A consequential ideology in Western society is the uncontested belief that a committed relationship is the most important adult relationship and that almost all people want to marry or seriously couple (DePaulo & Morris, 2005). In the present article, we investigated the extent to which the system justification motive may contribute to the adoption of this ideology. In Studies 1 and 2, we examined whether a heightened motive to maintain the status quo would increase defense of committed relationship values. In Study 3, we examined the reverse association, that is, whether a threat to committed relationship ideology would also affect sociopolitical system endorsement. As past research has found that the justification of political systems depends upon how much these systems are perceived as controlling, in Study 4 we tested whether the defense of the system of committed relationships would also increase when framed as controlling. Results from Studies 1–4 were consistent with our hypotheses, but only for men. In Study 5, using cross-cultural data, we sought to replicate these findings correlationally and probe for a cause of the gender effect. Results from more than 33,000 respondents indicated a relationship (for men) between defense of the sociopolitical system and defense of marriage in countries where the traditional advantages of men over women were most threatened. In Studies 6 and 7, we investigated when this gender difference disappears. Results revealed that when we measured (Study 6) or manipulated (Study 7) personal relationship identity rather than relationship ideology, effects also emerge for women.

After they stop drivers for exceeding the speed limit, police often have the discretion to alter the penalty. We investigated the degree to which extra-legal factors (apologies and other verbal responses), in addition to speed over the limit, predict ticket costs for speeding. Surveys of speeders were conducted in the U.S. and Canada. The data suggest that what people say to police matters. Participants who reported statements of remorse, e.g., ‘‘I’m sorry,’’ received lower fines for speeding. The relation of speeders’ responses to ticket costs is discussed from legal and psychological perspectives.

Comment on Conley, Moors, Matsick, and Ziegler (2012). Grounded in prior research, a framework is proposed that builds upon the authors’ findings and outlines a perspective to organize future research directions. In particular, the violation of committed relationship ideology is suggested to help explain, in part, negative perceptions of consensual nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships, as well as less favorable views of singles, and other non-normative relationships. This broader conceptual view of the authors’ findings encourages both future research on CNM relationships as well as further understanding of related phenomena stemming from relationship ideology.

The present research demonstrates that positive stereotypes – though often treated as harmless, flattering and innocuous – may represent an especially insidious means of promoting antiquated beliefs about social groups. Specifically, across four studies (and one replication), the authors demonstrate that exposure to positive stereotypes towards African Americans (i.e., they are superior athletes) are at once both especially unlikely to arouse skepticism and emotional vigilance while also especially likely to produce antiquated and harmful beliefs towards members of the target group (compared to both baseline conditions and exposure to negative stereotypes), including beliefs in the biological (or “natural”) underpinnings of group differences and, ironically, the application of negative stereotypes.

Guilt is an important social and moral emotion. In addition to feeling unpleasant, guilt is metaphorically described as a ‘‘weight on one’s conscience.’’ Evidence from the field of embodied cognition suggests that abstract metaphors may be grounded in bodily experiences, but no prior research has examined the embodiment of guilt. Across four studies we examine whether i) unethical acts increase subjective experiences of weight, ii) feelings of guilt explain this effect, and iii) whether there are consequences of the weight of guilt. Studies 1–3 demonstrated that unethical acts led to more subjective body weight compared to control conditions. Studies 2 and 3 indicated that heightened feelings of guilt mediated the effect, whereas other negative emotions did not. Study 4 demonstrated a perceptual consequence. Specifically, an induction of guilt affected the perceived effort necessary to complete tasks that were physical in nature, compared to minimally physical tasks.

Years after a shocking news event many people confidently report details of their flashbulb memories (e.g., what they were doing). People’s confidence is a defining feature of their flashbulb memories, but it is not well understood. We tested a model that predicted confidence in flashbulb memories. In particular
we examined whether people’s social bond with the target of a news event predicts confidence. At a first session shortly after the death of Michael Jackson participants reported their sense of attachment to Michael Jackson, as well as their flashbulb memories and emotional and other reactions to Jackson’s
death. At a second session approximately 18 months later they reported their flashbulb memories and confidence in those memories. Results supported our proposed model. A stronger sense of attachment to Jackson was related to reports of more initial surprise, emotion, and rehearsal during the first session.
Participants’ bond with Michael Jackson predicted their confidence but not the consistency of their flashbulb memories 18 months later. We also examined whether participants’ initial forecasts regarding the persistence of their flashbulb memories predicted the durability of their memories. Participants’ initial forecasts were more strongly related to participants’ subsequent confidence than to the actual consistency of their memories.

Many scholars, politicians, and pundits speculate that apologies and reparations for historical injustices improve intergroup relations and affirm social identities. We examined these questions in two studies. In Study 1, we surveyed a group of Chinese and non-Chinese Canadians before and after the Canadian government apologized for unjust policies enforced on Chinese immigrants between 1885 and 1947. In Study 2, we randomly assigned Canadians to read that an apology had or had not been offered for a harm either committed or experienced by Canada. In each study, we found that victim group members evaluated the perpetrator group more favorably after redress was offered. Apologies weakly and inconsistently affected social identity evaluations amongst victim and perpetrator groups. We discuss the psychological and policy implications of the results.

People’s sociopolitical opinions are grounded in their moral concerns about right and wrong. We examine whether five moral foundations–harm, fairness, ingroup, authority, and purity—can influence political attitudes of liberals and conservatives. Using moral foundations to frame pro-attitudinal and counter-attitudinal positions on issues may change political attitudes in two possible ways: 1. Entrenching: relevant moral foundations will strengthen political attitudes only when framing pro-attitudinal positions on issues. 2. Persuasion: mere presence of relevant moral foundations may alter political attitudes in the direction of the counter-attitudinal position. Studies 1 and 2 support the entrenching hypothesis. Exposure to relevant moral foundation based frames on partisan positions bolstered political attitudes for both conservatives (Study 1) and liberals (Study 2). Study 2, but not Study 1, also supports the persuasion hypothesis. Both conservatives and liberals exposed to conservative-relevant moral frames of liberal issues increased their liberal attitudes, compared to those not initially exposed.