The U.S. is experiencing high levels of political animosity. Whereas much of the intergroup contact literature has focused on improving intergroup relations by reducing anxieties associated with interacting with other groups, some of the motivation literature suggests a different approach: focusing on immediate rewards, such as fun in the moment. The present study investigated the effectiveness of instructing pairs of participants to focus on immediate rewards, relative to focusing on immediate (anxiety) prevention or a no-goal control condition, for increasing participants’ willingness to interact with members of the opposite political party and making those interactions less aversive. Given prior work suggesting differences between conservatives and liberals in terms of threat aversion and openness, it also investigated whether these results differed for Republicans and Democrats. Ninety-two same-sex Democrat-Republican dyads were recruited from the Sona pool at Arizona State University and randomly assigned to one of three instruction conditions. Before engaging in a 15-minute interaction, participants responded to questions about how well they expected the interactions to go, and after the conversation, they evaluated how they felt during the conversation, their perceptions of their partner’s behaviors, and how willing they would be to interact with the outparty again. It was predicted that participants in the immediate rewards condition would report more positive expectancies of the interactions, more positive impressions of their partners, and greater willingness to interact with the outparty again. It was also expected that Democrats in the immediate rewards condition, and Republicans in the immediate prevention condition, would report more positive expectancies of the interactions, more positive impressions of their partners, and greater willingness to interact with the outparty again relative to Republicans, and to Democrats, in the same conditions. Results of 3 Between-Dyad Condition X 2 Within-Dyad Political Party mixed analyses of variance (ANOVAs) suggested that whereas the immediate rewards condition was associated with marginally more positive expectancies relative to the no-goal control condition, the immediate prevention condition was associated with more enjoyable interactions relative to the no-goal control condition. Although condition effects did not differ significantly by political party, Republicans exhibited some more positive outcomes relative to Democrats.

Do individuals flexibly and adaptively calibrate their motivation, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in response to changing ecological opportunities and threats? Using a longitudinal six-wave survey data set collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, the study addresses three research questions: are some psychological features or characteristics more or less likely to be calibrated in response to environmental change, are certain types of people more sensitive to these ecological changes, and do individuals become more sensitized or habituated to these changes over time? The results demonstrate that individuals can flexibly adjust their psychology directly relevant to managing COVID-19 infection: people were more strongly motivated to avoid disease and perceived that they were more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection during periods when the threat of COVID-19 infection was high. Political liberals were particularly sensitive to ecological infection changes in adjusting their disease avoidance motivation. Importantly, the study also found a significant quadratic effect of COVID-19 cases on disease avoidance motivation, perceived COVID vulnerability, and preventative behaviors. This indicates that the effect of COVID-19 cases was especially pronounced during the early phase of the pandemic when new cases were relatively low, but diminished as time passed and new cases increased. These findings highlight the adaptive nature of human behavior in response to changing environmental circumstances and underscore the importance of considering both individual and contextual factors in understanding psychological flexibility.

Humans are highly interdependent, living and working in close proximity with many others. From an affordance management perspective, the goal of social perception is to assess and manage potential opportunities and threats afforded by these close others. Social perceivers are thus often motivated to assess particular affordance-relevant characteristics in a target. Frequently, perceivers assess these characteristics via passive observation. Sometimes, however, making such an assessment via observation can be difficult. In these cases, perceivers may instead “affordance test”: actively manipulate the target’s circumstances to reveal (or notably not reveal) cues to the characteristic of interest. There are multiple factors hypothesized to affect whether a perceiver is more likely to passively observe or affordance test that characteristic, including factors related to the characteristic of interest, the situation, the perceiver, and the target. Here, four core hypotheses of this affordance testing framework are tested. In a Preliminary Study (analyzed N = 1301), Study 1 (analyzed N = 559), and Study 2 (analyzed N = 572), highly consistent correlational and experimental evidence was found in support of Hypothesis 1, that the less observable a characteristic is believed to be, the more likely a perceiver is to assess it via affordance testing. In the Preliminary Study, evidence supported Hypothesis 2, that the more important a characteristic is believed to be, the more likely it is to be affordance tested. In Studies 1 and 2, mixed evidence supported Hypothesis 3, that the more urgency or time pressure a perceiver feels, the more likely they are to assess the characteristic of interest via affordance testing. And in Studies 1 and 2, evidence did not support Hypothesis 4, that believed observability and felt urgency interact, such that even characteristics of moderate believed observability are highly likely to be affordance tested under higher felt urgency. Implications of these findings for the affordance testing framework, limitations of the studies, and potential future directions are discussed. In sum, the present work provides promising initial progress in understanding foundational factors that affect when perceivers are likely to affordance test—an important, yet previously understudied, component of the social information-seeking process.

Prejudice and discrimination toward gender non-conforming individuals is prevalent and extreme in today’s society. This prejudice can manifest in social exclusion, bullying, and victimization, or physical and sexual assault, and can result in negative social, psychological, academic, and physical health outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, suicidality). Thus, it is important to understand the perpetrators of gender expression-based aggression and discrimination. In two studies, I addressed how and why people experience prejudice toward gender non-conforming individuals. Using an affordance management theoretical framework, Study 1 identified threats young adults perceived from gender non-conforming peers. There were differences in perceived threats to personal freedoms, social coordination, and values for gender conforming and non-conforming peers, and these perceptions differed by the political ideology of the perceiver. Study 2 explored children’s threat perceptions associated with gender non-conformity. Children perceived threats to social coordination from gender non-conforming peers but not threats to moral values. Results from both studies supported the use of this theoretical framework for studying prejudice toward gender non-conformity. Together, these studies provide unique information about adults’ and children’s reasons for prejudice toward gender non-conforming peers.

The present study tested the hypothesis that women dress modestly to signal to other women that they pose no mate poaching threat and are sexually restricted, and that this is especially true for religious women. Participants were 392 Muslim women living in the United States. They read two passages describing fictional situations in which they met with a potential female friend and then indicated what kind of outfit they would wear in both situations. In one situation, the participant obtained a reputation for promiscuity; in the other situation, reputation was not mentioned. I predicted that participants would choose more modest outfits for the promiscuous reputation passage, because if women dress modestly to signal sexual restrictedness, then they should dress more modestly around women with whom they have a reputation for promiscuity—to counteract such a reputation, women may wish to send a strong signal that they are not promiscuous. The hypothesis was partially supported: Less religious women chose more modest outfits for the promiscuous reputation situation than they did for the no reputation situation. This suggests that some women dress modestly to signal sexual restrictedness to other women, but that this is especially true for women who are less religious, not more. More religious women dress more modestly than less religious women, but they may not dress modestly to signal sexual restrictedness. Two important goals for this area of research are to determine the proximate reasons that more religious women dress modestly and to investigate modest dress among non-Muslim religious women.

Accurately assessing the sexual interest of others is useful for initiating courtship behaviors that have a chance of being reciprocated, and also potentially critical for survival, particularly for women, where unwanted sexual interest from men can become unwanted sexual advances, sexual assault, and worse. Previous research suggests that men overestimate women’s sexual interest to initiate courtship behaviors even if the probability of their advances being reciprocated is low. This may be because missing a potential mating opportunity is costlier than squandered courtship efforts. However, research on this male sexual overestimation effect has failed to fully appreciate the importance of the motivations and contexts of actors. Here, we primed participants with short-term mating motivations and threat contexts to compare against a control prime condition. We replicated the male sexual overestimation effect in the control and threat prime conditions and found a marginal effect in the short-term mating prime condition. The magnitude of the difference between men’s estimations and women’s self-reports of women’s sexual interest was only significantly different from the control prime in the threat condition. Additionally, we explored some interesting combinations of circumstances. We found that, in a potentially common scenario, where men are primed with short-term mating motives and women are primed with threat, the male sexual overestimation effect replicates and, further, find that this effect disappears when the mindsets of men and women are reversed. We discuss the implications of these findings in the context of understanding what the default psychologies of people during the early stages of courtship are, and the effects these psychologies have on estimations of sexual interest.

Anti-atheist prejudice is cross-culturally prevalent and marked by intuitive distrust. However, recent research suggests that, when social perceivers know additional relevant information about others (i.e., their reproductive strategies), this information overrides religious information and nonreligious targets are trusted as much as religious targets. That is, perceivers seem to use religious information as a cue to a specific set of behavioral traits, but prioritize direct information about these traits when available. Here, I use this framework to explore the possibility that atheists are viewed positively in certain circumstances. First, atheists might be viewed positively for certain purposes because of their perceived reproductive strategies, even while being trusted less. Second, atheists who are family-oriented do not sacrifice trust, but may still be viewed positively for other traits (i.e., open-mindedness, scientific thinking). Third, given the constraints religion often imposes on behavior, atheists might be trusted more in situations where these constraints interfere with religious people’s inclination to cooperate. I tested these hypotheses using fictitious social media profiles to examine social perception. The study had a 3 (Target Religion: Religious, Nonreligious, or Atheist) × 3 (Target Reproductive Strategy: No Information, Committed, Uncommitted) experimental design (N = 550). Contrary to my predictions, participants did not rate atheists and nonreligious targets as “fast” compared to religious targets. Consistent with predictions, however, atheists and nonreligious individuals were rated significantly higher on perceived open-mindedness and scientific thinking. Finally, atheist and nonreligious targets were trusted more in two of the three trust domains: trust with scientific findings that contradict their worldview and trust with a secret about a friend’s abortion. Further analyses compared patterns of responding for religious and nonreligious individuals, finding evidence for ingroup bias in most perceptions, but not all. Results suggest that perceptions of atheists are complex, but that atheists may, at least sometimes, be viewed favorably. Finally, these results point to the importance of reproductive strategy as a dimension of social perception, as this variable had a clear effect, independent of target religion, on the hypothesized perceptions.

In an affordance management approach, stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination are conceptualized as tools to manage the potential opportunities and threats afforded by others in highly interdependent social living. This approach suggests a distinction between two “kinds” of stereotypes. “Base” stereotypes are relatively factual, stable beliefs about the capacities and inclinations of groups and their members, whereas “affordance stereotypes” are beliefs about potential threats and opportunities posed by groups and their members. Two experiments test the hypothesized implications of this distinction: (1) People may hold identical base stereotypes about a target group but hold very different affordance stereotypes. (2) Affordance stereotypes, but not base stereotypes, are shaped by perceiver goals and felt vulnerabilities. (3) Prejudices and (4) discrimination are more heavily influenced by affordance stereotypes than by base stereotypes. I endeavored to manipulate participants’ felt vulnerabilities to measure the predicted corresponding shifts in affordance (but not base) stereotype endorsement, prejudices, and discriminatory inclinations toward a novel target group (Sidanians). In Study 1 (N = 600), the manipulation was unsuccessful. In Study 2 (N = 338), the manipulation had a partial effect, allowing for preliminary causal tests of the proposed model. In both studies, I predicted and found high endorsement of the base stereotypes that Sidanians try to share their values and actively participate in the community, with low variability. I also predicted and found more variation in affordance (vs. base) stereotype endorsement, which was systematically related to participants’ felt vulnerabilities in Study 2. Taken together, these findings support my hypothesized distinction between base stereotypes and affordance stereotypes. Finally, I modeled the proposed correlational relationships between felt vulnerabilities, base stereotypes, affordance stereotypes, prejudices, and discriminatory inclinations in the model. Although these relationships were predominantly significant in the predicted directions, overall fit of the model was poor. These studies further our critical understanding of the relationship between stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination. This has implications for how we devise interventions to reduce the deleterious effects of such processes on their targets, perhaps focusing on changing perceiver vulnerabilities and perceived affordance (rather than base) stereotypes to more effectively reduce prejudices and discrimination.

Friendships make us happy, keep us healthy, and can even facilitate our reproductive fitness. But most friendships are not forever—even when we want them to be. How do people maintain valued friendships? I propose that “friendship jealousy” arises when people perceive others as posing threats to valued friendships, and that this response can function to prevent friendship loss and friend defection. In preliminary experiments, I tested predictions derived from this functional view. As predicted, I found, first, that friendship jealousy is calibrated to friend value. Second, friendship jealousy predicts intentions to “friend guard” (i.e., engage in behavior to protect the friendship). Third, friendship jealousy has sex-differentiated features, which are consistent with sex differences in friendship structures and ancestral friendship functions. The present work pits against one another intuitive and functional predictions as to what drives friendship jealousy. Although intuition might lead one to expect greater jealousy when a friend spends more time with a new person, a functional view suggests greater jealousy when that new person threatens to fulfill the same function for one’s friend that one is currently fulfilling (i.e., to “replace” him/her). Preliminary studies revealed that greater friendship jealousy is evoked when friends form new same-sex friendships (which presumably pose greater replacement threat, but lesser time threat) versus new romantic relationships (which presumably pose lesser replacement threat, but greater time threat). The focal experiment explicitly and experimentally manipulates a version of “replacement threat” (whether the best friend “chooses” the new friend over you) and “time threat” (how much time the best friend spends with the new friend). In line with functional predictions, the amount of time the best friend spends with a new friend drives friendship jealousy—but only when direct information about replacement threat is unavailable. Regardless of the time threat posed, participants report high friendship jealousy when replacement threat is high, and low friendship jealousy when replacement threat is low. Results imply that friendship jealousy is calibrated to replacement threat (over time threat). Overall, findings suggest that friendship jealousy might be a functional response aimed at facilitating friendship maintenance.

Psychological theories often reduce descriptions of people’s emotional experiences to a small number of underlying dimensions that capture most of the variation in their responses. These underlying dimensions are typically uncovered by comparing the self-reported emotions of many individuals at one specific time point, to infer a single underlying structure of emotion for all people. However, theoretical work suggests that underlying dimensions uncovered in this way may not hold when modeling how people change over time. Individuals may differ not just in their typical score on a given dimension of emotion, but in what dimensions best characterize their patterns of emotional experience over time. In this study, participants described two emotional events per day for 35 days, and analyses compared individualized structures of emotion to those generated from many people at one point in time. Analyses using R-technique factor analysis, which compares many people at one time point, most often uncovered a two-factor solution corresponding to positivity and negativity dimensions - a solution well-established in the literature. However, analyses using P-technique factor analysis, which compares many emotional events for one person, uncovered a broader diversity of underlying dimensions. Individuals needed anywhere from one to five factors to best capture their self-reported emotions. Further, dimensions specifically related to romantic relationships were much more common when examining the experiences of individuals over time. This suggests that external factors, such as pursuing or being in a romantic relationship, might lead to a qualitative shift in how emotions are experienced. Research attempting to characterize emotion dynamics, including those attempting to help people shift or regulate their emotions, cannot assume that typical two dimensional structures of emotional experience apply to all people. Instead we must account for how individuals describe their own emotional experiences.