People can get most of their needs broadly satisfied in two ways: by close communal ties and by dealings with people in the marketplace. These modes of relating-termed communal and market-often necessitate qualitatively different motives, behaviors, and mind-sets. We reasoned that activating market mode would produce behaviors consistent with it and impair behaviors consistent with communal mode. In a series of experiments, money-the market-mode cue-was presented to Polish children ages 3 to 6. We measured communal behavior by prosocial helpfulness and generosity and measured market behavior by performance and effort. Results showed that handling money (compared with other objects) increased laborious effort and reduced helpfulness and generosity. The effects of money primes were not due to the children's mood, liking for money, or task engagement. This work is the first to demonstrate that young children tacitly understand market mode and also understand that money is a cue to shift into it.

In four studies, we document the development and validation of the Emotional Style Questionnaire (ESQ)-a 24-item self-report measure that captures how people vary across 6 dimensions that make up a healthy emotional life. These 6 dimensions (Outlook, Resilience, Social Intuition, Self-Awareness, Sensitivity to Context, and Attention) are based on a theoretical framework drawn from neuroscientific studies of emotion. Study 1 reports the development of the ESQ and provides initial support for the proposed factorial structure of the scale. Study 2 confirms the adequacy of the factorial structure in a second sample and establishes the construct validity of each of the 6 subscales. In Study 3, we test the relationship between the ESQ as a measure of healthy emotionality and various indicators of psychological and physical well-being. Finally, Study 4 investigates the test-retest reliability of the scale and reveals very good reliability across an interval of 4 weeks. We conclude that the ESQ is a psychometrically solid and easily implementable instrument that can be used to gauge healthy emotionality and its components in both clinical and research settings. Public Significance StatementThis study introduces the Emotional Style Questionnaire-a 24-item measure of overall emotional health-which also provides more fine-tuned information about the 6 different dimensions underlying emotional health. This easily implementable questionnaire can be used by anyone (e.g., researchers, clinicians) interested in understanding the emotional profile of a person.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Rooting our model in the compensatory control theory, we propose that one reason behind the prevalence of market relationships in modern society is that the fundamental need for orderliness makes them psychologically appealing because of the structure they provide. The initial study confirmed that market relationships are perceived as more structured than communal relationships. In 13 experiments (including 2 preregistered ones), we examined the causal relationship between personal control and preferences for market relationships. First, participants with a threatened sense of control preferred market over communal relationships and interpreted ambiguous social interactions as market-related. Second, the salience of market relationships triggered a sense of control and evoked internal explanations of various events. Finally, priming market relationships reduced the search for other compensatory control tools in the face of external threats. We also demonstrated that market relationships are appealing because of their structure, as perceiving ambiguous situations as market-related after threatening control was moderated by Personal Need for Structure, and the relation between market relationships and the sense of control was mediated by perceived structure. Finally, we tested boundary conditions of the above effects and provided evidence that people facing control threat tend to prefer market-oriented rules in relations with strangers rather than with those close to them, and that the relation between market relationships and sense of control is absent among securely attached individuals. We discuss why market relationships compensate for lack of control and refer to other disciplines to explain this phenomenon.

We show that exposure to market relationships increases people's tendency to make utilitarian moral choices by means of proportional thinking-the definitional feature of the market mindset. In Experiment 1, participants primed with market relationships made more utilitarian choices in both the trolley and the footbridge dilemmas. In Experiment 2, priming market mindset led to more utilitarian moral choices and to greater focus on the proportion of survivors to victims. Experiment 3 showed that the effect of market mindset on utilitarian choices held only when the numbers of potential deaths and saved lives were clearly specified. A preregistered Experiment 4 demonstrated that the motivation to use proportional thinking mediates the relationship between market mindset and making utilitarian choices. Experiment 5, also preregistered, showed that the main effect we demonstrated is not due to suppressed emotions and that proportional thinking increases utilitarian choices as part of a broader orientation on rationality. K E Y W O R D S market mindset, moral choices, proportional thinking, utilitarian choices | 1501 MARKET MINDSET IMPACTS MORAL DECISIONS directed towards calculating and acting in accord with ratios or rates (Fiske, 2004; Rai & Fiske, 2011). 1.1 | Moral judgment and choice: Utilitarianism versus deontology When investigating moral judgment and decision-making, both philosophy and psychology often refer to the dual-process approach (Greene, 2007, 2014). This framework differentiates between deontology, which states that morality of an action depends on the intrinsic nature of human actions regardless of their consequences (Kant, 1785/1959) and utilitarianism or consequentialism, which implies that morality of different actions is determined by their outcomes (Mill, 1861/1998). Proponents of the utilitarian position argue that moral decision-making should always lead to the best overall consequences for all concerned (Conway, Goldstein-Greenwood, Polacek, & Greene, 2018). Even though the tension between these two approaches has, for many years, been at the heart of the philosophical debate, it is also of great importance from the standpoint of social psychology (Bartels, 2008; Greene, 2007). It concerns not only rather abstract and rare dilemmas such as whether to kill one person in order to save several others (Thomson, 1976), but also more practical, daily-life problems such as whether to fire a small group of workers during a recession to lower costs and save jobs for a larger group of employees. Several years ago, Greene, Sommerville, Nystrom, Darley, and Cohen (2001) proposed a theoretical model that aimed to explain why, in some situations, people employ deontological reasoning, while in others they turn towards the utilitarian orientation (see