Study 1: Results of one-sample t-tests.

<p>Comparisons of the restrictiveness indexes (R) with zero (that indicates symmetry of restrictiveness) for the competence-related traits balanced for valence.</p

You are fair, but I expect you to also behave unfairly: Positive asymmetry in trait-behavior relations for moderate morality information

<div><p>Trait inference in person perception is based on observers’ implicit assumptions about the relations between trait adjectives (e.g., fair) and the either consistent or inconsistent behaviors (e.g., having double standards) that an actor can manifest. This article presents new empirical data and theoretical interpretations on people’ behavioral expectations, that is, people’s perceived trait-behavior relations along the morality (versus competence) dimension. We specifically address the issue of the moderate levels of both traits and behaviors almost neglected by prior research by using a measure of the perceived general frequency of behaviors. A preliminary study identifies a set of competence- and morality-related traits and a subset of traits balanced for valence. Studies 1–2 show that moral target persons are associated with greater behavioral flexibility than immoral ones where abstract categories of behaviors are concerned. For example, participants judge it more likely that a fair person would behave unfairly than an unfair person would behave fairly. Study 3 replicates the results of the first 2 studies using concrete categories of behaviors (e.g., telling the truth/omitting some information). Study 4 shows that the positive asymmetry in morality-related trait-behavior relations holds for both North-American and European (i.e., Italian) individuals. A small-scale meta-analysis confirms the existence of a positive asymmetry in trait-behavior relations along both morality and competence dimensions for moderate levels of both traits and behaviors. We discuss these findings in relation to prior models and results on trait-behavior relations and we advance a motivational explanation based on self-protection.</p></div

Results of the analysis on the subset of traits in Study 2.

<p>The difference between the likelihoods of trait-inconsistent behaviors for the positive and negative poles of traits (restrictiveness index) was significantly positive for morality-related but not competence-related traits. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.</p

Representation of the hierarchical restrictive schema according to the results of the present research.

<p>Positive competence- (left) and morality-related (right) traits (e.g., intelligent and honest) at moderate levels of both traits and behaviors. +, and − indicate positive and negative traits/behaviors, respectively. Solid arrows indicate strong trait-behavior relations, whereas dashed arrows indicate weak trait-behavior relations.</p

Representation of the hierarchical restrictive schema [17,18].

<p>Positive competence- (left) and morality-related (right) traits (e.g., intelligent and honest). +, ±, and − indicate high, moderate, and low levels of traits/behaviors. Solid arrows indicate strong trait-behavior relations, whereas dashed arrows indicate weak trait-behavior relations.</p

Results of the analysis on the likelihood of trait-inconsistent behaviors in Study 4.

<p>The difference between the likelihoods of trait-inconsistent behaviors for the positive and negative poles of traits (restrictiveness index) was significantly positive for both morality-related and competence-related traits. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.</p

Results of the analysis on the frequency of trait-inconsistent behaviors in Study 3.

<p>The difference between the estimated frequencies of trait-inconsistent behaviors for the positive and negative poles of traits (restrictiveness index) was significantly positive for morality- but not competence-related traits. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.</p

Results of the analysis on the larger set of traits in Study 2.

<p>The difference between the likelihoods of trait-inconsistent behaviors for the positive and negative poles of traits (restrictiveness index) was significantly positive for morality-related but not competence-related traits. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.</p

Additional file 1 of Experiential training course on spirituality for multidisciplinary palliative care teams in a hospital setting: a feasibility study

Additional file 1

Trust predicts COVID-19 prescribed and discretionary behavioral intentions in 23 countries

The worldwide spread of a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) since December 2019 has posed a severe threat to individuals' well-being. While the world at large is waiting that the released vaccines immunize most citizens, public health experts suggest that, in the meantime, it is only through behavior change that the spread of COVID-19 can be controlled. Importantly, the required behaviors are aimed not only at safeguarding one's own health. Instead, individuals are asked to adapt their behaviors to protect the community at large. This raises the question of which social concerns and moral principles make people willing to do so. We considered in 23 countries (N = 6948) individuals' willingness to engage in prescribed and discretionary behaviors, as well as country-level and individual-level factors that might drive such behavioral intentions. Results from multilevel multiple regressions, with country as the nesting variable, showed that publicized number of infections were not significantly related to individual intentions to comply with the prescribed measures and intentions to engage in discretionary prosocial behaviors. Instead, psychological differences in terms of trust in government, citizens, and in particular toward science predicted individuals' behavioral intentions across countries. The more people endorsed moral principles of fairness and care (vs. loyalty and authority), the more they were inclined to report trust in science, which, in turn, statistically predicted prescribed and discretionary behavioral intentions. Results have implications for the type of intervention and public communication strategies that should be most effective to induce the behavioral changes that are needed to control the COVID-19 outbreak