Suchergebnisse

Abstract. "The powerful are immoral"! Across four preregistered studies (total N = 2,744), we explored the role of perceived autonomy (control over own resources) and perceived influence (control over others' resources) for this belief. In Study 1, perceived autonomy and influence mediated the effect of power on expected immorality. Likewise, directly manipulating perceived autonomy and influence led to increased expected immorality, increased perceived intentionality of a transgression, and consequently to harsher punishment recommendations (Studies 3 and 4). Interestingly, Study 2 revealed an interaction between autonomy and influence, which we however could not replicate in Study 4. Overall, our findings suggest that both autonomy and influence are associated with immorality and thus likely drive the belief that the powerful are immoral.

The United Nations have described the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as the worst global crisis since the second world war. Behavioral protective measures, such as good hand hygiene and social distancing, may strongly affect infection and fatality rates worldwide. In two studies (total N = 962), we aimed to identify central predictors of acceptance and adoption of protective measures, including sociodemographic variables, risk perception, and trust. We found that men and younger participants show lower acceptance and adoption of protective measures, suggesting that it is crucial to develop targeted health messages for these groups. Moreover, trust in politics and trust in science emerged as important predictors for the acceptance and adoption of protective measures. These results show that maintaining and ideally strengthening trust in politics and trust in science might be central for overcoming the COVID-19 pandemic. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

People often strive towards self-improvement, and whether they are currently motivated or lacking motivation can hinge on their social environment, namely on the people around them. Research on social comparison has emphasised the inspirational nature of upward comparisons, but has not covered the whole spectrum of possible comparison standards in terms of their motivational impact. The current dissertation integrates social comparison with motivational principles from self-regulation research and investigates how discrepancy assessments between the self and a standard of comparison influence people's motivation and emotion. Chapter 1 outlines the new framework of motivation by integrating literature on social comparison and self-regulation. In Chapter 2, a line of experimental studies shows how motivational patterns provoked by moderate (vs. extreme) upward (vs. downward) standards differ from classic assimilation and contrast judgments in the social comparison literature. Chapter 3 moves into the field, and demonstrates how discrepancy assessments between the self and a standard influence motivation and associated emotion, where a negative discrepancy (upward comparison) is associated with increased effort investment (pushing), but with decreased effort investment if the discrepancy becomes too large (disengagement). Positive discrepancies, on the other hand, are related to less effort investment as the standard has been surpassed (coasting). Chapter 4 complements the former chapter with a behavioral effort measure that assesses performance improvement of sports students after they have reported on their social comparisons during the semester. Lastly, Chapter 5 illustrates how the domain of morality deviates from the motivational framework as people draw motivation from downward and avoid upward comparison to positively distinguish their moral self from others. Finally, the last chapter offers concluding thoughts concerning implications, future research, and limitations of the current research.

In der vorliegenden Studie werden auf Basis der Schuleingangsuntersuchung (SEU) der Städteregion Aachen aus den Jahren 2015 bis 2019 bildungsassoziierte Unterschiede in der Empfehlung zur Prüfung eines sonderpädagogischen Förderbedarfs (SPF) (n = 19 993) untersucht. Kinder aus Haushalten mit einem geringeren familiären Bildungsstatus besitzen laut vorliegender Studienergebnisse ein signifikant höheres Risiko, eine Empfehlung zur Prüfung eines SPFs zu erhalten. Diese Assoziation bleibt auch unter Berücksichtigung verschiedener Kontrollvariablen statistisch bedeutsam und hat sich im Zeitverlauf nur leicht verändert. Bildungsassoziierte Unterschiede werden bei den Förderschwerpunkten Lernen (LE), Sprache (SQ), geistige Entwicklung (GG) und emotionale und soziale Entwicklung (ESE) sowie bei Kindern mit unklarem Förderbefund deutlich. Die Ungleichheit in der Empfehlung zur Prüfung eines SPFs nach familiärem Bildungsstatus waren bei Mädchen tendenziell, aber nicht signifikant größer, als bei Jungen. Die vorliegenden Ergebnisse verdeutlichen, wie stark ein möglicher SPF und dessen Determinanten in unserer Sozialstruktur verankert sind. Sie heben auch die Notwendigkeit von Maßnahmen zur Förderung der frühkindlichen Betreuung, Bildung und Erziehung sozial benachteiligter Kinder und Familien hervor.