No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives. The COVID-19 epidemic is affecting the entire world and hence provides an opportunity examine how people from different countries engage in hopeful thinking. The aim of this study was to examine the potentially facilitating role of perceived social support visa -vis hope as well as the mediating role of loneliness between perceived social support and hope. This mediating model was tested concurrently in the UK, the USA, and Israel. Methods. In April 2020, as the first wave of the virus struck the three aforementioned countries, we assessed perceived social support, loneliness, and hope in 400 adults per country (N = 1,200). Assessments in the UK/USA were conducted via the Prolific platform, whereas in Israel they were conducted via Facebook/WhatsApp. Results. In all three countries, perceived social support predicted elevated hope, although the effect was smallest in the UK. Loneliness mediated this effect in all three countries, although full mediation was attained only in the UK. Conclusions. Perceived social support may facilitate hope in dire times, possibly through the reduction of loneliness. Practitioner Points Findings are consistent with respect to the potentially protective role of perceived social support vis-avis hope. Perceived social support may increase hope through decreasing loneliness. In the UK, the above-noted mediating effect of loneliness appears to be stronger than in Israel and the USA. Elevated levels of perceived social support should serve as a desired outcome in individual and group psychotherapy, as well as in community based interventions.

Self-disclosure is a powerful precipitant and enhancer of interpersonal relationships, but its contingents and mechanisms are still poorly understood. To address this gap, we examined the emotional and interpersonal consequences of self-disclosure online with a particular focus on the real dynamic nature of the interaction. in two large-scale experiments, 234 dyads of undergraduates participated in an online chat. The dyads' self-disclosure (positive vs. negative vs. no self-disclosure), anonymity (present vs. absent), and role (initiator vs. exposed) were manipulated. Participants' personality factors (self-criticism, experiential avoidance, openness to experience) were assessed prior to the interaction. Positive and negative affect were assessed prior and subsequent to the interaction, and willingness to interact again was measured as an outcome interaction. Positive disclosure resulted in an increase in positive affect and negative disclosure resulted in an increase in negative affect for both initiators and exposed participants. Personality predicted changes in affect in the self-disclosure condition, and also moderated affective contagion. Self-disclosed/anonymous participants were reluctant to meet their partners again, consistent with the "strangers on a train" conceptualization.The phenomenon known as stranger on the train pertains to sharing with an anonymous seat-mate intimate details not even our closest

No abstract

The use of short-term bonuses to motivate employees has become an organizational regularity, but a thorough understanding of the relationship between these incentives and actual performance is lacking. We aim to advance this understanding by examining how three types of bonuses (cash, family meal voucher, and verbal reward) affect employees’ productivity in a field experiment conducted in a high-tech manufacturing factory. While all types of bonuses increased performance by over 5%, nonmonetary short-term bonuses had a slight advantage over monetary bonuses. In addition, the removal of the bonuses led to decreased productivity for monetary bonuses but not for the verbal reward. However, this negative effect of monetary short-term bonuses diminishes when a cash bonus is chosen by employees rather than granted by default. Theoretical implications about the effect of short-term bonuses on intrinsic motivation and reciprocity, as well as practical applications of short-term bonus plans that stem from our findings, are discussed.

When faced with conflicting information, consumers often wonder what the "right" consumption level is. A highly relevant context that is often associated with such uncertainty is food consumption (e.g., of meat or dairy products), where consumers seek information to determine whether and how much to consume, and often a recommended goal from health experts is to reduce overconsumption. We apply the theory of goal settings as reflecting such information, focusing on specific goals (e.g., "eat meat twice a week") versus general goals ("eat less meat"). Based on a series of three experiments in both online and field settings with 674 participants overall, we show that in food consumption contexts with conflicting information, general goals set by health experts are less effective than specific goals in battling overconsumption. Perceived value of information was identified as the underlying mechanism as it mediated the effect of conflicting information on reduced overconsumption. Prior work suggests conflicting information is typically disadvantageous for consumers. Our research demonstrates how consumers can benefit from communication emphasizing specific goals when information conflicts. It contributes to policymakers, health experts, and social marketers that search for effective marketing strategies to reduce overconsumption of items that may be associated with conflicting information.