Control is a fundamental motive in people’s lives and previous research converges on the notion that lack of control is aversive because it undermines epistemic beliefs in the nonrandomness of the... Show moreControl is a fundamental motive in people’s lives and previous research converges on the notion that lack of control is aversive because it undermines epistemic beliefs in the nonrandomness of the world. A key motivation underlying control is therefore the need to perceive the world as structured. However, strong individual dif-ferences exist in the extent to which people need structure. Based on this, we reasoned that if structure is indeed a key motive underlying control motivation, instances of low control should be more impactful for people with a high need for structure. We tested this logic in three studies. Results confirmed that participants with high personal need for structure evaluated a control-threat as more important and more negative than those with low personal need for structure. Need for structure did not impact evaluations of instances of control-affirmation. The current research shows that control is indeed important, but even more so for people with a high need for structure. Show less
Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (“professor”) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than... Show moreDijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (“professor”) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (“soccer hooligans”). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%–3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and −0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the “professor” category and those primed with the “hooligan” category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender. Show less
When is an individual likely to be accepted or rejected by a group? This research investigates responses towards prospective group members depending on how they compare to the group in terms of... Show moreWhen is an individual likely to be accepted or rejected by a group? This research investigates responses towards prospective group members depending on how they compare to the group in terms of their perceived morality or competence. Because morality is of particular importance to groups, we hypothesized that the perceived morality of prospective group members has more impact on the group's tendency to accept versus reject them than their competence. Across three experiments, employing self‐report, psychophysiological and behavioural measures, results supported this hypothesis: Immoral (vs. incompetent) individuals were perceived as more different from the group and were more likely to be rejected. Additionally, the rejection of prospective group members with perceived inferior morality (but not those with inferior competence) was mediated by the group threat they imply. Inclusion success thus seems to be mainly contingent upon how a group evaluates the individual's morality relative to the group's standards. Show less
