<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Mead, N.L.</title>
    <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/59592/</link>
    <description>List of Publications</description>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>When Me versus You Becomes Us versus Them: How Intergroup Competition Shapes Ingroup Psychology (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37431/</link>
      <pubDate>2012-08-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Throughout evolutionary history, intergroup competition has been an influential part of social life. Although the topic has received substantial empirical attention among social psychologists, the majority of that work has focused on how ingroup and outgroup members regard one another. Only recently have researchers begun examining how intergroup rivalry changes that way that ingroup members perceive and relate to one another. New findings suggest that a variety of within-group processes are influenced by the presence of a rival outgroup. In general, altruistic cooperation and prosocial motives increase among ingroup members when their group competes against another. The relationship between leaders and followers also shifts in response to intergroup rivalry: rather than wielding their power for selfish purposes, leaders prioritize the needs of their group. On the flip side, followers' choice of leader changes, preferring males during times of intergroup competition but females in the absence of competition. Given the substantial impact of intergroup competition on ingroup processes, future research should continue to deepen the field's knowledge of this topic. Additionally, the scope of research should be broadened to capture the effect of intergroup competition on ingroup dynamics, such as performance and group outcomes. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Diverging effects of clean versus dirty money on attitudes, values, and interpersonal behavior
 (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37933/</link>
      <pubDate>2012-07-31T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Does the cue of money lead to selfish, greedy, exploitative behaviors or to fairness, exchange, and
reciprocity? We found evidence for both, suggesting that people have both sets of meaningful associations,
which can be differentially activated by exposure to clean versus dirty money. In a field experiment
at a farmers’ market, vendors who handled dirty money subsequently cheated customers, whereas those
who handled clean money gave fair value (Experiment 1). In laboratory studies with economic games,
participants who had previously handled and counted dirty money tended toward selfish, unfair practices—
unlike those who had counted clean money or dirty paper, both of which led to fairness and
reciprocity. These patterns were found with the trust game (Experiment 2), the prisoner’s dilemma
(Experiment 4), the ultimatum game (Experiment 5), and the dictator game (Experiment 6). Cognitive
measures indicated that exposure to dirty money lowered moral standards (Experiment 3) and reduced
positive attitudes toward fairness and reciprocity (Experiments 6–7), whereas exposure to clean money
had the opposite effects. Thus, people apparently have 2 contradictory sets of associations (including
behavioral tendencies) to money, which is a complex, powerful, and ubiquitous aspect of human social
life and cultural organization.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>On keeping your enemies close: powerful leaders seek proximity to ingroup power threats. (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37430/</link>
      <pubDate>2012-03-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Throughout history, humans have had to detect and deflect myriad threats from their social and physical environment in order to survive and flourish. When people detect a threat, the most common response is avoidance. In the present research, the authors provide evidence that ingroup power threats elicit a very different response. Three experiments supported the hypothesis that dominant leaders seek proximity to ingroup members who pose a threat to their power, as a way to control and downregulate the threat that those members pose. In each experiment, leaders high (but not low) in dominance motivation sought proximity to an ingroup member who threatened their power. Consistent with the hypothesis that increased proximity was designed to help leaders protect their own power, the proximity effect was apparent only under conditions of unstable power (not stable power), only in the absence of intergroup competition (not when a rival outgroup was present), and only toward a threatening group member (not a neutral group member). Moreover, the effect was mediated by perceptions of threat (Experiment 1) and the desire to monitor the threatening group member (Experiment 3). These results shed new light on one key strategy through which dominant leaders try to maintain control over valuable yet potentially threatening group members. Findings have implications for theories of power, leadership, and group behavior.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37424/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-07-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Across four experimental studies, individuals who were depleted of their self-regulatory resources by an initial act of self-control were more likely to " impulsively cheat" than individuals whose self-regulatory resources were intact. Our results demonstrate that individuals depleted of self-control resources were more likely to behave dishonestly (Study 1). Depletion reduced people's moral awareness when they faced the opportunity to cheat, which, in turn, was responsible for heightened cheating (Study 2). Individuals high in moral identity, however, did not show elevated levels of cheating when they were depleted (Study 3), supporting our hypothesis that self-control depletion increases cheating when it robs people of the executive resources necessary to identify an act as immoral or unethical. Our results also show that resisting unethical behavior both requires and depletes self-control resources (Study 4). Taken together, our findings help to explain how otherwise ethical individuals predictably engage in unethical behavior. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Social exclusion causes people to spend and consume strategically in the service of affiliation (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37489/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-02-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>When people's deeply ingrained need for social connection is thwarted by social exclusion, profound psychological consequences ensue. Despite the fact that social connections and consumption are central facets of daily life, little empirical attention has been devoted to understanding how belongingness threats affect consumer behavior. In four experiments, we tested the hypothesis that social exclusion causes people to spend and consume strategically in the service of affiliation. Relative to controls, excluded participants were more likely to buy a product symbolic of group membership (but not practical or self-gift items), tailor their spending preferences to the preferences of an interaction partner, spend money on an unappealing food item favored by a peer, and report being willing to try an illegal drug, but only when doing so boosted their chances of commencing social connections. Overall, results suggest that socially excluded people sacrifice personal and financial well-being for the sake of social well-being. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>How Leaders Self-Regulate Their Task Performance: Evidence That Power Promotes Diligence, Depletion, and Disdain (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37487/</link>
      <pubDate>2011-01-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>When leaders perform solitary tasks, do they self-regulate to maximize their effort, or do they reduce effort and conserve their resources? Our model suggests that power motivates self-regulation toward effective performance-unless the task is perceived as unworthy of leaders. Our 1st studies showed that power improves self-regulation and performance, even when resources for self-regulation are low (ego depletion). Additional studies showed that leaders sometimes disdain tasks they deem unworthy, by withholding effort (and therefore performing poorly). Ironically, during ego depletion, leaders skip the appraisal and, therefore, work hard regardless of task suitability, so that depleted leaders sometimes outperform nondepleted ones. Our final studies replicated these patterns with different tasks and even with simple manipulation of framing and perception of the same task (Experiment 5). Experiment 4 also showed that the continued high exertion of leaders when depleted takes a heavy toll, resulting in larger impairments later. The judicious expenditure of self-control resources among powerful people may help them prioritize their efforts to pursue their goals effectively. </description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>The essential tension between leadership and power: when leaders sacrifice group goals for the sake of self-interest (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37490/</link>
      <pubDate>2010-09-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>Throughout human history, leaders have been responsible for helping groups attain important goals. Ideally, leaders use their power to steer groups toward desired outcomes. However, leaders can also use their power in the service of self-interest rather than effective leadership. Five experiments identified factors within both the person and the social context that determine whether leaders wield their power to promote group goals versus self-interest. In most cases, leaders behaved in a manner consistent with group goals. However, when their power was tenuous due to instability within the hierarchy, leaders high (but not low) in dominance motivation prioritized their own power over group goals: They withheld valuable information from the group, excluded a highly skilled group member, and prevented a proficient group member from having any influence over a group task. These self-interested actions were eliminated when the group was competing against a rival outgroup. Findings provide important insight into factors that influence the way leaders navigate the essential tension between leadership and power.</description>
    </item> <item>
      <title>Too tired to tell the truth: Self-control resource depletion and dishonesty (Article)</title>
      <link>http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37491/</link>
      <pubDate>2009-05-01T00:00:00Z</pubDate>
      <description>The opportunity to profit from dishonesty evokes a motivational conflict between the temptation to cheat for selfish gain and the desire to act in a socially appropriate manner. Honesty may depend on self-control given that self-control is the capacity that enables people to override antisocial selfish responses in favor of socially desirable responses. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that dishonesty would increase when people's self-control resources were depleted by an initial act of self-control. Depleted participants misrepresented their performance for monetary gain to a greater extent than did non-depleted participants (Experiment 1). Perhaps more troubling, depleted participants were more likely than non-depleted participants to expose themselves to the temptation to cheat, thereby aggravating the effects of depletion on cheating (Experiment 2). Results indicate that dishonesty increases when people's capacity to exert self-control is impaired, and that people may be particularly vulnerable to this effect because they do not predict it. </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>