Trust is the social glue that holds society together. The academic consensus is that trust is weaker among lower-class individuals and in unequal regions/countries, which is often considered a threat to a healthy society. However, existing studies are inconsistent and have two limitations: (i) variability in the measurement of social class and (ii) small numbers of higher level units (regions/countries). We addressed these problems using large-scale (cross-)national representative surveys (encompassing 560,000+ participants from 1,500+ regional/national units). Multilevel analysis led to two consistent sets of findings. First, the effects of social class on social trust were systematically positive, whereas the effects on institutional trust depended on the way social class was measured. Second, the effects of income inequality on social and institutional trust were systematically nonsignificant and smaller than the smallest negative effect of interest. Our findings suggest that researchers need to update their knowledge: social class—not income inequality—predicts trust.

Objectives: The health psychology literature has paid little attention to individuals' intention to vaccinate earlier. Building on regulatory focus theory, which proposes two distinct self-regulatory foci: promotion and prevention focus (Higgins, 1997), the present study tests whether, how, and why regulatory focus contributes to the intention to vaccinate earlier (IVE) and whether IVE predicts actual behavior. Method: This study used a longitudinal design with data collected at two-time points (3.5 months apart). At Time 1, 487 unvaccinated participants completed a survey assessing regulatory focus, ideal and ought reason for IVE (i. e., hopes/wishes and felt obligation/pressure regarding earlier vaccination, respectively), and IVE through leftover vaccines-vaccines that become available due to last-minute vaccination appointment cancellations. At Time 2, 364 participants reported on the attempts they made to get a leftover vaccine, whether they were vaccinated, and if so, the vaccination type (general vs. leftover vaccine), along with the date of vaccination. Results: A promotion focus was associated with IVE via ideal reason (b = .141, 95% confidence interval, CI [.085, .198]), whereas a prevention focus was associated with IVE via ought reason (b = .031, 95% CI [.012, .057]). Furthermore, both the promotion focus (b = .029, 95% CI [.016, .050]) and prevention focus paths (b = .006, 95% CI [.001, .015]) extended to vaccinating via leftover vaccines. Conclusions: The present study illuminates how regulatory focus, especially promotion focus, can be a predictor of earlier vaccination. Our findings suggest that promotion-focused messages highlighting desirable outcomes of vaccination may help encourage earlier vaccination.

The Olympics aim to promote peace and unity across the globe through sports. Ironically, however, we predicted that the Olympics could be associated with intergroup biases because the Olympics not only activate social/national identity as a citizen, but also highlight intense competition between countries. In support of this prediction, attitudes toward outgroups were negatively associated with international sporting events like the Olympics (Studies 1–2). Moreover, both behavioral intentions (Study 3) and actual behaviors (Study 4) toward outgroups were more negative during the Olympics than before the Olympics. During the Olympics, Koreans were less willing to donate money to help migrant workers and showed a tendency to discriminate against Southeast Asian job applicants. Interestingly, the association was observed for negatively stereotyped outgroups (e.g., Southeast Asians and Chinese), but not for favorably stereotyped outgroups (e.g., Canadians).

Two studies investigated whether lower socioeconomic status (SES) would be associated with greater tolerance for unfair treatments. Specifically, we hypothesized that individuals with lower SES would be less likely to perceive apparent injustice as unfair than those with higher SES, and furthermore, such differences in perception would lead to the corresponding differences in ensuing psychological responses. In support of the hypotheses, we found that (Study 1, N = 326; Study 2, N = 130), compared with higher SES participants, lower SES participants perceived one-sidedly disadvantageous distribution during the dictator game as less unfair. Moreover, a behavioral experiment in Study 2 showed that such tolerance for unfair treatments were associated with subsequent passive reactions in the ultimatum game. Taken together, the results imply a vicious cycle whereby the SES differences in a tendency to accept unfair treatments lead to psychological responses that may maintain or even strengthen the existing social disparities.