Katrina P. Jongman-Sereno's research while affiliated with Elon University and other places

We examined the association between intellectual humility (IH)-a willingness to consider credible new information and alternative views and revise one's own views if warranted-and adherence to experts' health behavior recommendations in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic. Study 1 (N = 541) results showed that people higher in IH are more likely to engage in recommended health behaviors (e.g., mask-wearing, social distancing)-even when controlling for political affiliation. Additional analyses focused specifically on mask-wearing produced initial evidence consistent with mediation of the IH-mask-wearing relationship by the beliefs that mask-wearing 1) is an effective way to slow the spread of COVID-19 and 2) protects others. Based on the pathway from IH to mask-wearing through a concern for others found in Study 1, Study 2 further examined the relationship between IH and prosocial tendencies. The results from Study 2 (Ns for correlation coefficients ranged from 265 to 702) showed an association between IH and several values and traits that reflect a concern for others (e.g., agreeableness, benevolence). These findings suggest that IH may influence behavior through both intra- and interpersonal mechanisms. Implications of these findings for the health-behavior domain are discussed.

This paper introduces general belief superiority (GBS)—the tendency for people to think their beliefs are superior to alternatives—and investigates its personological, motivational, and interpersonal features. Across four studies, a new GBS Scale found that GBS was related to how people process information, think about their attitudes, compare themselves to others, and interact during conflicts. GBS correlated with various existing constructs (e.g. social vigilantism, narcissism), but was unrelated to others (e.g., selfishness). Study 2 established test-retest reliability and found that the belief superior have negative thoughts about controversial topics and are more likely to share opinions online. Study 3 found GBS predicted maladaptive reactions to conflicts with romantic partners. Gender differences and self-enhancement motivations in belief superiority are discussed.

People feel more authentic at certain times than at others, and people differ in how authentic they believe they are overall. Although self-judgments of authenticity and inauthenticity are important to people, we know little about factors that influence people’s inferences about or reactions to their authenticity. Three studies examined beliefs about authenticity and the criteria people use to assess whether their actions are congruent with who they really are. Authenticity beliefs fell into three categories that: (a) require strict behavioral and attitudinal congruence across time and situations, (b) allow behavioral and attitudinal flexibility across time and situations, and (c) view all behaviors as inevitably authentic. Study 1 showed that these three construals of authenticity correlated in meaningful ways with views about authenticity and behavioral variability. In Study 2, inducing the belief that all behavior is authentic led participants to feel more authentic. Study 3 challenged participants’ reasons for feeling inauthentic, which led them to feel more authentic and confirmed the use of these criteria to judge authenticity. Results showed that self-judgments of authenticity were affected by factors unrelated to self-congruence per se, such as the positivity of the behavior and the stringency of their construals of authenticity.

As the term is typically used, authenticity refers to the degree to which a particular behavior is congruent with a person’s attitudes, beliefs, values, motives, and other dispositions. However, researchers disagree regarding the best way to conceptualize and measure authenticity, whether being authentic is always desirable, why people are motivated to be authentic, and the nature of the relationship between authenticity and psychological well-being. In this article, we examine existing views of authenticity, identify questionable assumptions about the concept of authenticity, and discuss issues regarding subjective feelings of inauthenticity, the implications of authenticity for psychological and social well-being, and the importance that people place on being authentic.

Social Signal Processing is the first book to cover all aspects of the modeling, automated detection, analysis, and synthesis of nonverbal behavior in human-human and human-machine interactions. Authoritative surveys address conceptual foundations, machine analysis and synthesis of social signal processing, and applications. Foundational topics include affect perception and interpersonal coordination in communication; later chapters cover technologies for automatic detection and understanding such as computational paralinguistics and facial expression analysis and for the generation of artificial social signals such as social robots and artificial agents. The final section covers a broad spectrum of applications based on social signal processing in healthcare, deception detection, and digital cities, including detection of developmental diseases and analysis of small groups. Each chapter offers a basic introduction to its topic, accessible to students and other newcomers, and then outlines challenges and future perspectives for the benefit of experienced researchers and practitioners in the field.

Four studies examined intellectual humility—the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs might be wrong. Using a new Intellectual Humility (IH) Scale, Study 1 showed that intellectual humility was associated with variables related to openness, curiosity, tolerance of ambiguity, and low dogmatism. Study 2 revealed that participants high in intellectual humility were less certain that their beliefs about religion were correct and judged people less on the basis of their religious opinions. In Study 3, participants high in intellectual humility were less inclined to think that politicians who changed their attitudes were “flip-flopping,” and Study 4 showed that people high in intellectual humility were more attuned to the strength of persuasive arguments than those who were low. In addition to extending our understanding of intellectual humility, this research demonstrates that the IH Scale is a valid measure of the degree to which people recognize that their beliefs are fallible.

Two studies tested whether people are biased to infer that their positive actions are more authentic than their negative actions. In Study 1, participants identified a positive or negative personal characteristic and assessed the authenticity of past behavior that reflected that characteristic. In Study 2, people imagined themselves performing positive and negative behaviors that they authentically did or did not want to perform. Both studies showed that people’s judgments of the authenticity of their behavior were contaminated by their perceptions of the valence of their behavior even when the objective authenticity of the behavior was controlled. Future research must disentangle authenticity and positivity to determine the degree to which each contributes to positive outcomes that have been attributed to authenticity.

People differ in the degree to which they are attuned to other people's evaluations of them, are motivated to make desired impressions on others, experience distress when their public images are damaged or others' evaluations of them are unfavorable, and use various tactics to convey public impressions of themselves to others. This chapter focuses on measures of nine personality characteristics that reflect individual differences in such concerns, including public self-consciousness, self-monitoring, approval motivation, social anxiety, social scrutiny fear, social physique anxiety, embarrassability, self-presentation tactics, and impression management styles. Each measure is described, along with psychometric information regarding its reliability and validity.

People sometimes display strong emotional reactions to events that appear disproportionate to the tangible magnitude of the event. Although previous work has addressed the role that perceived disrespect and unfairness have on such reactions, this study examined the role of perceived social exchange rule violations more broadly. Participants (n = 179) rated the effects of another person's behavior on important personal outcomes, the degree to which the other person had violated fundamental rules of social exchange, and their reactions to the event. Results showed that perceptions of social exchange rule violations accounted for more variance in participants' reactions than the tangible consequences of the event. The findings support the hypothesis that responses that appear disproportionate to the seriousness of the eliciting event are often fueled by perceived rule violations that may not be obvious to others.

Many psychological phenomena have been explained primarily in terms of intrapsychic motives to maintain particular cognitive or affective states-such as motives for consistency, self-esteem, and authenticity-whereas other phenomena have been explained in terms of interpersonal motives to obtain tangible resources, reactions, or outcomes from other people. In this article, we describe and contrast intrapsychic and interpersonal motives, and we review evidence showing that these two distinct sets of motives are sometimes conflated and confused in ways that undermine the viability of motivational theories. Explanations that invoke motives to maintain certain intrapsychic states offer a dramatically different view of the psychological foundations of human behavior than those that posit motives to obtain desired interpersonal outcomes. Several phenomena are examined as exemplars of instances in which interpersonal and intrapsychic motives have been inadequately distinguished, if not directly confounded, including cognitive dissonance, the self-esteem motive, biases in judgment and decision making, posttransgression accounts, authenticity, and self-conscious emotions. Our analysis of the literature suggests that theorists and researchers should consider the relative importance of intrapsychic versus interpersonal motives in the phenomena they study and that they should make a concerted effort to deconfound intrapsychic and interpersonal influences in their research. © The Author(s) 2015.