Money, moral transgressions, and blame

Two experiments tested participants' attributions for others' immoral behaviors when conducted for more versus less money. We hypothesized and found that observers would blame wrongdoers more when seeing a transgression enacted for little rather than a lot of money, and that this would be evident in observers' hand-washing behavior. Experiment 1 used a cognitive dissonance paradigm. Participants (N = 160) observed a confederate lie in exchange for either a relatively large or a small monetary payment. Participants blamed the liar more in the small (versus large) money condition. Participants (N = 184) in Experiment 2 saw images of someone knocking over another to obtain a small, medium, or large monetary sum. In the small (versus large) money condition, participants blamed the perpetrator (money) more. Hence, participants assigned less blame to moral wrong-doers, if the latter enacted their deed to obtain relatively large sums of money. Small amounts of money accentuate the immorality of others' transgressions

Holding on to the Goal or Letting It Go and Moving On? A Tripartite Model of Goal Striving

© The Author(s) 2018. Recent findings challenge the widely held motto of “never give up” in goal striving. There are situations in which it is of strategic interest to abandon an important goal and allocate resources to an alternative goal. The ability to realize whether a goal is attainable or not (and therefore the ability to make the “right choice” between goal persistence and goal disengagement or reengagement) is influenced by at least two key motivational factors: motivation for goal striving and a self-regulatory technique called mental contrasting with implementation intentions. The interplay between these two factors is as yet unexplored but holds promise for several conceptual and practical advancements in understanding the pursuit of challenging life goals. To this end, we propose a tripartite model of goal striving that integrates goal motivation and goal regulation

Trait and state authenticity across cultures

We examined the role of culture in both trait and state authenticity, asking whether the search for and experience of the 'true self' is a uniquely Western phenomenon or is relevant cross-culturally. We tested participants from the US, China, India, and Singapore. US participants reported higher average levels of trait authenticity than those from Eastern cultures (i.e., China, India, Singapore), but this effect was partially explained by cultural differences in self-construal and thinking style. Importantly, the experience of state authenticity, and especially state inauthenticity, was more similar than different across cultures. In all, people from different cultures do experience authenticity, even if they do not endorse the (Western) value of “independence.” The findings contribute to a more nuanced understanding of state authenticity

Identifying differences in the experience of (in)authenticity: a latent class analysis approach

Generally, psychologists consider state authenticity– that is, the subjective sense of being one’s true self – to be a unitary and unidimensional construct, such that (a) the phenomenological experience of authenticity is thought to be similar no matter its trigger, and (b) inauthenticity is thought to be simply the opposing pole (on the same underlying construct) of authenticity. Using latent class analysis, we put this conceptualization to a test. In order to avoid over-reliance on a Western conceptualization of authenticity, we used a cross-cultural sample (N = 543), comprising participants from Western, South-Asian, East-Asian, and South-East Asian cultures. Participants provided either a narrative in which the described when they felt most like being themselves or one in which they described when they felt least like being themselves. The analysis identified six distinct classes of experiences: two authenticity classes ('everyday' and 'extraordinary'), three inauthenticity classes ('self-conscious,' 'deflated,' and 'extraordinary'), and a class representing convergence between authenticity and inauthenticity. The classes were phenomenologically distinct, especially with respect to negative affect, private and public self-consciousness, and self-esteem. Furthermore, relatively more interdependent cultures were less likely to report experiences of extraordinary (in)authenticity than relatively more independent cultures. Understanding the many facets of (in)authenticity may enable researchers to connect different findings and explain why the attainment of authenticity can be difficult

How does “being real” feel? The experience of state authenticity

Objective: We propose that the experience of state authenticity—the subjective sense of being one's true self—ought to be considered separately from trait authenticity as well as from prescriptions regarding what should make people feel authentic. Methods: In Study 1 (N  = 104), online participants rated the frequency of and motivation for experiences of authenticity and inauthenticity. Studies 2 (N = 268) and 3 (N  = 93) asked (local or online, respectively) participants to describe their experiences of authenticity or inauthenticity. Participants in Studies 1 and 2 also completed measures of trait authenticity, and participants in Study 3 rated their experience with respect to several phenomenological dimensions. Results: Study 1 demonstrated that people are motivated to experience state authenticity and avoid inauthenticity and that such experiences are common, regardless of one's degree of trait authenticity. Coding of Study 2's narratives identified the emotions accompanying and needs fulfilled in each state. Trait authenticity generally did not qualify the nature of (in)authentic experiences. Study 3 corroborated the results of Study 2 and further revealed positive mood and nostalgia as consequences of reflecting on experiences of authenticity. Conclusions: We discuss implications of these findings for conceptualizations of authenticity and the self

Sketching the contours of state authenticity

We outline a program of research in which we examined state authenticity, the sense of being one’s true self. In particular, we describe its phenomenology (what it feels like to be experience authenticity), its correlates(e.g.,emotions,needs),itsnomologicalnetwork(e.g.,real-idealselfoverlap,publicandprivate self-consciousness), its cultural parameters (Easter and Western culture), its precursors or determinants (congruency, positivity, and hedonism), and its psychological health implications. We conclude by arguing that state authenticity deserves its own conceptual status, distinct from trait authenticity, and by setting an agenda for future research

Taming the lion: How perceived worth buffers the detrimental influence of power on aggression and conflict

Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is little empirical evidence that elevated power, by default, fuels conflict and aggression. Instead, previous studies have shown that extraneous factors that decrease powerholders’ perceived worth, making powerholders feel inferior or disrespected, seem to be necessary to ‘unleash’ power’s dark side and trigger aggression and conflict. However, this past work has largely neglected that power boosts individuals’ perceptions of worth, and as such these variables are not independent. The present research sought to address this oversight, thereby providing a more nuanced account of how perceived worth stifles aggression and conflict tendencies in powerholders. Focusing on self-esteem (Study 1) and status (Study 2) as two interrelated facets of perceived worth, we report primary and secondary data indicating that perceived worth acts as buffer and counters aggression as well as more general conflict tendencies in powerholders. By providing evidence for a suppression effect, the present findings go beyond the moderations identified in prior work and demonstrate that perceptions of worth are critical to understanding the link between power on the one hand, and aggression and conflict on the other. We conclude by discussing the social regulatory function of perceived worth in hierarchical relations

State authenticity

State authenticity is the sense that one is currently in alignment with one’s true or real self. We discuss state authenticity as seen by independent raters, describe its phenomenology, outline its triggers, consider its well-being and behavioral implications, and sketch out a cross-disciplinary research agenda

I feel good, therefore I am real: testing the causal influence of mood on state authenticity

Although the literature has focused on individual differences in authenticity, recent findings suggest that authenticity is sensitive to context; that is, it is also a state. We extended this perspective by examining whether incidental affect influences authenticity. In three experiments, participants felt more authentic when in a relatively positive than negative mood. The causal role of affect in authenticity was consistent across a diverse set of mood inductions, including explicit (Experiments 1 and 3) and implicit (Experiment 2) methods. The link between incidental affect and state authenticity was not moderated by ability to down-regulate negative affect (Experiments 1 and 3) nor was it explained by negative mood increasing private self-consciousness or decreasing access to the self system (Experiment 3). The results indicate that mood is used as information to assess one’s sense of authenticity