Since the inception of scientific psychology in the 19th century, the lead in conceptualizing scientific phenomena has been taken by scholars in Western contexts (North America, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand), who comprise only 11% of the world's population. Today, the science and practice of psychology continue to be dominated by Western theoretical perspectives. Recognizing the necessity for inclusive excellence in the field and the barriers that Majority World scholars face in joining the global knowledge economy, (PSPR) has taken several steps toward global inclusion. To further realize this goal, this Special Issue brings together nine contributions that reflect personality and social psychological theory rooted in diverse Majority World contexts, specifically stemming from African, Latin American, Middle Eastern, East and South Asian, and Indigenous American scholars. The contributions reflect several cross-cutting themes: the deeply historical contexts in which personality and social psychological phenomena play out in different geographies today; the important particularities of widely studied concepts in specific local contexts; and the dynamic interplay between individual people and the specificity of their social contexts. By curating indigenous concepts and theories, we aim to further catalyze dialogue across cultural distances in the field and to demonstrate how a decolonized editorial process can help promote inclusive science to improve the dominant perspectives in personality and social psychology.

Academic AbstractThis paper examines the causes of ethnic and religious conflict in Ethiopia by exploring prejudice in relation to its local historical and sociopolitical factors, using psychological and sociological explanations. Indeed, prejudice in contemporary Ethiopia is not only a matter of personal attitudes but is also embedded in structural inequalities and political practices. This paper highlights the social-psychological processes of prejudice at both individual and structural levels, drawing on empirical studies of daily experiences of prejudice. The analysis includes prior research on prejudice in Ethiopia's diverse society, alongside relevant theories of prejudice. The exploration identifies key characteristics of prejudice in Ethiopia: moral disengagement; short-termism (focusing on short-term gains); power imbalances; societal prejudice and elite prejudice; and elite preoccupation, silence, and self-serving interests. These factors contribute to an environment that undermines national unity among different ethnic and religious groups.Public AbstractIn Ethiopia, prejudice has long been a pervasive part of daily life. The recent rise in ethnic and religious conflicts in Ethiopia highlights the dangers of prejudice. This paper explores historical and socio-political factors aimed at explaining the dynamics of prejudice in Ethiopia and its impact on national unity. Drawing on prior research, the paper explores the unique presentation of prejudice in the Ethiopian context. Key assumptions and characteristics identified include: dissonance; short-termism; power asymmetry; societal prejudice and elite prejudice; and elite preoccupation, silence, and self-serving interests. The exploration of prejudice offers insight for understanding and addressing the challenges posed by prejudice in Ethiopia and for promoting national unity. The paper also recognizes that, despite divisions as a result of prejudice, many Ethiopians embrace unity, seeing diversity as a strength, with government efforts supporting reconciliation.

Academic AbstractThis paper explores the complex processes of marginalization and demarginalization in India with an emphasis on the experiences of Dalits (Hindi word for oppressed). The caste system in India is characterized by "graded inequality," keeping lower-caste people from achieving economic parity and denying them access to opportunities and resources. Even though the Indian Constitution protects against caste discrimination, it is common and has a wide-ranging influence on people's lives, including their livelihoods, sense of self, education, and health. The paper argues for culturally appropriate frameworks that represent the distinct experiences of oppressed groups in India and criticizes the sluggish advancements in social psychology concerning caste. Highlighting the complex nature of marginalization and the ways in which caste, gender, and socioeconomic issues interact, the paper presents a holistic framework for understanding caste-based marginalization and demarginalization. Drawing insights from the contributions of two iconic social thinkers in India, Gandhi and Ambedkar, the proposed framework combines top-down institutional changes with bottom-up community empowerment efforts to achieve demarginalization. To tackle the cultural and psychological aspects of marginalization, it is essential to incorporate indigenous knowledge and decolonial viewpoints. The paper calls for a comprehensive approach that empowers disadvantaged groups via education, lobbying, and cultural preservation while acknowledging the historical and structural origins of caste-based exclusion. An ongoing effort at demarginalization is critical for creating a more equal society and eliminating long-standing imbalances.Public AbstractThis paper delves into the intricate dynamics of marginalization and demarginalization in the context of India's caste system, particularly focusing on the experiences of Dalits (Hindi word for oppressed). Despite constitutional protections, caste-based discrimination remains pervasive, affecting various aspects of life, including livelihoods, identity, education, and health. The paper presents a comprehensive model to understanding marginalization, highlighting its multifaceted nature and the interplay of caste, gender, and socioeconomic factors. Based on the ideas of two influential personalities in India, Gandhi and Ambedkar, the paper proposes a model that advances a dual strategy for demarginalization, combining top-down institutional reforms with grassroots community empowerment initiatives. It is argued that an integration of indigenous knowledge and decolonial perspectives is crucial for addressing the psychological and cultural dimensions of marginalization. The paper underscores that demarginalization is not a linear process but requires a transformative approach that fosters dignity, equality, and justice. By recognizing the historical and structural roots of caste-based exclusion, the paper advocates for a holistic approach. An ongoing continuous effort is essential for dismantling entrenched inequalities and fostering a more equitable social world.

Academic AbstractPeople want to pursue happiness but often fail, a phenomenon known as the paradox of pursuing happiness. The mechanisms underlying this paradox remain elusive. Age differences in happiness-specifically that older adults appear more successful in pursuing happiness (the emotion paradox of aging)-provide valuable insights into effective happiness pursuit. Drawing on this literature, we propose an to interpret both paradoxes through the lens of intergoal interactions, an intuitively critical yet underexplored factor in existing interpretations. This account asserts that greater compatibility (fewer conflicts and greater facilitation) between happiness pursuit and other important personal goals enhances the effectiveness of happiness pursuit, and such compatibility can be enhanced through contextual influences (e.g., age-graded developmental tasks) and strategic self-regulation (e.g., goal adjustments). This account generates testable predictions and practical implications for enhancing happiness pursuit across the lifespan.Public AbstractWhy do people often struggle to achieve happiness? And why are older adults happier than younger adults, even though they face more losses in life? While these questions have drawn extensive attention, they remain puzzling. A crucial yet insufficiently explored factor in successful happiness pursuit is -the extent to which the pursuit of happiness aligns or conflicts with other important personal goals. For younger adults, the demands of age-related developmental tasks (e.g., educational and career aspirations) often create conflicts with the pursuit of happiness, diminishing its effectiveness. Conversely, in older adults, happiness becomes more prioritized and compatible with other important personal goals, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of pursuing happiness. A lesson we can learn from older adults is to pursue happiness in ways compatible with other important personal goals.

Academic AbstractTheories of well-being are heavily influenced by Western viewpoints; even when Majority World perspectives are incorporated, psychologists often fail to consider the rich cultural knowledge of the Indigenous peoples of North America. We propose that personality and social psychologists engage in "deep learning" (without appropriation or colonization) of a Native American Majority World perspective on well-being. We present a description of the "storywork" surrounding the concept of Mino-Bimaadiziwin, translated as "the good life" or "living in a good way," emerging for the Anishinaabeg, who are Indigenous peoples consisting of the Ojibwe (Chippewa), Potawatomi, Algonquin, Saulteaux, Nipissing, and Mississauga First Nations. We discuss the Gichi-dibaakonigewinan, The Seven Grandfather Teachings, that emerge to promote well-being, which is inherently relational and concerns harmony in contrast to happiness. Gichi-dibaakonigewinan are composed of seven virtues-Truth, Humility, Respect, Love, Bravery, Integrity, and Wisdom-whose consideration reveals pathways to well-being possible in Majority World Contexts that psychologists should consider.Public AbstractWhat is the good life, or living in a good way? Western psychology, rooted in Western philosophy, has sought to study this very question. However, researchers have not considered the perspective of the Majority World. In this paper, we present how the Anishinaabeg, who are Indigenous peoples consisting of the Ojibwe (Chippewa), Potawatomi, Algonquin, Saulteaux, Nipissing, and Mississauga First Nations, think about the good life, or Mino-Bimaadiziwin. Mino-Bimaadiziwin is characterized by the pursuit of harmony in contrast to happiness. We discuss the Gichi-dibaakonigewinan, The Seven Grandfather Teachings, that promote well-being. These Seven Grandfather Teachings are composed of seven virtues, each typified by an animal-the turtle for Truth, wolf for Humility, buffalo for Respect, eagle for Love, Bear for Courage, Raven for Integrity, and Beaver for Wisdom-whose consideration reveals pathways to well-being possible in Majority World Contexts psychologists should consider.

Academic AbstractAuthenticity, a key concept in dominant Western psychological approaches, has been less studied from the Majority World perspectives. In this article, we draw upon the Chinese cultural ideal of to fill this gap. After illuminating the cultural and psychological meanings of this indigenous concept, we propose an integrated framework that characterizes authentic self-functioning along two continuous dimensions: , reflecting the degree of seeking interpersonal harmony, moderation, and flexibility, and , indicating the degree of ethical self-consciousness and moral adherence. We illustrate how this framework can characterize different modes of authenticity and examine their variability in the Chinese context, and discuss its implications for Chinese psychology, dominant Western psychological approaches, and global (cross-cultural) psychology in authenticity research.Public AbstractHave you ever contemplated how the authentic self manifests within different cultures? In China, a Confucian philosophical concept, known as Outside Roundness and Inside Squareness, merges the perspectives of maintaining moral integrity and interpersonal harmony to articulate the nuances of authentic self-functioning. Imagine an individual who skillfully maneuvers through social situations (Outside Roundness) while steadfastly upholding his/her moral principles (Inside Squareness). This encapsulates the prominent attributes of authenticity as conveyed through the influential Confucian narratives. Our research offers an in-depth cultural and psychological exploration of this concept, and introduces a framework to characterize Chinese authenticity and its diverse expressions. These analyses deepen our appreciation for both the diverse and shared aspects of humanity, thereby contributing to the evolution of a more inclusive global psychology.

We use the example of Brazilian to showcase the advantages of considering culture-specific behavioral syndromes as locally meaningful sets of behavior, which recombine potentially universal psychological dynamics in culturally unique ways. This perspective allows for both universality and culture specificity in understanding human behavior. We discuss these points using as an example. Anthropological and sociological work has demonstrated the importance of as a Brazilian problem-solving strategy, which was treated as a single or homogenous construct. Psychological studies have identified distinct components that can be systematically linked to personality, values, and social attitudes. We describe our new theoretical approach focusing on culture-specific behavioral syndromes, in which possibly universal psychological characteristics are assembled and activated flexibly in culture-specific ways to address locally salient problems. We discuss how this novel combination of theoretical and mixed-method perspectives can advance a more situationally grounded social psychology.Public AbstractOver the decades, research in social psychology has demonstrated that cultural factors are fundamental to understanding human social behavior, but relatively little progress has been made to advance our understanding of how culture functions. We report insights gained from an interdisciplinary research program describing a cultural syndrome typical of Brazilian culture, the Brazilian (literally translated as the Brazilian little way). Using this example, we demonstrate that it is possible to study culture-specific behaviors and link them to psychological factors presumed to be applicable to all of humanity, and by doing so, we can better understand behavior in context. This approach combines different theoretical lenses that have mainly been used independently in psychology in an integrative way that can advance a more global social psychology, making human behavior understandable across different cultural contexts.

Honor is universally comprehensible, varies regionally in frequency, chronicity, and intensity, and looks different at each time and place. We use culture-as-situated-cognition theory (CSCT), an integrating situated social cognition account of culture, to understand why. Human culture addresses recurrent problems; how frequently, chronically, and intensely each comes to mind depends on their ecological niche; the practices addressing them vary in time and place. We articulate the costly morality theory of honor (CMTH) within CSCT to distinguish honor from related constructs by theorizing two axes (morality-immorality and costly-cost-free) at each of CSCT's three levels. In our formulation, honor is morality, resolving the recurrent problem of regulating relationships through costly signals of trustworthiness (human-universal). Societies embedded in harsher ecological niches require more cost to find a signal to be honest and focus on particular relational aspects of morality (niche-linked). Honor specifies how to be a person in the world (time-and-place-specific).Public AbstractPeople have an everyday understanding of honor, what it is, and who has it, but what they mean can be hard to put into words, and what actions in service of honor look like vary across times and societies. We build on culture-as-situated-cognition theory, which accounts for honor's importance in human culture, its variable centrality across societies, and differing specific norms and practices connected to it within societies, to posit that honor entails moral action, a duty of care, that is costly to the actor. We apply our honor-as-costly-morality theory to distinguish honor from related ideas in the hope that our framework helps people better understand and communicate across time-and-place divides, even while disagreeing on to whom and in what way the duty of care extends.

Academic AbstractAlthough gender equity is acknowledged as a global objective, existing progress parameters and interventions predominantly align with Western contexts and academic traditions, which often overlook the complex realities of the Majority World. This paper provides a critique of the dominance of such approaches and highlights the challenges of applying them universally. We examine the limitations of prevailing gender equity scholarship, including how a lack of diversity in general and intersectionality in particular, methodological biases, and individual-level solutions may inadvertently perpetuate inequities. We propose alternatives based on Latin American theory and practice to design decolonial and intersectional interventions for gender equity. Finally, we call for a systemic change by introducing the 5S framework, which advocates for interventions that (a) challenge the status quo, (b) focus on systemic changes, (c) are sensitive to social context, (d) are sustainable, and (e) are supported by evidence.Public AbstractGender equity is a global priority, but many strategies and solutions often ignore the unique challenges faced by people in different cultural and social contexts around the world. This paper explores why these one-size-fits-all approaches do not work and highlights the need for more inclusive, collaborative solutions. We examine core limitations such as the lack of focus on how gender intersects with race, class, and other factors, and the tendency to place the responsibility for change on individuals rather than addressing larger social and systemic problems. To tackle these challenges, we propose the 5S framework, which emphasizes interventions that: challenge the status quo, focus on systemic changes, are sensitive to social context, are sustainable, and are supported by evidence. Instead of offering fixed answers, we encourage collaborative and culturally sensitive efforts to create fairer and more effective ways to promote gender equity worldwide.

Academic AbstractThis paper challenges Western-centric models of relationship quality that deem satisfaction, steadiness in aspects of relationships (i.e., stability), and romantic dyads as ideal by incorporating naïve dialecticism rooted in East Asian philosophies. Naïve dialecticism encompasses the tolerance of contradictions, the anticipation of change, and holism. By examining how these principles manifest in relationship processes and functioning that diverge from Western models, we offer a new framework for conceptualizing relationship flourishing. Specifically, we propose that accepting contradictions, embracing change, and recognizing relationships as embedded within broader sociocultural and institutional contexts could facilitate a more inclusive understanding of what constitutes a "good" relationship. Our paper highlights the value of incorporating cultural theories into relationship science, provides actionable suggestions for researchers, and outlines how this perspective can inform emerging areas of research such as intercultural relationships and singlehood.Public AbstractThis paper redefines what makes a romantic relationship "good" by integrating East Asian philosophies, which value contradictions, embrace change, and emphasize interconnectedness. While many Western ideals of close relationships focus mainly on satisfaction, steadiness in aspects of relationships (i.e., stability), and one-on-one relationship with the romantic partner, we suggest that embracing goods and bads, ups and downs, and recognizing relationships as embedded within broader sociocultural and institutional contexts could facilitate a more inclusive understanding of what constitutes a "good relationship." By adopting these insights, we can better understand and support the relationship well-being of various groups, especially those more prone to the influence of East Asian culture. This approach not only promotes a culturally sensitive understanding of relationship functioning but also provides insights for navigating new forms of relationships, such as intercultural relationships and singlehood.

Academic abstract"Lying flat" is manifested as opting out, often marked by aimlessness and a pessimistic outlook. While this raises clinical concerns, it may carry a positive meaning in Chinese culture, emphasizing the pursuit of inner calmness and fulfillment. Despite its growing prevalence on Chinese social media, its antecedents and implications are still unclear. To address this gap, we first define "lying flat" and trace its emergence in Chinese society. Next, we propose an integrative model that elucidates how Taoism and Buddhism, social expectations, and involution contribute to "lying flat." By incorporating insights from Western theories, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of this culturally rooted lifestyle. Finally, we lay out a research agenda by proposing specific hypotheses regarding its effects on well-being and social functioning, with the goal of clarifying its potentially adaptive aspects in contrast to its clinical ones. We also discuss implications for mental health professionals and policymakers.Public abstract"Lying flat" outwardly manifests as opting out, often associated with a sense of passivity and lack of direction. Yet within Chinese culture, it might hold a deeper meaning: the pursuit of inner peace as a path to personal fulfillment. This lifestyle has recently gained widespread attention in China. Despite its increasing prevalence, much remains unknown about its origins and implications. In this article, we explain what "lying flat" is and how it has emerged in Chinese society. Our model demonstrates how factors, such as Taoism and Buddhism, social expectations, and involution, drive this behavior. By integrating insights from Western theories, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of this culturally rooted lifestyle. We also present hypotheses about its effects on well-being and social functioning, aiming to clarify its potentially adaptive features in contrast to those that may raise clinical concerns. We propose practical strategies for mental health professionals and policymakers.

Openness/intellect often stands apart from the other Big Few personality traits. Here, we interrogate some of the many qualities that make openness/intellect unique. First, we describe this trait's unique history, highlighting unresolved controversies critical to its modern interpretation. Second, we identify three major research questions where openness/intellect is unique among the Big Few: trait associations with outcomes are often moderated, it is often irrelevant to mental health, and it is the rarest target of volitional change; we develop theories to confirm and explain these phenomena. Third, we synthesize etic (imported) and emic (local) cross-cultural evidence to argue that openness/intellect is the least cross-culturally portable Big Few trait. We hypothesize that variation in individualism, looseness, and complexity modify its relevance and coherence around a potentially universal core. Throughout, we argue that understanding these unique qualities is required to cohesively interpret past openness/intellect findings and expand future research on this trait.Public AbstractMost researchers study personality using five or six broad traits. One of these traits is called openness/intellect, which describes people who are imaginative, knowledgeable, nontraditional, creative, and often unusual. Here, we explore how the trait itself is often unique compared to other broad personality traits. For example, most people want to change their personality, but they rarely want to change in openness/intellect. And, although openness/intellect is important for people living in North America and Europe, in other cultures it seems less relevant. In some cultures, its specific components don't go together: nontraditional people aren't more imaginative. In some languages, words like "creative" don't exist. Even so, some indicators of openness/intellect, like wisdom and experiencing goosebumps from music, are found among humans everywhere. We develop theories to explain these unique qualities of openness/intellect; testing them will allow us to further understand how, why, and among whom individual differences in this trait are important.

Academic AbstractThe present review examines bias against transgender women and men and bias against people with nonbinary gender identities. A central contention is that many people hold false beliefs about transgender men's and women's membership in the categories "male" and "female," and, separately, view nonbinary gender identities themselves as illegitimate. Both discounting transgender men's and women's membership in the categories "male" and "female" and discounting the validity of nonbinary gender identities are forms of bias, and studying them will be essential to build a more nuanced understanding of stereotyping and prejudice. The authors review the literature on bias against transgender people and bias against nonbinary people, discuss the methodological and theoretical challenges in studying these biases, propose an approach for interpreting results in light of common (mis)categorization processes, and consider avenues for future research.Public AbstractThis article reviews research about bias against transgender women and men and bias against people with nonbinary gender identities. Many people hold false beliefs about transgender men's and women's membership in the categories "male" and "female." Also, many people view nonbinary gender identities as illegitimate. Both discounting transgender men's and women's membership in the categories "male" and "female" and discounting the validity of nonbinary gender identities are forms of bias. Thoroughly investigating these forms of bias will help researchers build a more a nuanced understanding of the biases that target transgender and nonbinary people. This observation helps put much of the past research in context, and it could make future research stronger by distinguishing between kinds of bias and encouraging more precise measurement and experimentation.

Academic AbstractWhy do people struggle to make positive impressions? Indeed, there are now many documented impression management effects across the psychological literature, highlighting many ways in which actors make negative impressions on observers despite intending to make positive ones. In this article, we use the process model of egocentrism (i.e., people's tendencies to take others' perspectives by first anchoring on-then insufficiently adjusting from-their own perspective) to integrate and understand actors' errors under a single parsimonious conceptual framework. We then use this framework to advance the literature, highlighting how the same logic of egocentric anchoring and adjustment can help shine novel light on the challenge of impression management-that is, how present actors may mistakenly behave in ways that future observers deem negative, even if present observers deem them positive (i.e., one's actions "aging poorly"). We review and integrate diverse support for these ideas and highlight novel research directions.Public AbstractThis article highlights how people over-attend to their own present states when trying to make positive impressions on others, explaining why people struggle to make them. This problem grows worse over time, leading people to neglect how their present actions might "age poorly" into the future. Strategies that target people's temporal thinking can therefore help people better navigate today's rapidly changing informational landscape. Indeed, the notion of "aging poorly" is of increasing real-world relevance and concern (e.g., in today's online contexts, whereby actors leave concrete digital footprints of their present actions for future observers to discover and judge anew)-this article provides a framework for understanding these issues (e.g., who is more vs. less prone to acting in ways that "age poorly," and when and why is this the case?) and generates a research agenda for studying them, which includes how actors can better navigate their temporal impressions moving forward.

Academic AbstractHumans frequently engage in mental time travel, reflecting on the past and anticipating the future. Although these processes may seem similar, research documents systematic differences between retrospection and prospection. We propose a conceptual framework to organize and explain these differences based on three axiomatic temporal asymmetries: The past occurs before the future; the past is more certain than the future; and the past is less controllable than the future. People's experience with these axiomatic differences is internalized and overgeneralized to shape mental representations of the past and future. Our review shows that people generally prioritize prospection over retrospection, attending more to the future than the past and reacting more intensely to future events than to past events. We consider potential moderators of and constraints on the generality of prioritizing prospection. We explore the implications of these temporal asymmetries, emphasizing their theoretical and practical significance.Public AbstractWhile daily life centers on the present, people often reflect on the past and anticipate the future. But which direction of mental time travel-backward or forward-has more influence? We identify three key differences that shape how people engage with the past and future: time flows from past to future, the future is more uncertain, and people have more control over the future. These differences affect the frequency, intensity, and nature of thoughts and feelings, leading to predictable biases in how we mentally represent and emotionally engage with events over time. Because focusing on the future often provides greater benefits, people tend to prioritize prospection over retrospection in everyday life.

This article critically examines the pervasive yet often-neglected influence of capitalism on psychological processes and human behavior. While capitalist ideologies like neoliberalism have entered the mainstream in psychology, there remains a lack of deeper engagement with the foundations of capitalism. The article argues that capitalism generates distinct cultural syndromes that emerged from the unique historical experiences of Western societies and are deeply rooted in the core principles of capitalism: profit motive, market competition, and private property ownership. The article then argues that these principles manifest as capitalist cultural syndromes termed the "gain primacy," "zero-sum rivalry," and "ownership" syndromes, which collectively drive a self-enhancement agenda resulting in an overarching "individualist syndrome." It then explores how these syndromes maintain and reproduce social inequalities. By adopting a critical-historical approach, this article situates its analysis within a broader critique of capitalism, aiming to illuminate its impact on human thought, behavior, and well-being.Public AbstractOur thoughts, behaviors, and well-being are deeply influenced by the economic system we live in-capitalism. While psychologists have explored capitalist ideologies like neoliberalism, they often overlook capitalism's core foundations driving inequality. This work argues that capitalism, rooted in Western colonial history, generates powerful cultural narratives prioritizing profit, competition, and private ownership. These capitalist principles manifest as pervasive societal mindsets obsessed with personal gain, viewing life as a zero-sum rivalry, and deriving self-worth from possessions. Collectively, they breed an individualistic syndrome of selfish striving at the expense of community. By understanding how these capitalist cultural forces psychologically shape us, maintaining oppressive societal hierarchies, we can reimagine economic systems that truly uplift the human spirit across all peoples and the planet we share. Unveiling capitalism's influence is crucial to recover from its alienating effects and envision liberating alternatives.

Academic AbstractPeople's perceptions of economic inequality are important predictors of their political attitudes and behaviors. Scholars across the social sciences have worked to understand people's (mis)perceptions of inequality. Yet, scholars currently lack a common framework for integrating emerging findings and conceptualizing how these perceptions are formed. Here, we propose an integrative framework to help researchers highlight the underlying how inequality is perceived. We draw on theories of perception, cognition, developmental, and social psychology to identify five interlinked, iterative components of the inequality perception process: (a) to inequality cues, (b) to these cues, (c) of these cues, (d) of these cues, and (e) of inequality. Our framework provides a roadmap for integrating research across disparate fields, making sense of current findings, and identifying novel challenges to advance future research.Public AbstractHow much inequality people perceive better predicts their political action than do official measures of inequality (e.g., economic indicators like the Gini coefficient). While scholars across the social sciences are working to understand these (mis)perceptions of inequality, the literature lacks agreement on measurements of inequality perceptions and, as a result, on whether people under or overestimate inequality. By providing an integrative psychological framework for inequality perceptions that focuses on people form these perceptions and what they to them we shed light on and people perceive more or less inequality. Our framework outlines the psychological processes underlying perceptions of inequality and helps scholars value the information and insight people's own perceptions provide for addressing inequality in communities.

Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that, over time, causes a victim to doubt their sense of reality, often leading to a loss of agency and emotional and mental instability. Currently, mechanistic explanations for gaslighting are rooted in unfalsifiable psychodynamic theory. We propose a theoretical framework that draws upon prediction error minimization, symbolic interactionism, attachment theory, self-verification theory, and shared reality theory to illustrate the cognitive mechanisms that allow gaslighting to occur. We hypothesize that gaslighting depends on normative social-cognitive mechanisms operating in atypical social situations. Our model assumes that (close) relationships fulfill important epistemic needs-close others shape and verify our self-views and our experience of the world. This privileged position of close others is what gives gaslighters the epistemic leverage required for gaslighting to be effective. We then apply our theoretical framework to the cycle of gaslighting and conclude by distinguishing gaslighting from other related phenomena.Public AbstractGaslighting is a type of emotional abuse where someone manipulates another person into doubting their own sense of reality. Psychology lacks clear scientific explanations for how this abuse makes people feel like they're losing touch with what's real. In this report, we look at research from brain science and social psychology to explain what might be going on inside the minds of people who experience gaslighting. Our explanation focuses on how people learn from their experiences, and we also include ideas about how relationships and social situations can shape behavior. The goal is to offer a scientific explanation of gaslighting.

Academic AbstractCurrent theories on dispositional-situational attributions suggest that East Asians' attributions are more external compared to Westerners. However, empirical studies yield mixed findings. I reflect on historical, philosophical, and sociological resources in China and the United States to address this inconsistency. This paper (a) proposes a new attributional dimension borrowed from Chinese philosophy-human- versus heaven-determined (-); (b) postulates that the Chinese are more likely to make internal human-determined attributions than Americans, whereas Americans are more inclined to make internal and external heaven-determined attributions than the Chinese; (c) reviews the existing literature to examine the extent to which this theory is evidenced and determine aspects remaining untested; and (d) discusses the generalizability to other cultures and directions for further research. Notably, "heaven-determined" is interpreted metaphorically (not religiously). Beyond dispositional-situational theory, this paper spotlights another meaningful pathway for constructing cross-cultural theory: The Chinese emphasize human determinism more than Americans.Public AbstractWhy do I succeed or fail? Why do people help or harm others? Members of different cultures may provide different answers to such questions-known in psychology as "causal attributions." A popular belief in psychology is that East Asians are more likely than Westerners to consider external factors-in other words, environmental/outside factors-as causes of behaviors and outcomes. In this paper, I challenge this prevailing theory and propose an alternative, drawing on cultural resources and social realities of China and the United States. When explaining why something happens, the Chinese may focus more on average than Americans do on internal causes determined by humans (e.g., effort, motivation, attitude, skill, and strategy), whereas Americans may focus more on average than the Chinese do on causes that are not determined by humans (e.g., aptitude, genes, gender, race/ethnicity, physiological characteristics, luck, and supernatural force). More research is needed to test this postulation.

Academic AbstractAlthough disadvantage and advantage jointly make up inequality, inequality is often one-sidedly framed as disadvantage. Concurrently, efforts to raise awareness for advantages are growing. Many studies have examined whether and how it matters if inequality is framed as advantage or disadvantage. However, empirical and conceptual integration of this work is lacking. For empirical integration, we systematically reviewed 71 experimental studies in 36 documents ( = 20,063). These investigated many different variables, but often only once, or with inconsistent findings. Framing manipulations varied in ways that could bias effects. Summarizing consistent effects, we conclude that framing can influence how people perceive and react to inequality, but this is contingent on moderators. For conceptual integration, we developed a two-step model, which defines (dis)advantage frames and aims to explain why (Step 1) and how (Step 2) they influence which variables, to help this exciting research field move forward in a more systematic way.Public AbstractInequality is one of the biggest challenges of our time. Both disadvantage and advantage are mechanisms that create and maintain inequality. However, there is often a one-sided focus on disadvantage, though awareness for advantage is growing slowly. This makes it important to ask whether and to what extent it matters if inequality is understood and talked about in terms of disadvantages or advantages. We analyzed and summarized previous studies that investigated these questions and developed an integrating conceptual model. Taken together, the way we talk about inequality can influence how people perceive and react to it, for example, how (il)legitimate they find it and what they want to do about it. Neither talking about inequality as advantage nor as disadvantage is per se more conducive to challenging or maintaining inequality. A balanced understanding of inequality seems necessary to fully understand the issue and to develop effective interventions.

What happens when disadvantaged groups feel that their freedom to define and practice their collective identity (i.e., collective autonomy) is restricted? The present theoretical review outlines the conditions under which social inequality activates the feelings of collective autonomy restriction among disadvantaged group members and motivates the mobilization of social movements seeking social equality. As these social movements gain traction, advantaged group members may feel that their privileged position and collective autonomy are threatened. These feelings of threat and collective autonomy restriction among advantaged groups in turn motivate them to mobilize counter-movements that seek to protect social hierarchy and their privileged position within it. The process outlined in this case is relevant to individuals from both marginalized and privileged backgrounds, as it illustrates the different ways in which real-world power structures shape the way they experience and navigate social movements and counter-movements as they unfold in real time.