ABSTRACT Intentions to act unethically in the workplace are purported to be driven by a number of situational and individual factors. Across two seminal vignette experiments, Jones and Kavanagh reported inconsistent effect sizes for manager and peer influence and locus of control, consistent significant effects for work quality and Machiavellianism, and consistent non-significant effects for gender. Using an innovative multi-site collaboration, the current Registered Report represents a direct replication of these experiments (N = 2218), and adds a longitudinal conceptual replication capturing self-reported unethical work behaviour (N = 1747). Both replications found a consistent small effect of having a more external locus of control and male identity, and a consistent moderate effect of machiavellianism, for increasing unethical intentions and behaviour. The situational factors, whilst consistent in direction with that of the original study, varied more substantively in effect size. Our results highlight the value of multi-site collaborations and different replication types in developing conceptual, methodological, measurement and theoretical clarity to ensure future works can progress more rapidly to minimize the negative impacts of unethical workplace behaviour and improve individual’s working lives. All materials, code and data for this project can be found here: osf.io/d3arx.

ABSTRACT This study explores whether legal education can shield individuals from the influence of personal ideology in the legal decision-making process. Drawing from the Polish legal context, where the public is strongly divided on several ideological issues, we investigated how law students’ political beliefs impact their judgment in simulated judicial cases. We hypothesized that more advanced legal training would reduce the preference for decisions concordant with students’ (N = 254) political ideologies. We did not find support for that hypothesis. Instead, we interpret the findings in an exploratory fashion. We found that first-year students were more likely to make judgments aligned with their ideological views. However, higher-year students exhibited a trend toward decisions discordant with their ideology, suggesting an overcorrection. These findings highlight the complex interaction between legal education, ideology, and impartiality, suggesting that legal training fosters impartiality but may also lead to overcompensation. The study underscores the importance of balanced teaching strategies to promote unbiased decision-making and avoid ideological overcorrection. Further research is needed to investigate these dynamics in various legal and educational contexts.

ABSTRACT Despite the widespread suggestion that decreases in psychological well-being among youth since 2010 are partly due to increases in distressing social comparisons with idealized portrayals of others on social media, this registered report is the first empirical test of whether social comparisons actually have changed since the advent of social media. Using event-contingent experience sampling, undergraduate participants from two comparable cohorts 27 years apart (N = 232participants in 1997–1998 and 234 participants in 2024–2025) each described 10 naturalistic social comparisons (4,660 comparisons total). The results revealed sizable cohort effects: Compared to their 1990s counterparts, students in the 2020s were more prone to compare automatically, compare with distant rather than close others, compare upward with others’ desirable attributes, and feel worse about themselves while making comparisons. The 2020s cohort also reported generally lower self-esteem and higher levels of depression. Examining the contexts in which the 2020s cohort made social comparisons revealed that comparisons made while using social media were more liable to be upward comparisons with distant targets that left people feeling insecure and disconnected. Collectively, these results suggest that social media comparisons could be one driver of the observed generational shifts in everyday social comparison experiences and psychological well-being.

ABSTRACT Individuals display the tendency to cooperate more with in-group members than they do with out-group members (i.e. in-group favoritism) across diverse contexts. While previous studies have thoroughly investigated in-group favoritism when a single social category is salient, they have understudied how individuals cooperate with others when multiple social categories are simultaneously salient. To bridge this gap, we conducted a study to examine cooperation under crossed categorization, in which two dichotomous social categories are orthogonally crossed. We then examined the psychological mechanisms potentially underlying intergroup cooperation, including reputational concern, expected cooperation, and social identification, drawn from the theoretical perspectives of bounded generalized reciprocity and social identity theory. Overall, we found that two in-group memberships additively increased cooperation. That is, cooperation with a double in-group member (a person with two in-group memberships) was higher than that with a partial in-group member (i.e. a person with one in-group membership and one out-group membership). We also found that cooperation with a partial in-group member was larger than that with a double out-group member (a person with two out-group memberships). In addition, we found some evidence that expected cooperation partially mediated the relationship between in-group membership and cooperation.

ABSTRACT Most people are members of different groups. While the norms of these groups can align, they can also be contradicting, leading to dissonance within the social self. This is different from dissonance at the individual level because it is based solely on individuals’ membership in ingroups with conflicting norms. Building on the Social Identity Approach and Cognitive Dissonance Theory, we assume that norm conflict between ingroups increases psychological discomfort, particularly for people who are highly identified with both ingroups. Norm conflict was manipulated by showing participants the results of bogus surveys, indicating that their ingroups agree or disagree (in Experiment 1 on the topic of self-driving cars; in Experiment 2 on how to act in a moral dilemma). We tested several strategies to cope with norm conflict between ingroups, namely, lowering the credibility of the norm conflict information and/or norm prototypicality (Exp. 1 & 2), disidentification (Exp. 1), as well as compartmentalization and the restorative function of agentic groups (Exp. 2). In line with our assumptions, results indicated that norm conflict between ingroups led to increased psychological discomfort in Experiment 1 (N = 870) and Experiment 2 (N = 812). This was not moderated by the two ingroup identification levels. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that lowering perceived prototypicality of the norms was a coping strategy for high identifiers. No effects emerged for other coping strategies. Both experiments show evidence of dissonance within the social self and highlight the necessity for further examinations of its consequences and boundary conditions.

ABSTRACT This paper aims to replicate the effect of a nudge on behavior (efficiency) and acceptability in a natural field experiment. The nudge in our study consists in setting zero sugars as the default level of sugar in hot drinks–vending machines in a French university. We compared Campus A (default option set to 0 sugars) to Campus B (default option set to 3 sugars). We measured the efficiency of this default option by observing the level of sugar actually chosen by the participants, and we measured acceptability through a questionnaire. We hypothesized a high level of efficiency for the nudge and a higher acceptability in Campus A (default option set to 0 sugars) compared to Campus B (default option set to 3 sugars). Our results show that participants with the default option set to zero sugars (Campus A) consumed less sugar than those with the default option set to 3 sugars (Campus B). We also found a high level of acceptability on both campuses, though with no difference between Campus A (where the nudge was implemented) and Campus B (where a future nudge would be implemented). The discussion addresses the applied perspectives and ethical implications of these results.

ABSTRACT Victims often have to decide whether or not they want to forgive the offender after a transgression. Forgiveness has in general been shown to have positive consequences (e.g. for the victim–transgressor relationship), but recent theorizing suggests that these may be conditional on the extent to which a forgiveness response is attributed to benevolent (vs. malevolent) motives. Here, we investigate how the presence of an attentive audience influences offenders’ motive attributions and post-transgression behavior. Specifically, we hypothesize that offenders attribute a forgiveness reaction to malevolent rather than benevolent motives if it occurs in front of an audience vs. in private, and that this leads to withdrawal from the victim rather than reconciliation. While two preliminary vignette studies (N = 396) provided initial support for these assumptions, a preregistered virtual reality experiment (N = 156) yielded more mixed results. Specifically, in line with our predictions, receiving a forgiveness response from the victim in front of an attentive audience made participants keep a greater distance to the victim than receiving a forgiveness response in private. This effect was, however, found in only one out of three approach–avoidance tasks. We discuss possible explanations for these results and future research avenues.

ABSTRACT Psychologists have identified confirmation bias as a contributor to conflict and ideological extremism. However, the efficacy of social science’s existing arsenal of debiasing techniques remains largely unknown, and the extant positive findings have often been inconsistent and are in need of independent replication. In this registered report, we empirically tested the efficacy of three cognitive debiasing techniques in mitigating confirmation bias: consider-the-opposite, psychoeducation about bias, and social norms manipulation. In the control group, participants exhibited two manifestations of confirmation bias: selective exposure and biased assimilation. When it came to reducing these biases, we found evidence that the social norms technique reduced selective exposure relative to the control group, but little evidence that this was the case for the consider-the-opposite or psychoeducation techniques was found. None of the debiasing strategies significantly reduced biased assimilation relative to the control group. Comparing these strategies provides theoretical advancement in the processes that give rise to confirmation bias, and moreover, these results help to identify a promising technique to serve as the foundation for debiasing interventions, namely social norms interventions.

ABSTRACT Drawing on moral philosophy, research in moral psychology has used hypothetical sacrificial dilemmas to understand how moral judgments are made by laypeople. Although heavily influential, a frequent question raised is whether responses to hypothetical scenarios are informative about instances of morally relevant behavior. Using the CNI model to quantify sensitivity to consequences, sensitivity to moral norms, and general preference for inaction versus action in responses to sacrificial dilemmas, two preregistered studies examined whether specific factors underlying sacrificial dilemma judgments predict dishonest behavior for personal monetary gain (Study 1) and the greater good (Study 2). Testing the hypothesis that specific factors underlying sacrificial dilemma judgments are linked to other morally relevant behaviors via broader underlying moral dispositions, confirmatory tests provide strong support the predicted associations between sensitivity to moral norms and dishonest behavior. No support was found for a predicted association between sensitivity to consequences and dishonest behavior for the greater good. The findings contribute to ongoing debates about the value of individual differences in sacrificial dilemma judgments for predicting instances of morally relevant behavior.

ABSTRACT Gossip plays an essential role in our societies, and individuals gossip about others’ behavior for various reasons. While previous studies have consistently demonstrated that individuals are more willing to gossip about norm deviations, existing research has understudied the potential role of the group membership of gossip target (i.e. a person who is gossiped about) and gossip recipient (a person who is gossiped to) on the tendency to instigate gossip about norm deviation. We conducted a study (N = 1038) in which we orthogonally manipulated the group membership of a gossip target and a gossip recipient as well as types of target behavior (normative, negative norm deviation, and positive norm deviation), and tested several preregistered hypotheses regarding the willingness to gossip and gossip motivations. We found that individuals were more willing to gossip about negative and positive norm deviations compared to normative behavior regardless of the group membership of a gossip target and recipient, except when they consider gossiping about in-group negative norm deviation toward an out-group member. Gossip motivations substantially varied depending on the valence of norm deviation and the group membership.