between prosocials, individualists, and competitors. The present meta–analytic results show that, relative to proselfs (individualists and competitors), prosocials expect more cooperation from others in social dilemmas, whereas individualists and competitors do not significantly differ in their expectations. The importance of these expectations in the decision process is further highlighted by the finding that they partially mediate the well–established relation between social value orientation and cooperative behaviour in social dilemmas. In fact, even proselfs are more likely to cooperate when they expect their partner to cooperate. Copyright © 2018 European Association of Personality Psychology
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Luca Pletzer
- Department of Business and Economics, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
- Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam (IBBA), Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Daniel Balliet
- Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam (IBBA), Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Jeff Joireman
- College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA USA
| | - D. Michael Kuhlman
- Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE USA
| | - Sven C. Voelpel
- Department of Business and Economics, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
| | - Paul A.M. Van Lange
- Institute for Brain and Behavior Amsterdam (IBBA), Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Nigro G, Cosenza M, Ciccarelli M, Joireman J. An Italian translation and validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences-14 Scale. Personality and Individual Differences 2016. [DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
7
|
Peters BR, Joireman J, Ridgway RL. Individual Differences in the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale Correlate with Sleep Habits, Sleep Quality, and GPA in University Students. Psychol Rep 2016; 96:817-24. [PMID: 16050645 DOI: 10.2466/pr0.96.3.817-824] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
The present study examined relationships between individual differences in the consideration of future consequences, sleep habits and sleep quality, and academic achievement in a sample of 231 undergraduates, 156 women and 75 men, whose ages ranged from 18 to 41 years ( M = 19.0 yr., SD = 2.82). Individuals were recruited from two introductory courses and two upper-division courses, one each in the fields of biology and psychology. An 8-page questionnaire was administered to assess variables relating to personality, sleep habits and quality, and grade point average (GPA). Each volunteer was given extra credit in their respective courses for participation. Higher scores on the Consideration of Future Consequences scale were associated with self-reported measures of more regular sleep schedules, greater satisfaction with sleep, a reduced likelihood of oversleeping, and higher grade point averages. Moreover, oversleeping was significantly correlated with both scale scores and GPA.
Collapse
|
8
|
|
9
|
Joireman J, Duell B. Mother Teresa Versus Ebenezer Scrooge: Mortality Salience Leads Proselfs to Endorse Self-Transcendent Values (Unless Proselfs Are Reassured). Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2016; 31:307-20. [PMID: 15657447 DOI: 10.1177/0146167204271593] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Recently, Jonas, Schimel, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski demonstrated that mortality salience (MS) increased contributions to (an ingroup) charity (i.e., the Scrooge effect). The authors examined whether individual differences in social value orientations would moderate the Scrooge effect. In line with an Ebenezer shift hypothesis, proselfs were less likely than prosocials to endorse self-transcendent values in a dental pain control condition but were indistinguishable from prosocials in an MS condition as proselfs increased endorsement of self-transcendent values under MS (Experiments 1 and 2a). However, when participants gave their impressions of an unfavorable prosocial or a favorable proself prior to the MS manipulation, proselfs were again less likely than prosocials to endorse self-transcendent values (Experiments 2a and 2b), suggesting that proselfs are unlikely to transform into prosocials under conditions of MS when given reasons to disidentify with prosocial values or identify with proself values.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeff Joireman
- Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-4820, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Joireman J, King S. Individual Differences in the Consideration of Future and (More) Immediate Consequences: A Review and Directions for Future Research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2016. [DOI: 10.1111/spc3.12252] [Citation(s) in RCA: 58] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
11
|
Abstract
One of the most continually vexing problems in society is the variability with which citizens support endeavors that are designed to help a great number of people. In this article, we examine the twin roles of cooperative and antagonistic behavior in this variability. We find that each plays an important role, though their contributions are, understandably, at odds. It is this opposition that produces seeming unpredictability in citizen response to collective need. In fact, we suggest that careful consideration of the research allows one to often predict when efforts to provide a collectively beneficial good will succeed and when they will fail. To understand the dynamics of participation in response to collective need, it is necessary to distinguish between the primary types of need situations. A public good is an entity that relies in whole or in part on contributions to be provided. Examples of public goods are charities and public broadcasting. Public goods require that citizens experience a short-term loss (of their contribution) in order to realize a long-term gain (of the good). However, because everyone can use the good once it is provided, there is also an incentive to not contribute, let others give, and then take advantage of their efforts. This state of affairs introduces a conflict between doing what is best for oneself and what is best for the group. In a public goods situation, cooperation and antagonism impact how one resolves this conflict. The other major type of need situation is a common-pool resource problem. Here, a good is fully provided at the outset, and citizens may sample from it. The resource is usually, but not necessarily, partially replenished. Examples of replenished resources are drinking water and trees; examples of resources that are functionally not replenished are oil and minerals. Common-pool resources allow citizens to experience a short-term gain (by getting what they want in the early life of the resource) but also present the possibility of a long-term loss (if the resource dries up). As with public goods, there is thus a conflict between, on the one hand, acting in one’s best interest and taking as much as one wants all the time and, on the other, acting for the good of the group, which requires taking a lesser amount so that the replenishment rate can keep up with the rate of use. As with public goods, both cooperation and antagonism affect this decision. With these situations in mind, we can now dig deeply into the dynamics of both cooperation and antagonism. Cooperation is one of the most heavily studied aspects of human behavior, yet despite this attention, there is much that is not understood about it, including its fundamental base. There are a number of different perspectives on the base. Interdependence theory argues that cooperation is driven by how one interprets the subjective value of the outcomes that will result from various combinations of behaviors. A person who sees a potential result of “50 to you, 50 to me” as “We both would do well” is more likely to cooperate than the person who sees it as “I would not outgain the other person.” Self-control theory suggests that cooperation is a function of how well a person can resist the impulse to benefit now and delay gratification. Evolutionary theory takes many forms but revolves around the extent to which cooperation is adaptive. Finally, the appropriateness framework takes a cognitive approach and assumes that cooperation is determined by a combination of social–cognitive (interpretation of self and the situation) and decision-heuristic factors. We propose that it is possible to integrate across these approaches and understand cooperation as a behavior that is influenced by all of these factors as well as other dynamics, such as cultural mores and personality traits. Antagonism, as it relates to the collective welfare, is a phenomenon with a lesser history but one that is clearly influential. A number of facets of antagonism are relevant. Power, and its abuse, is a major factor, and a specific application to collective goods is the notion of a “gatekeeper,” or a person who can completely determine whether a public good exists or a common-pool resource can be used. Gatekeepers tend to demand ample compensation from others in order for the good or resource to go forward. If this demand is resisted, as it often is, the end result is that the good is not provided or the resource not accessed. Another facet is the desire to see an out-group be harmed. Sometimes, this motivation is so strong that people will deny themselves a good outcome in order to see the harm occur. Why someone would want to see an out-group be harmed is debatable, but it may be attributable to a desire to be seen as a winner, or it may be a strategy designed to produce a net benefit for one’s in-group. Emotions also play a role, with people tending to assume that out-group members have just basic emotions such as happiness and sadness and not secondary emotions such as guilt and shame. Because out-group members are emotionally simple, it is seen as acceptable to treat them badly. Complicating matters even further is that antagonism can sometimes be seen against in-group members who deviate, in either direction, from the group norm and against individuals who are behaving in a clearly selfless manner, like volunteers. A number of approaches have been proposed to the resolution of public goods problems. Structural solutions act to alter the basic dynamic of the dilemma by means of interventions such as rewards for cooperation, punishment for noncooperation, and selection of a single group member to chart a course of action for everyone. Third-party solutions involve the bringing in of an external agent to help determine how group members should behave. These agents may be more passive and merely suggest solutions, or they may be more active and dictate how decisions will be made, what decision will be made, or both. Finally, psychological solutions involve changing how people view the situation. We finish by discussing how policy makers can improve the chances of a publicly valuable good being supported. We particularly emphasize creation of a felt connection with future generations; clear demonstration of immediate and concrete consequences as a result of failure to provide the good; instillation of a sense of community; and isolation of the good from other, related issues. We also take up the general problem of distrust of those who establish policy and discuss some methods for helping minimize distrust.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Craig D. Parks
- Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman
| | - Jeff Joireman
- Department of Marketing, Washington State University
| | - Paul A. M. Van Lange
- Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
|
13
|
Joireman J, Shaffer MJ, Balliet D, Strathman A. Promotion Orientation Explains Why Future-Oriented People Exercise and Eat Healthy. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2012; 38:1272-87. [DOI: 10.1177/0146167212449362] [Citation(s) in RCA: 240] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
The authors extended research linking individual differences in consideration of future consequences (CFC) with health behaviors by (a) testing whether individual differences in regulatory focus would mediate that link and (b) highlighting the value of a revised, two-factor CFC-14 scale with subscales assessing concern with future consequences (CFC-Future) and concern with immediate consequences (CFC-Immediate) proper. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the revised CFC-14 scale supported the presence of two highly reliable factors (CFC-Future and CFC-Immediate; αs from .80 to .84). Moreover, structural equation modeling showed that those high in CFC-Future engage in exercise and healthy eating because they adopt a promotion orientation. Future use of the two-factor CFC-14 scale is encouraged to shed additional light on how concern with future and concern with immediate consequences (proper) differentially impact the way people resolve a host of intertemporal dilemmas (e.g., health, financial, and environmental behavior).
Collapse
|
14
|
Balliet D, Li NP, Joireman J. Relating trait self-control and forgiveness within prosocials and proselfs: Compensatory versus synergistic models. J Pers Soc Psychol 2011; 101:1090-105. [DOI: 10.1037/a0024967] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|
15
|
Abstract
Previous research suggests that people predisposed toward a more cooperative orientation are stronger at self-control and, accordingly, are better able to ward off the adverse impact of ego depletion on self-regulation (Seeley & Gardner, 2003). Building on this research, we tested the hypothesis that ego depletion would lead to a reduction in concern with the well-being of others among proselfs, but not among prosocials. Study 1 supported the basic proposition that prosocials are higher than proselfs in trait self-control. In Study 2, participants originally classified as prosocials versus proselfs based on mathematical games engaged in an ego depletion task or a control task and later completed a similar measure of prosocial versus proself values. Supporting the primary hypothesis, ego depletion reduced proselfs concern with the well-being of others at time 2, but had no impact among prosocials. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
Past research has shown that mortality salience (MS) increases aggression toward a worldview-threatening other. The present study evaluated whether MS would have a larger impact on aggression under group as opposed to individual interactions, and whether the tendency for groups to be more aggressive than individuals (i.e. interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect) would be magnified under conditions of MS. Participants assigned to an individual or a three-person group condition wrote down thoughts about dental pain or mortality. Later, participants read a worldview-threatening essay from another individual or group at a rival university and subsequently allocated hot sauce for the others to consume. Results supported the primary hypotheses: those writing about death were more aggressive than those writing about dental pain; groups were more aggressive than individuals; those in the MS condition tended to show more aggression; and the discontinuity effect was more visible among those in the MS condition. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
Collapse
|
17
|
Abstract
This article reports a meta-analysis of 82 studies assessing the relationship between social value orientation (SVO) and cooperation in social dilemmas. A significant and small to medium effect size was found ( r = .30). Results supported a hypothesis that the effect size was larger when participants were not paid ( r = .39) than when they were paid ( r = .23). The effect size was also larger in give-some ( r = .29) as opposed to take-some ( r = .22) games. However, contrary to expectations, the effect was not larger in one-shot, as opposed to iterated games. Findings are discussed in the context of theory on SVO and directions for future research are outlined.
Collapse
|
18
|
Zakay D, Strathman A, Joireman J. Boundaries of Psychological Time. The American Journal of Psychology 2007. [DOI: 10.2307/20445433] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
|
19
|
Joireman J, Daniels D, George-Falvy J, Kamdar D. Organizational Citizenship Behaviors as a Function of Empathy, Consideration of Future Consequences, and Employee Time Horizon: An Initial Exploration Using an In-Basket Simulation of OCBs1. J Appl Social Pyschol 2006. [DOI: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00103.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
20
|
Joireman J, Kamdar D, Daniels D, Duell B. Good citizens to the end? It depends: Empathy and concern with future consequences moderate the impact of a short-term time horizon on organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 2006; 91:1307-20. [PMID: 17100486 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1307] [Citation(s) in RCA: 108] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
Abstract
Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) can be viewed as a social dilemma in which short-term employee sacrifice leads to long-term organizational benefits. With 3 studies, the authors evaluated a set of interrelated hypotheses based on a social dilemma analysis of OCBs. In Study 1, participants rated OCBs as costly to an employee in the short run and beneficial to an organization in the long run, indicating that OCBs were viewed as social dilemmas. In Studies 2 and 3, self-reported (Study 2) and supervisor-rated (Study 3) likelihood of engaging in OCBs was higher among those who adopted a long-term horizon within an organization and those high in empathy (M. H. Davis, 1983). Most important, a short-term time horizon led to a steeper decline in OCBs among employees low in empathy and those concerned with the future consequences of their actions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeff Joireman
- Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA.
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
|
22
|
Joireman J. Empathy and the Self-Absorption Paradox II: Self-Rumination and Self-Reflection as Mediators Between Shame, Guilt, and Empathy. Self and Identity 2004. [DOI: 10.1080/13576500444000038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
|
23
|
Joireman J, Anderson J, Strathman A. The aggression paradox: understanding links among aggression, sensation seeking, and the consideration of future consequences. J Pers Soc Psychol 2003; 84:1287-302. [PMID: 12793590 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1287] [Citation(s) in RCA: 143] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Four studies involving 573 female and 272 male college students demonstrated that multiple forms and measures of aggression were associated with high levels of sensation seeking, impulsivity, and a focus on the immediate consequences of behavior. Multiple regression analyses and structural equation models supported a theoretical model based on the general aggression model (C.A. Anderson & B.J. Bushman. 2002), positing that hostile cognition and negative affect mediate the relationships between the aforementioned individual differences and aggression. Sensation seeking also predicted a desire to engage in physical and verbal aggression. The final study demonstrated that relative to those scoring low, individuals scoring high on the consideration of future consequences are only less aggressive when aggression is likely to carry future costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jeff Joireman
- Department of Psychology, Washington State University, Pullman 99164-4820, USA.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|