James G. Hillman

Prior research has shown both a preference for belief-congruent information and affectively positive information. In the present research, we assessed how these preferences may conflict when belief-congruent media is also necessarily negative. Recent theories suggest the desire for validating information is tied to hedonic belonging needs and should impart a stronger influence on information searching than mood maintenance. Across 3 studies ( N = 1038) we demonstrated that people consistently prefer validating information, even when the information is negative in valence. In Study 1 and 2 participants demonstrated the preference for validating information despite anticipating their own selection would decrease their mood. This tendency was stronger for people with more extreme beliefs. In Study 3 we found that acute ostracism in a Cyberball paradigm increased bias toward validating news above and beyond inclusion and negative mood induction. Findings suggest a unique role of social rejection in guiding information seeking behaviour beyond eliciting negative emotions.

Building on existing models, we theorized a dimensional model which quantifies forgiveness in terms of incongruence among forgiveness aspects. In the present research we aimed to draw on attitudinal theory to validate a measure of forgiveness which assessed cognition, behavior, and affect. Our goal was to develop a measure of forgiveness which captures incongruence between domains. To do this, we examined the validity and reliability of the Multi-dimensional Forgiveness Inventory (MDFI), which assess forgiveness-relevant behavior, cognition, and affect. In Study 1 we assessed convergent/divergent validity and assessed predictive associations among dimensions and theoretically relevant constructs. In Study 2 we assigned participants to rate their forgiveness for transgressions (small or large), at two different time points. This allowed us to assess temporal stability of dimensions across similar and dissimilar transgressions. In Study 3 we replicated research on embodied remorse using the MDFI to assess forgiveness. We found that for transgressors demonstrating embodied remorse (i.e., kneeling), participants were more willing to communicate forgiveness, but we found no difference in cognitive or affective forgiveness (in line with past research). The present research provides a novel model and measure to assess incongruent forgiveness.

Past research has found that people often engage in one of three behaviours to resolve inconsistencies with others: validation, conforming, or distancing. While much of the social influence literature has assessed contexts in which conformity is more or less likely, little has explored alternatives to conformity, such as validation and distancing. The present research as aims to assess what underlying factors that affect these preferences. We used vignettes of inconsistency in relational contexts to assess people’s preferred responses. In Study 1, we assessed Canadian participants’ preferences responses following social inconsistency. We found that more perceived self-changeability increased preference for conformity and decreased preference for validation and distancing, while more perceived relational mobility increased preference for distancing and decreased preference for conformity and validation. In Study 2 we assessed how these behaviours may vary culturally. We found that compared to Canadians, Koreans expressed greater preference for conformity and less preference for validation. The patterns of results for perceived changeability and mobility were largely the same across Canadian and Korean, with Koreans demonstrating similar or smaller effects. Implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.

People erroneously think that things they know little about improve over time. We propose that, due to salient cultural narratives, improvement is a highly accessible expectation that leads people to presume improvement in the absence of diagnostic information. Five studies investigated an improvement default: a general tendency to presume improvement even in self-irrelevant domains. Participants erroneously presumed improvement over esoteric historical time periods associated with decline (Study 1). Participants arranged a stranger’s experiences to produce trends of improvement (Study 2). Participants presumed improvement for a fictional city when given no diagnostic information about it (Study 3). Finally, participants who perceived more past improvement were less supportive of policies that may precipitate further improvement (Study 4). Implications for consequences, such as complacency toward improving inequality, are discussed.

Academic In the present review, we propose a theory that seeks to recontextualize various existing theories as functions of people’s perceptions of their consistency with those around them. This theory posits that people seek social consistency for both epistemic and relational needs and that social inconsistency is both negative and aversive, similar to the experience of cognitive dissonance. We further posit that the aversive nature of perceiving social inconsistency leads people to engage in various behaviors to mitigate or avoid these inconsistencies. When these behaviors fail, however, people experience chronic social inconsistency, which, much like chronic rejection, is associated with physical and mental health and well-being outcomes. Finally, we describe how mitigation and avoidance of social inconsistency underlie many seemingly unrelated theories, and we provide directions for how future research may expand on this theory. Public In the present review, we propose that people find inconsistency with those around them to be an unpleasant experience, as it threatens people’s core need to belong. Because the threat of reduced belongingness evokes negative feelings, people are motivated to avoid inconsistency with others and to mitigate the negative feelings that are produced when it inevitably does arise. We outline several types of behaviors that can be implemented to avoid or mitigate these inconsistencies (e.g., validation, affirmation, distancing, etc.). When these behaviors cannot be implemented successfully, people experience chronic invalidation, which is associated with reduced physical and mental health and well-being outcomes. We discuss how invalidation may disproportionately affect individuals with minoritized identities. Furthermore, we discuss how belongingness could play a key role in radicalization into extremist groups.