A Meta-Analytic Review of the Validity of the Tangram Help/Hurt Task

The Tangram Help/Hurt Task (THHT) allows participants to help another participant win a prize (by assigning them easy tangrams), to hurt another participant by preventing them from winning the prize (by assigning them difficult tangrams), or to do neither (by assigning them medium tangrams) in offline or online studies. Consistent with calls for continued evidence supporting psychological measurement, we conducted a meta-analytic review of the THHT that included 52 independent studies involving 11,060 participants. THHT scores were associated with helping and hurting outcomes in theoretically predicted ways. Results showed that THHT scores were not only associated with short-term (experimental manipulations, state measures) and long-term (trait measures) helping and hurting outcomes, but also with helping and harming intentions. We discuss the strengths and limitations of the THHT relative to other laboratory measures of prosocial behavior and aggression, discuss unanswered questions about the task, and offer suggestions for the best use of the task.

Praising ‘me’ or ‘we’? Different types of self-promotion and career success

Self-promotion, widespread in the workplace, has received extensive attention from scholars. However, due to the narrow one-dimensional structure of traditional self-promotion and the limitations of theoretical thinking, its antecedents and consequences are still unclear. Therefore, we propose a new pair of self-promotion behaviors (sole self-promotion and joint self-promotion), and develop the measures based on a more grounded definition of self-promotion. In phase 1, we developed the scales of sole self-promotion and joint self-promotion (sample 1), and assessed their psychometric properties (i.e., content validity, factor structure, and reliability) by using two samples (samples 2 and 3). In phase 2, using three-wave data (sample 4) with two sources (employees and coworkers), we tested the overall model based on social comparison theory, examining the antecedents and consequences of sole and joint self-promotion, and exploring the different effects of these two behaviors on career success. Overall, our research offers new insight into self-promotion research and provides a useful tool to evaluate employee self-promotion. Implications for theory and practice, and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Perceptions of comparative optimism and perceptions of career success: Experimental evidence for a bidirectional effect

Audiences generally view people who display more (versus less) comparative optimism more favorably. We explored whether audiences view a target who displays comparative optimism as more professionally successful, and conversely, whether they view a target who is more professionally successful as more comparatively optimistic. In Study 1, participants estimated the career success of a target that varied in level of comparative optimism. In Study 2, participants estimated the level of comparative optimism of a target that varied in career success. The results revealed that observers rated comparative optimists as likely to have successful careers, and rated people with successful careers as likely to display comparative optimism. Inferences about personal agency account for the bidirectional relationship.

The consequences of sharing

People constantly share information with others, whether that information is about themselves, others, or the world at large. This review offers a framework for considering how these sharing behaviors produce two types of consequences - intrapersonal outcomes (which affect the sharer internally) and interpersonal outcomes (which affect the sharer's relationships) - and how these consequences depend on whether the content shared is positive or negative in valence. In doing so, the article presents a synthesis of prior research relevant to this organizing framework, and concludes by highlighting opportunities for further investigation.

On the Popularity of Agentic and Communal Narcissists: The Tit-for-Tat Hypothesis

Among well-acquainted people, those high on agentic narcissism are less popular than those low on agentic narcissism. That popularity-difference figures prominently in the narcissism literature. But why are agentic narcissists less popular? We propose a novel answer―the tit-for-tat hypothesis. It states that agentic narcissists like other people less than non-narcissists do and that others reciprocate by liking agentic narcissists less in return. We also examine whether the tit-for-tat hypothesis generalizes to communal narcissism. A large round-robin study ( N = 474) assessed agentic and communal narcissism (Wave 1) and included two round-robin waves (Waves 2-3). The round-robin waves assessed participants’ liking for all round-robin group members (2,488 informant-reports). The tit-for-tat hypothesis applied to agentic narcissists. It also applied to communal narcissists, albeit in a different way. Compared with non-narcissists, communal narcissists liked other people more and―in return―those others liked communal narcissists more. Our results elaborate on and qualify the thriving literature on narcissists’ popularity.

Investigating the Relationship Between Self-Perceived Moral Superiority and Moral Behavior Using Economic Games

Most people report that they are superior to the average person on various moral traits. The psychological causes and social consequences of this phenomenon have received considerable empirical attention. The behavioral correlates of self-perceived moral superiority (SPMS), however, remain unknown. We present the results of two preregistered studies (Study 1, N = 827; Study 2, N = 825), in which we indirectly assessed participants’ SPMS and used two incentivized economic games to measure their engagement in moral behavior. Across studies, SPMS was unrelated to trust in others and to trustworthiness, as measured by the trust game, and unrelated to fairness, as measured by the dictator game. This pattern of findings was robust to a range of analyses, and, in both studies, Bayesian analyses indicated moderate support for the null over the alternative hypotheses. We interpret and discuss these findings and highlight interesting avenues for future research on this topic.