Schadenfreude is higher in real-life situations compared to hypothetical scenarios

The interplay of social rank perceptions of Trump and Biden and emotions following the U.S. presidential election 2020

The outcome of the 2020 U.S. election between Trump and Biden evoked strong emotions. In U.S. American (Study 1; N = 405) and German (Study 2; N = 123) samples, we investigated how observers' group membership (i.e. political orientation) and the social rank attainment of both candidates (i.e. dominance vs. prestige) predicted emotional reactions. Trump was generally perceived as more dominant, and Biden as more prestigious. However, perceptions of social rank attainment differed depending on the observers' political orientation, either matching or not matching with the leaders (i.e. Republicans and Democrats, respectively). The candidate who did not share the participants' political orientation was perceived as less prestigious and more dominant and elicited stronger contrastive emotions (i.e. schadenfreude, malicious envy) and weaker assimilative emotions (i.e. happy-for-ness, sympathy, anger), and vice versa. Crucially, dominance and prestige perceptions explained variance in the emotional reactions of more conservative and more liberal participants. Prestige positively predicted assimilative emotions and dominance contrastive emotions. Our work advances theorising by providing evidence that dominance and prestige perceptions contribute to the elicitation of various emotions. Furthermore, it suggests that prestige and dominance are not fixed characteristics of liberal and conservative leaders but depend on the observers' group membership.

Moral responses to the COVID-19 crisis

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised complex moral dilemmas that have been the subject of extensive public debate. Here, we study how people judge a set of controversial actions related to the crisis: relaxing data privacy standards to allow public control of the pandemic, forbidding public gatherings, denouncing a friend who violated COVID-19 protocols, prioritizing younger over older patients when medical resources are scarce, and reducing animal rights to accelerate vaccine development. We collected acceptability judgements in an initial large-scale study with participants from 10 Latin American countries (N = 15 420). A formal analysis of the intrinsic correlations between responses to different dilemmas revealed that judgements were organized in two dimensions: one that reflects a focus on human life expectancy and one that cares about the health of all sentient lives in an equitable manner. These stereotyped patterns of responses were stronger in people who endorsed utilitarian decisions in a standardized scale. A second pre-registered study performed in the USA (N = 1300) confirmed the replicability of these findings. Finally, we show how the prioritization of public health correlated with several contextual, personality and demographic factors. Overall, this research sheds light on the relationship between utilitarian decision-making and moral responses to the COVID-19 crisis.

Dermatologist demographics and patient satisfaction: A single-center survey study

Background

Patient satisfaction is a proxy for quality clinical care. Understanding the factors that drive patient satisfaction scores is important because they are publicly reported, may be used in determining hospital and physician compensation, and may allow patients to preselect physicians.

Objective

This single-center survey study of adult patients at the Michigan Medicine outpatient dermatology clinics aimed to investigate how patients respond differently to theoretical dermatologic scenarios with varying dermatologist gender.

Methods

Each questionnaire contained one of four clinical scenarios illustrating overall positive or negative encounters with a male or female dermatologist, followed by questions derived from the Press Ganey survey to assess patient satisfaction.

Results

A total of 452 completed questionnaires were collected. There were statistically significant differences in overall patient satisfaction scores between positive versus negative female and positive versus negative male dermatologists, but there were no differences in scores between positive female and positive male dermatologists or between negative female and negative male dermatologists. There were also no differences in overall scores after controlling for patient demographic characteristics or patient–dermatologist gender concordance.

Conclusion

Previous studies have suggested that male physicians receive better patient satisfaction scores compared to female physicians. However, our study found that, in response to hypothetical scenarios of positive and negative dermatology encounters, dermatologist gender did not affect any domain of patient satisfaction scores. Limitations include the use of hypothetical patient–dermatologist encounters and possible lack of generalizability because the study was conducted at one academic center in southeast Michigan with a predominantly Caucasian patient population.

Adolescents' Narratives of Schadenfreude

This study explored the experiential determinants of schadenfreude, how schadenfreude changes as a function of relationship, and how recollections of schadenfreude may vary by age. Using a narrative approach, 12- and 15-year-olds (N = 60) described times they felt schadenfreude toward various peers and adults. We coded their responses to extract information regarding preceding misfortunes and underlying reasons for schadenfreude. We found that adolescents' schadenfreude often involved another's physical harm and failure, and was rooted in reasons of deservingness and personal gain. There were unique trends in the types of misfortunes and reasons mentioned toward each target of interest. Finally, deservingness reasoning was prominent within 15-year-olds' schadenfreude experiences. The findings are discussed in relation to adolescents' emotional experiences in conflict situations.