Bah Humbug: Unexpected Christmas Cards and the Reciprocity Norm

The reciprocity norm refers to the expectation that people will help those who helped them. A well-known study revealed that the norm is strong with Christmas cards, with 20% of people reciprocating a Christmas card received from a stranger. I attempted to conceptually replicate and extend this effect. In Study 1, 755 participants received a Christmas card supposedly from a more- versus less-similar stranger. The reciprocation rate was unexpectedly low (2%), which did not allow for a test of a similarity effect. Two potential reasons for this low rate were examined in Study 2 in which 494 participants reported their likelihood of reciprocating a Christmas card from a stranger as well as their felt suspicions/threat about the card and their frequency of e-mail use. Reciprocation likelihood was negatively correlated with perceived threat/suspicion and e-mail use. It appears that reciprocating a gift from a stranger in offline settings may be less likely than expected

The Influence of Safety, Efficacy, and Medical Condition Severity on Natural v. Synthetic Drug Preference

Research indicates that there is a preference for natural v. synthetic products, but the influence of this preference on drug choice in the medical domain is largely unknown. We present 5 studies in which participants were asked to consider a hypothetical situation in which they had a medical issue requiring pharmacological therapy. Participants ( N = 1223) were asked to select a natural, plant-derived, or synthetic drug. In studies 1a and 1b, approximately 79% of participants selected the natural v. synthetic drug, even though the safety and efficacy of the drugs were identical. Furthermore, participants rated the natural drug as safer than the synthetic drug, and as that difference increased, the odds of choosing the natural over synthetic drug increased. In studies 2 and 3, approximately 20% of participants selected the natural drug even when they were informed that it was less safe (study 2) or less effective (study 3) than the synthetic drug. Finally, in study 4, approximately 65% of participants chose a natural over synthetic drug regardless of the severity of a specific medical condition (mild v. severe hypertension), and this choice was predicted by perceived safety and efficacy differences. Overall, these data indicate that there is a bias for natural over synthetic drugs. This bias could have implications for drug choice and usage

Downright Sexy: Verticality, Implicit Power, and Perceived Physical Attractiveness

Grounded theory proposes that abstract concepts (e.g., power) are represented by perceptions of vertical space (e.g., up is powerful; down is powerless). We used this theory to examine predictions made by evolutionary psychologists who suggest that desirable males are those who have status and resources (i.e., powerful) while desirable females are those who are youthful and faithful (i.e., powerless). Using vertical position as an implicit cue for power, we found that male participants rated pictures of females as more attractive when their images were presented near the bottom of a computer screen, whereas female participants rated pictures of males as more attractive when their images were presented near the top of a computer screen. Our results support the evolutionary theory of attraction and reveal the social-judgment consequences of grounded theories of cognition

Priming God-Related Concepts Increases Anxiety and Task Persistence

Research on the relationship between religiosity and anxiety has been mixed, with some studies revealing a positive relation and other studies revealing a negative relation. The current research used an experimental design, perhaps for the first time, to examine anxiety and task persistence during a stressful situation. Christians and Atheists/Agnostics/Others were primed with God-related or neutral (non-God related) concepts before completing an unsolvable anagram task described as a measure of verbal intelligence. The results revealed that the God-related primes increased both task persistence and anxiousness, which suggests that experimentally induced God-related thoughts caused participants to persist longer on a stressful task, but also to feel more anxious after finishing it. No effect of religious affiliation was found, however, indicating that God-related priming affected Christians and non-Christians in a similar fashion

Development and Validation of the Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS)

Main Objectives: The narcissistic personality is characterized by grandiosity, entitlement, and low empathy. This paper describes the development and validation of the Single Item Narcissism Scale (SINS). Although the use of longer instruments is superior in most circumstances, we recommend the SINS in some circumstances (e.g. under serious time constraints, online studies). Methods: In 11 independent studies (total N = 2,250), we demonstrate the SINS\u27 psychometric properties. Results: The SINS is significantly correlated with longer narcissism scales, but uncorrelated with self-esteem. It also has high test-retest reliability. We validate the SINS in a variety of samples (e.g., undergraduates, nationally representative adults), intrapersonal correlates (e.g., positive affect, depression), and interpersonal correlates (e.g., aggression, relationship quality, prosocial behavior). The SINS taps into the more fragile and less desirable components of narcissism. Significance: The SINS can be a useful tool for researchers, especially when it is important to measure narcissism with constraints preventing the use of longer measures

Development and Validation of the Single Item Trait Empathy Scale (SITES)

Empathy involves feeling compassion for others and imagining how they feel. In this article, we develop and validate the Single Item Trait Empathy Scale (SITES), which contains only one item that takes seconds to complete. In seven studies (N = 5724), the SITES was found to be both reliable and valid. It correlated in expected ways with a wide variety of intrapersonal outcomes. For example, it is negatively correlated with narcissism, depression, anxiety, and alexithymia. In contrast, it is positively correlated with other measures of empathy, self-esteem, subjective well-being, and agreeableness. The SITES also correlates with a wide variety of interpersonal outcomes, especially compassion for others and helping others. The SITES is recommended in situations when time or question quantity is constrained

Mindful Eating: Trait and State Mindfulness Predict Healthier Eating Behavior

Obesity and excess weight are significant societal problems. Mindfulness may encourage healthier weight and eating habits. Across four studies, we found a positive relation between mindfulness and healthier eating. Trait mindfulness was associated with less impulsive eating, reduced calorie consumption, and healthier snack choices. In addition, we found a causal effect of mindfulness on healthier eating. An experimental manipulation of state mindfulness led participants to consume fewer calories in a spontaneous eating task. We also found preliminary evidence that mindfulness affects eating behavior by encouraging attitudinal preferences for healthier foods. Taken together, these results provide strong evidence that mindfulness encourages healthier eating, even in the absence of specific instruction in mindful eating. These results suggest that generic mindfulness-based strategies could have ancillary benefits for encouraging healthier eating behavior

A Behavioral Confirmation and Reduction of the Natural versus Synthetic Drug Bias

Research reveals a biased preference for natural versus synthetic drugs; however, this research is based upon self-report and has not examined ways to reduce the bias. We examined these issues in five studies involving 1,125 participants. In a Pilot Study (N = 110), participants rated the term natural to be more positive than the term synthetic, which reveals a default natural-is-better belief. In Studies 1 (N = 109) and 2 (N = 100), after a supposed personality study, participants were offered a thank you “gift” of a natural or synthetic pain reliever. Approximately 86% (Study 1) and 93% (Study 2) of participants chose the natural versus synthetic pain reliever, which provide a behavioral choice confirmation of the natural drug bias. In Studies 3 (N = 350) and 4 (N = 356), participants were randomly assigned to a control or experimental condition and were asked to consider a scenario in which they had a medical issue requiring a natural versus synthetic drug. The experimental condition included a stronger (Study 3) or weaker (Study 4) rational appeal about the natural drug bias and a statement suggesting that natural and synthetic drugs can be good or bad depending upon the context. In both studies, the natural bias was reduced in the experimental condition, and perceived safety and effectiveness mediated this effect. Overall, these data indicate a bias for natural over synthetic drugs in preferences and behavioral choices, which might be reduced with a rational appeal

Do We See Eye to Eye? Moderators of Correspondence Between Student and Faculty Evaluations of Day-to-Day Teaching

Students and instructors show moderate levels of agreement about the quality of day-to-day teaching. In the present study, we replicated and extended this finding by asking how correspondence between student and instructor ratings is moderated by time of semester and student demographic variables. Participants included 137 students and 5 instructors. On 10 separate days, students and instructors rated teaching effectiveness and challenge level of the material. Multilevel modeling indicated that student and instructor ratings of teaching effectiveness converged overall, but more advanced students and Caucasian students converged more closely with instructors. Student and instructor ratings of challenge converged early but diverged later in the semester. These results extend our knowledge about the connection between student and faculty judgments of teaching

Unvaxxed and Unafraid: Unvaccinated Americans Perceive Less Disease Risk Than Do Vaccinated Americans

Is disease risk perception accurately calibrated among the unvaccinated? People shift their attitudes to rationalize their choices, so those who choose to be unvaccinated may be motivated to feel less at risk. In three studies (total N = 1446), we asked Americans how worried they were about catching/spreading influenza and COVID-19 and whether they were vaccinated against those diseases. Unvaccinated participants felt less at risk of catching/spreading the diseases they were unvaccinated against than vaccinated participants. For instance, unvaccinated participants felt ∼24% less at risk of catching/spreading COVID-19 and had ∼28% stronger intention to engage in activities that carried a high risk of COVID-19 transmission (Study 3). Overall, those who choose to be the most vulnerable to disease feel and act the least vulnerable