Evaluating the Evidence for Enclothed Cognition:Z-Curve and Meta-Analyses

Enclothed cognition refers to the systematic influence that clothes can have on the wearer’s feelings, thoughts, and behaviors through their symbolic meaning. It has attracted considerable academic and nonacademic interest, with the 2012 article that coined the phrase cited more than 600 times and covered in more than 160 news outlets. However, a recent high-powered replication failed to replicate one of the original effects. To determine whether the larger body of research on enclothed cognition possesses evidential value and replicable effects, we performed z-curve and meta-analyses using 105 effects from 40 studies across 24 articles (N = 3,789). Underscoring the marked improvement of psychological research practices in the mid-2010s, our results raise concerns about the replicability of early enclothed cognition studies but affirm the evidential value for effects published after 2015. These later studies support the core principle of enclothed cognition—what we wear influences how we think, feel, and act.</p

Power and temporal commitment preference: An investigation in Portugal, Turkey, and the United States

The current research explores the impact of power on temporal commitment preference (an individual?s preference for shorter or longer time durations for agreements in decision making situations) across three countries: Portugal, Turkey, and the United States. A pilot study (N = 356) established cultural differences in uncertainty avoidance, which was expected to impact choices and behaviors involving power and temporality. The main study (N = 433) investigated the relationship between power and temporal commitment preference. Across all countries, high power individuals preferred shorter temporal commitments than low power individuals. In addition, the U.S. participants preferred longer temporal commitments than either the Portuguese or Turkish participants. We argue that differences in uncertainty avoidance help explain some of the differences in individuals? temporal commitment preferences across diverse cultural settings. Implications for practice and future directions are also discussed.Power, Time, National culture, Uncertainty avoidance

Perspective-Taking and Self-Other Overlap: Fostering Social Bonds and Facilitating Social Coordination

The present article offers a conceptual model for how the cognitive processes associated with perspective-taking facilitate social coordination and foster social bonds. We suggest that the benefits of perspective-taking accrue through an increased self-other overlap in cognitive representations and discuss the implications of this perspective-taking induced self-other overlap for stereotyping and prejudice. Whereas perspective-taking decreases stereotyping of others (through application of the self to the other), it increases stereotypicality of one’s own behavior (through inclusion of the other in the self). To promote social bonds, perspective-takers utilize information, including stereotypes, to coordinate their behavior with others. The discussion focuses on the implications, both positive and negative, of this self-other overlap for social relationships and discusses how conceptualizing perspective-taking, as geared toward supporting specific social bonds, provides a framework for understanding why the effects of perspective-taking are typically target-specific and do not activate a general helping mind-set. Through its attempts to secure social bonds, perspective-taking can be an engine of social harmony, but can also reveal a dark side, one full of ironic consequences

Gendered Races: Implications for Interracial Marriage, Leadership Selection, and Athletic Participation

Six studies explored the overlap between racial and gender stereotypes and the consequences of this overlap for interracial dating, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Two initial studies, utilizing explicit and implicit measures, captured the stereotype content of different racial groups: the Asian stereotype was seen as more feminine whereas the Black stereotype more masculine compared to the White stereotype. Study 3 found that preferences for masculinity versus femininity mediated White participants' attraction to Blacks relative to Asians. Analysis of the 2000 United States Census replicated this pattern with interracial marriages. In Study 5, Blacks were more likely and Asians less likely to be selected for a masculine leadership position compared to Whites. Study 6 analyzed the NCAA Student-Athlete Ethnicity Report and found Blacks were more heavily represented in masculine versus feminine sports relative to Asians. These studies demonstrate that the association between racial and gender stereotypes has important real-world consequences

Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting

Goal setting is one of the most replicated and influential paradigms in the management literature. Hundreds of studies conducted in numerous countries and contexts have consistently demonstrated that setting specific, challenging goals can powerfully drive behavior and boost performance. Advocates of goal setting have had a substantial impact on research, management education, and management practice. In this article, we argue that the beneficial effects of goal setting have been overstated and that systematic harm caused by goal setting has been largely ignored. We identify specific side effects associated with goal setting, including a narrow focus that neglects nongoal areas, distorted risk preferences, a rise in unethical behavior, inhibited learning, corrosion of organizational culture, and reduced intrinsic motivation. Rather than dispensing goal setting as a benign, over-the-counter treatment for motivation, managers and scholars need to conceptualize goal setting as a prescription-strength medication that requires careful dosing, consideration of harmful side effects, and close supervision. We offer a warning label to accompany the practice of setting goals

On Good Scholarship, Goal Setting, and Scholars Gone Wild

In this article, we define good scholarship, highlight our points of disagreement with Locke and Latham (2009), and call for further academic research to examine the full range of goal setting\u27s effects. We reiterate our original claim that goal setting, like a potent medication, can produce both beneficial effects and systematic, negative outcomes (Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky,& Bazerman, 2009), and as a result, it should be carefully prescribed and closely monitored

Whatever it takes: rivalry and unethical behavior

This research investigates the link between rivalry and unethical behavior. We propose that people will engage in greater unethical behavior when competing against their rivals than when competing against non-rival competitors. Across a series of experiments and an archival study, we find that rivalry is associated with increased use of deception, unsportsmanlike behavior, willingness to employ unethical negotiation tactics, and misreporting of performance. We also explore the psychological underpinnings of rivalry, which help to illuminate how it differs from general competition, and why it increases unethical behavior. Rivalry as compared to non-rival competition was associated with increased status concerns, contingency of self-worth, and performance goals; mediation analyses revealed that performance goals played the biggest role in explaining why rivalry promoted greater unethicality. Lastly, we find that merely thinking about a rival can be enough to promote greater unethical behavior, even in domains unrelated to the rivalry. These findings highlight the importance of rivalry as a widespread, powerful, yet largely unstudied phenomenon with significant organizational implications. Further, the results help to inform when and why unethical behavior occurs within organizations, and demonstrate that the effects of competition are dependent upon relationships and prior interactions

Anchors weigh more than power: Why absolute powerlessness liberates negotiators to achieve better outcomes

The current research shows that having no power can be better than having a little power. Negotiators prefer having some power (weak negotiation alternatives) to having no power (no alternatives). We challenge this belief that having any alternative is beneficial by demonstrating that weak alternatives create low anchors that reduce the value of first offers. In contrast, having no alternatives is liberating because there is no anchor to weigh down first offers. In our experiments, negotiators with no alternatives felt less powerful but made higher first offers and secured superior outcomes compared with negotiators who had weak alternatives. We established the role of anchoring through mediation by first offers and through moderation by showing that weak alternatives no longer led to worse outcomes when negotiators focused on a countervailing anchor or when negotiators faced an opponent with a strong alternative. These results demonstrate that anchors can have larger effects than feelings of power. Absolute powerlessness can be psychologically liberating. </jats:p