Policymakers and business leaders often use peer comparison information—showing people how their behavior compares to that of their peers—to motivate a range of behaviors. Despite their widespread use, the potential impact of peer comparison interventions on recipients’ well-being is largely unknown. We conducted a 5-mo field experiment involving 199 primary care physicians and 46,631 patients to examine the impact of a peer comparison intervention on physicians’ job performance, job satisfaction, and burnout. We varied whether physicians received information about their preventive care performance compared to that of other physicians in the same health system. Our analyses reveal that our implementation of peer comparison did not significantly improve physicians’ preventive care performance, but it did significantly decrease job satisfaction and increase burnout, with the effect on job satisfaction persisting for at least 4 mo after the intervention had been discontinued. Quantitative and qualitative evidence on the mechanisms underlying these unanticipated negative effects suggest that the intervention inadvertently signaled a lack of support from leadership. Consistent with this account, providing leaders with training on how to support physicians mitigated the negative effects on well-being. Our research uncovers a critical potential downside of peer comparison interventions, highlights the importance of evaluating the psychological costs of behavioral interventions, and points to how a complementary intervention—leadership support training—can mitigate these costs.

How best to complement choice architecture? Make the future self more vivid. Key Points • • Choice architecture is effective at changing behavior but not always easy to implement, so other, complementary, interventions are needed • • Financial decisions involve trade-offs between present and future selves, and the present self gets prioritized • • Making the future self more vivid can help people make sounder financial decisions • • Interventions should focus on making the future self (a) more visually vivid or (b) more imaginatively vivid 787536B BSXXX10.

Our life is built around coordinating efforts with others. This usually involves incentivizing others to do things and sustaining our relationship with them. Using the wrong incentives backfires: it lowers effort and tarnishes our relationships. But what constitutes a "wrong" incentive? And can incentives be used to shape relationships in a desired manner? To address these and other questions, we introduce relational incentives theory, which distinguishes between two aspects of incentives: schemes (how the incentive is used) and means (what is used as an incentive). Prior research has focused on means (e.g., monetary vs. nonmonetary incentives). Our theory highlights the importance of schemes, with a focus on how they interact with social relationships. It posits that the efficacy of incentives depends largely on whether the scheme fits the relational structure of the persons involved in the activity: participation incentive schemes for communal sharing relations, hierarchy for authority ranking relations, balancing for equality matching relations, and proportional incentive schemes for market pricing relations. We show that these four schemes encompass some of the most prevalent variants of incentives. We then discuss the antecedents and consequences of the use of congruent and incongruent incentive schemes. We argue that congruent incentives can reinforce the relationship. Incongruent incentives disrupt relational motives, which undermines the coordinating relationship and reduces effort. But, importantly, incongruent incentives can also be used intentionally to shift to a new relational model. The theory thus contributes to research on relational models by showing how people constitute and modulate relationships. It adds to the incentives and contracting literatures by offering a framework for analyzing the structural congruence between incentives and relationships, yielding predictions about the effects of incentives across different organizational and individual-level contexts.

The model of stigma-induced identity threat suggests that stigmatized individuals use situational cues (e.g., presence of an out-group member) to assess the identity threat potential of, or the risk of experiencing discrimination in, their environments. To date, however, this model has been tested in samples of participants with only one stigmatized identity. In three studies, we show that women of color attribute rejection to sexism more than racism when men are involved and to racism more than sexism when Whites are involved. Participants clearly attended to situational cues, despite predictions advanced in past research that women of color see all ambiguous situations in the same way: as involving primarily racism ( ethnic prominence) or as involving both racism and sexism ( double jeopardy). Study 3 further revealed that double-jeopardy-like attributions are more likely when rejections involve “double” out-group members, and single attributions are more likely when rejections involve “partial” out-group members.

When individuals feel similar to their future self, they are more likely to delay present gratification and make plans for the long run. But do these feelings of similarity actually correspond with heightened well-being for the future self? Theoretically, making patient decisions in the present could lead to a future self who is better off and thus more satisfied. Alternatively, perceived overlap with the future self could cause people to continually deny themselves pleasures in the present, diminishing satisfaction over time. To adjudicate between these possibilities, we use a 10-year longitudinal data set ( N = 4,963) to estimate how thoughts about one’s future self in an initial survey predict life satisfaction 10 years later. Controlling for initial life satisfaction, greater perceived similarity to the future self is linearly associated with greater life satisfaction 10 years after the original prediction, a finding that is robust to a number of alternative analyses.