We hypothesized that because Covid-19 (C19) remains an urgent and visible threat, efforts to combat its negative health consequences have become moralized. This moralization of health-based efforts may generate asymmetries in judgement, whereby harmful by-products of those efforts (i.e., instrumental harm) are perceived as more acceptable than harm resulting from non-C19 efforts, such as prioritizing the economy or non-C19 issues. We tested our predictions in two experimental studies. In Study 1, American participants evaluated the same costs (public shaming, deaths and illnesses, and police abuse of power) as more acceptable when they resulted from efforts to minimize C19's health impacts, than when they resulted from non-health C19 efforts (e.g., prioritizing economic costs) or efforts unrelated to C19 (e.g., reducing traffic deaths). In Study 2, New Zealand participants less favorably evaluated the quality of a research proposal empirically questioning continuing a C19 elimination strategy in NZ than one questioning abandoning an elimination strategy, although both proposals contained the same amount of methodology information. This finding suggests questioning elimination approaches is morally condemned, a similar response to that found when sacred values are questioned. In both studies, condition effects were mediated by lowered moral outrage in response to costs resulting from pursuing health-minded C19 efforts. Follow-up analyses revealed that both heightened personal concern over contracting C19 and liberal ideology were associated with greater asymmetries in human cost evaluation. Altogether, results suggest reducing or eliminating C19 have become moralized, generating asymmetries in evaluations of human suffering.

In the modern workplace, it is virtually impossible to succeed without seeking any help from others. Despite its widely recognized importance, several areas surrounding help‐seeking have not yet been clearly understood in the organization literature. Specifically, it is unclear whether seeking help always benefits employees in need, and how various work demands drive help‐seeking behavior in different ways. In this research, we drew from the dual‐type view of help‐seeking (i.e., autonomous and dependent help‐seeking) and the challenge‐hindrance stressors framework to elaborate how seeking help of different types influences employees’ work competence‐related outcomes in various directions, what work demands drive employees to seek different types of help, and when encountering work demands is particularly influential on their help‐seeking tendencies. Evidence from a field study (Study 1) showed that while challenge stressors increased employees’ autonomous help‐seeking, hindrance stressors increased dependent help‐seeking especially for employees with greater workflow centrality. Moreover, autonomous help‐seeking benefited help‐seekers’ job performance ratings through increased self‐perceived competence, whereas dependent help‐seeking hurt their job performance via decreased perceived competence by coworkers. To cross‐validate our findings, we then examined and replicated our core findings with three experimental vignette studies (Studies 2, 3a, and 3b). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Dominant leadership is, surprisingly, on the rise globally. Previous studies have found that intergroup conflict increases followers’ support for dominant leaders, but identifying the potential benefits that such leaders can supply is crucial to explaining their rise. We took a behavioral-economics approach in Study 1 ( N = 288 adults), finding that cooperation among followers increases under leaders with a dominant reputation. This pattern held regardless of whether dominant leaders were assigned to groups, elected through a bidding process, or leading under intergroup competition. Moreover, Studies 2a to 2e ( N = 1,022 adults) show that impressions of leader dominance evoked by personality profiles, authoritarian attitudes, or physical formidability similarly increase follower cooperation. We found a weaker but nonsignificant trend when dominance was cued by facial masculinity and no evidence when dominance was cued by aggressive disposition in a decision game. These findings highlight the unexpected benefits that dominant leaders can bestow on group cooperation through threat of punishment.

No abstract

No abstract