The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP url' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

Responses to norm violators are poorly understood. On one hand, norm violators are perceived as powerful, which may help them to get ahead. On the other hand, norm violators evoke moral outrage, which may frustrate their upward social mobility. We addressed this paradox by considering the role of culture. Collectivistic cultures value group harmony and tight cultures value social order. We therefore hypothesized that collectivism and tightness moderate reactions to norm violators. We presented 2,369 participants in 19 countries with a norm violation or a norm adherence scenario. In individualistic cultures, norm violators were considered more powerful than norm abiders and evoked less moral outrage, whereas in collectivistic cultures, norm violators were considered less powerful and evoked more moral outrage. Moreover, respondents in tighter cultures expressed a stronger preference for norm followers as leaders. Cultural values thus influence responses to norm violators, which may have downstream consequences for violators’ hierarchical positions.

Norms uphold the social order by guiding behavior without the force of laws. Accordingly, behaviors that violate norms pose a potential threat to societies. We review research on the antecedents and consequences of norm-violating behavior. Regarding antecedents, we distinguish between individuallevel factors such as power and (lack of) respect for norms, and social factors such as the behavior of relevant others. Regarding consequences, we identify intrapersonal effects of norm violations on the transgressor, including feelings of guilt and shame, and interpersonal effects of norm violations on others, including neurophysiological responses, affective reactions, social judgments, and behavioral tendencies (e.g., sanctioning, status conferral). We discuss the possibility of selfperpetuating versus self-defeating norm-violation cycles and outline a theoretical framework to guide future research.

Powerful people often act at will, even if the resulting behavior is inappropriate-hence the famous proverb ''power corrupts.'' Here, we introduce the reverse phenomenon-violating norms signals power. Violating a norm implies that one has the power to act according to one's own volition in spite of situational constraints, which fuels perceptions of power. Four studies support this hypothesis. Individuals who took coffee from another person's can (Study 1), violated rules of bookkeeping (Study 2), dropped cigarette ashes on the floor (Study 3), or put their feet on the table (Study 4) were perceived as more powerful than individuals who did not show such behaviors. The effect was mediated by inferences of volitional capacity, and it replicated across different methods (scenario, film clip, face-to-face interaction), different norm violations, and different indices of power (explicit measures, expected emotions, and approach/inhibition tendencies). Implications for power, morality, and social hierarchy are discussed.

The experience of awe is typically elicited in response to perceptually vast stimuli and is often characterized by feeling small and insignificant. In the present series of studies we aimed (1) to determine the effects of awe on body perception and (2) to elucidate the role of the personality trait of 'absorption' (i.e. the tendency to get fully immersed in one's experiences) in relation to the feeling of awe. Across 4 different studies, involving both lab-based and field experiments, we found that feelings of awe are associated with smaller body size estimates. We also found that absorption is a strong predictor of feelings of awe: people scoring high on absorption tended to report overall stronger feelings of aweirrespective of the experimental manipulation. In addition, experimentally manipulating absorption, by instructing participants to get fully absorbed in an external stimulus resulted in stronger feelings of awe. Thereby these findings illustrate that two key features underlying the experience of awe are changes in the perception of one's body and a tendency to get absorbed in internal or external stimuli.

Some artists rise to fame, while others sink into oblivion. What determines whether artists make an impact? Considering deviance in its sociohistorical context, we propose that artists whose work deviates from their own previous style (intrapersonal deviance) and other artists' styles (interpersonal deviance) gain greater impact than nondeviant artists, as long as deviance is directed toward a progressive style. A preliminary study showed that in western cultures nonrealistic styles are considered more progressive than realistic styles (Study 1). Five more studies provide evidence for the effects of the two types of artistic deviance on several aspects of impact (i.e., perceived influence of the artist, valuation of the artwork, and visual attention to the artwork). First, individuals considered artists who deviated from their previous style more impactful than artists who consistently followed a single style (Study 2), effects that were stronger when artists transitioned from a retrogressive style to a progressive one (Study 3). Second, artists who deviated from their contemporaries' style were considered more impactful than artists who followed the predominant style, effects that were stronger when artists strayed from a predominant retrogressive style by using progressive means of expression (Studies 4 and 5). When the historical context prevented observers from inferring the progressiveness of the deviant artists' expressive means, artistic deviance enhanced perceived impact regardless of the means by which the artists deviated (Study 6). Supporting our theoretical model, the effects of intrapersonal and interpersonal deviance on impact were mediated by perceived will-power (Studies 3, 5, and 6). (PsycINFO Database Record

Objective: Theories about how couples help each other to cope with stress, such as the systemic transactional model of dyadic coping, suggest that the cultural context in which couples live influences how their coping behavior affects their relationship satisfaction. In contrast to the theoretical assumptions, a recent meta-analysis provides evidence that neither culture, nor gender, influences the association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction, at least based on their samples of couples living in North America and West Europe. Thus, it is an open questions whether the theoretical assumptions of cultural influences are false or whether cultural influences on couple behavior just occur in cultures outside of the Western world.Method: In order to examine the cultural influence, using a sample of married individuals (N = 7973) from 35 nations, we used multilevel modeling to test whether the positive association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction varies across nations and whether gender might moderate the association.Results: Results reveal that the association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction varies between nations. In addition, results show that in some nations the association is higher for men and in other nations it is higher for women.Conclusions: Cultural and gender differences across the globe influence how couples' coping behavior affects relationship outcomes. This crucial finding indicates that couple relationship education programs and interventions need to be culturally adapted, as skill trainings such as dyadic coping lead to differential effects on relationship satisfaction based on the culture in which couples live.

No abstract