The effect of the cause of a disaster, i.e. whether it was perceived to be caused by human or natural factors, on willingness to donate money to disaster victims was examined. In Study 1 (N ¼ 76), the cause of a fictitious disaster was experimentally varied. In Study 2 (N ¼ 219), participants were asked about their views regarding donations to two real-life disasters, one of which was perceived to be naturally caused while the other one was perceived to be caused by humans. In Study 3 (N ¼ 115), the cause of a fictitious disaster was experimentally varied, but this time measures of the proposed psychological mediators of the effect on donations were included, namely perceived victim blame and the extent to which victims were thought to make an effort to help themselves. A measure of real donation behaviour was also added. In Study 4 (N ¼ 196), the proposed psychological mediators were manipulated directly, and the effect of this on donations was monitored. Across all studies, more donations were elicited by naturally caused rather than humanly caused disasters. This difference was driven by a perception that the victims of natural disasters are to be blamed less for their plight, and that they make more of an effort to help themselves. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

No abstract

Norm enforcement may be important for resolving conflicts and promoting cooperation. However, little is known about how preferred responses to norm violations vary across cultures and across domains. In a preregistered study of 57 countries (using convenience samples of 22,863 students and non-students), we measured perceptions of the appropriateness of various responses to a violation of a cooperative norm and to atypical social behaviors. Our findings highlight both cultural universals and cultural variation. We find a universal negative relation between appropriateness ratings of norm violations and appropriateness ratings of responses in the form of confrontation, social ostracism and gossip. Moreover, we find the country variation in the appropriateness of sanctions to be consistent across different norm violations but not across different sanctions. Specifically, in those countries where use of physical confrontation and social ostracism is rated as less appropriate, gossip is rated as more appropriate.

No abstract

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link:http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/16691/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/17470218.2016.1149498 Copyright and reuse: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. University of Witten/Herdecke, GermanyThe corresponding author is Dr Tim Hopthrow t.hopthrow@kent.ac.uk 2 AbstractThe Correspondence Bias (CB) refers to the idea that people sometimes give undue weight to dispositional rather than situational factors when explaining behaviors and attitudes. Three experiments examined whether mindfulness, a non-judgmental focus on the present moment, could reduce the CB. Participants engaged in a brief mindfulness exercise (the raisin task), a control task or an attention to detail task before completing a typical CB measure involving an attitude-attribution paradigm. The results indicated that participants in the mindfulness condition experienced a significant reduction in the CB compared to participants in the control or attention to detail conditions. These results suggest that mindfulness training can play a unique role in reducing social biases related to person perception. Keywords: Correspondence Bias, Mindfulness, Fundamental Attribution Error 3 MINDFULNESS REDUCES THE CORRESPONDENCE BIASIndividuals sometimes overlook the constraints of the situation and attend to dispositional attributes when judging the cause of others' behavior, a tendency known as the correspondence bias (CB; Haney & Zimbardo, 2009;Gawronski, 2004;Gilbert & Malone, 1995;Ross, 1977). In short, people have a tendency to think others are how they act. For example, when a person steps in front of us while we are walking, we might initially think he/she is "rude" rather than "rushing to the hospital". This error can have important consequences, as perceivers are more likely to react negatively toward people whom they directly blame for their actions (Alicke, 2000).Jones and Harris (1967) used an attitude attribution paradigm in one of the first studies to examine the CB. They wrote two speeches, one speech that was 'pro' Fidel Castro, and a second speech that was 'anti' Fidel Castro. Participants were informed they that were required to read one of the two speeches, and that the speeches had been written by fellow students. Subsequently, participants were required to rate the speechwriter's attitude toward Castro. Unsurprisingly, the researchers found that participants' rating of the speechwriter's attitude toward Castro corresponded to the speech position (pro or anti). Importantly, this occurred even when the participant was informed that a debate coach had chosen the position that the speechwriter wrote from. In other words, participants tended to overlook the situatio...