A multi-lab test of the facial feedback hypothesis by the Many Smiles Collaboration

Following theories of emotional embodiment, the facial feedback hypothesis suggests that individuals' subjective experiences of emotion are influenced by their facial expressions. However, evidence for this hypothesis has been mixed. We thus formed a global adversarial collaboration and carried out a preregistered, multicentre study designed to specify and test the conditions that should most reliably produce facial feedback effects. Data from n = 3,878 participants spanning 19 countries indicated that a facial mimicry and voluntary facial action task could both amplify and initiate feelings of happiness. However, evidence of facial feedback effects was less conclusive when facial feedback was manipulated unobtrusively via a pen-in-mouth task

A Multi-Lab Test of the Facial Feedback Hypothesis by the Many Smiles Collaboration

Following theories of emotional embodiment, the facial feedback hypothesis suggests that individuals’ subjective experiences of emotion are influenced by their facial expressions. However, evidence for this hypothesis has been mixed. We thus formed a global adversarial collaboration and carried out a preregistered, multicentre study designed to specify and test the conditions that should most reliably produce facial feedback effects. Data from n = 3,878 participants spanning 19 countries indicated that a facial mimicry and voluntary facial action task could both amplify and initiate feelings of happiness. However, evidence of facial feedback effects was less conclusive when facial feedback was manipulated unobtrusively via a pen-in-mouth task

Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies

Norm enforcement may be important for resolving conflicts and promoting cooperation. However, little is known about how preferred responses to norm violations vary across cultures and across domains. In a preregistered study of 57 countries (using convenience samples of 22,863 students and non-students), we measured perceptions of the appropriateness of various responses to a violation of a cooperative norm and to atypical social behaviors. Our findings highlight both cultural universals and cultural variation. We find a universal negative relation between appropriateness ratings of norm violations and appropriateness ratings of responses in the form of confrontation, social ostracism and gossip. Moreover, we find the country variation in the appropriateness of sanctions to be consistent across different norm violations but not across different sanctions. Specifically, in those countries where use of physical confrontation and social ostracism is rated as less appropriate, gossip is rated as more appropriate.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies

An Author Correction to this article: DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-22955-x.Norm enforcement may be important for resolving conflicts and promoting cooperation. However, little is known about how preferred responses to norm violations vary across cultures and across domains. In a preregistered study of 57 countries (using convenience samples of 22,863 students and non-students), we measured perceptions of the appropriateness of various responses to a violation of a cooperative norm and to atypical social behaviors. Our findings highlight both cultural universals and cultural variation. We find a universal negative relation between appropriateness ratings of norm violations and appropriateness ratings of responses in the form of confrontation, social ostracism and gossip. Moreover, we find the country variation in the appropriateness of sanctions to be consistent across different norm violations but not across different sanctions. Specifically, in those countries where use of physical confrontation and social ostracism is rated as less appropriate, gossip is rated as more appropriate.Peer reviewe

In COVID-19 Health Messaging, Loss Framing Increases Anxiety with Little-to-No Concomitant Benefits: Experimental Evidence from 84 Countries

The COVID-19 pandemic (and its aftermath) highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g., "If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others") or potential gains (e.g., "If you practice these steps, you can protect yourself and others")? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimentally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behavioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions

A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

Changes in social norms during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic across 43 countries

Data availability: The data generated in this study have been deposited in the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/STKFR). Non-experimental data included in our datasets (i.e., intensity of government response to COVID-19 is the Stringency Index, COVID-19 deaths and cases per million) are taken from the Oxford COVID−19 Government Response Tracker [22 Hale, T. et al. A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID−19 Government Response Tracker). Nat. Human Behav. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01079-8 (2021).] and Our World in Data [38 Ritchie, H. et al. Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19). Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus (2020).] (downloaded November 2020). Wave 0 data are from [3 Gelfand, M. J. et al. Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332, 1100–1104 (2011).[ and Wave 1 data are from [5 Eriksson, K. et al. Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies. Nat. Commun. 12, 1481 (2021).].Code availability: The survey and analysis code are available at the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/STKFR).Supplementary information is available online at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-44999-5#Sec40 .The emergence of COVID-19 dramatically changed social behavior across societies and contexts. Here we study whether social norms also changed. Specifically, we study this question for cultural tightness (the degree to which societies generally have strong norms), specific social norms (e.g. stealing, hand washing), and norms about enforcement, using survey data from 30,431 respondents in 43 countries recorded before and in the early stages following the emergence of COVID-19. Using variation in disease intensity, we shed light on the mechanisms predicting changes in social norm measures. We find evidence that, after the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, hand washing norms increased while tightness and punishing frequency slightly decreased but observe no evidence for a robust change in most other norms. Thus, at least in the short term, our findings suggest that cultures are largely stable to pandemic threats except in those norms, hand washing in this case, that are perceived to be directly relevant to dealing with the collective threat.Knut and Wallenberg Grant “How do human norms form and change?” 2016.0167. (G.An.). The Swedish Research Council grant “Norms & Risk: Do social norms help dealing with collective threats” 2021-06271 (G.An.). Ministero dell’Istruzione dell’Università e della Ricerca, PRIN 2017, prot. 20178TRM3F (D.B.). Universidad de Los Andes, Fondo Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones (J.-C.C.). Ministry of Innovation and Technology of Hungary, National Research, Development and Innovation Fund NKFIH-OTKA K135963 (M.F.). Grant 23-061770 S of the Czech Science Foundation (M.H. and S.G.). RVO: 68081740 of the Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences (M.H. and S.G.). RA Science Committee, research project N.20TTSH-070 (A.Gr. and N.Khac.). Open University of Israel, 511687 (R.N.). HSE University Basic Research Program (E.O.). Project BASIC (PID2022-141802NB-I00) funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by “ERDF A way of making Europe” (A.Sá.). US Army Research Office Grant W911NF-19-1-910281 (B.S.). Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, 019.183SG.001 (E.S.). Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, VI.Veni.201 G.013 (E.S.). European Commission, Horizon 2020-ID 870827 (E.S.). UKRI Grant “Secret Power” No. EP/X02170X/1 awarded under the European Commission’s “European Research Council - STG” Scheme (G.A.T.)