(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all legal rights set aside).How do task groups react to bad performers? We integrate attribution theory with individual motivation ideas in a novel, parsimonious design that makes nuanced forecasts. Our model asserts that group members assess the indegent performer’s intent to greatly help the team (i.e., pro-group intent) by very first thinking about the poor performer’s traits advised by attribution theory effort and capability. While attribution theorists have primarily presumed that reduced work reflects lacking desire to contribute to group objectives and therefore its infeasible to get capability, motivation concepts arsenic biogeochemical cycle assume individuals set their goals to perform tasks and find skills according to both desirability (value) and feasibility (expectancy). As group users may well believe that a poor performer utilizes these criteria when developing a pro-group intent to play a role in team targets, reasonable energy may also reflect the infeasibility of earning the mandatory contributions, and low ability may mirror a minimal aspire to acquire new skills. Therefore, our model of pro-group intent predicts that desirability-feasibility presumptions moderate the effort-ability influence on responses to bad performers and that evaluations of pro-group intention mediate this effect. Certainly, in five experiments (total N = 1,011), reasonable effort only produced more bad reactions than low ability whenever a desirability attribution ended up being designed for energy, and a feasibility attribution had been designed for ability. In contrast, reversing these presumptions eliminated the effort-ability effect. This communication ended up being completely mediated by the performer’s perceived pro-group intention. We discuss how our (meta-) intentional viewpoint informs existing reports of poor performers, team processes, and motivation science. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).Western culture idealizes an autonomous self-a self that strives for independency and freedom from the impact and control of others. We explored the way the worth placed on autonomy in Western culture intersects with the normative trait objectives skilled by both women and men. While trait expectations added to men (i.e., to be confident and assertive) affirm an autonomous feeling of self, trait objectives put on women (in other words., to be caring and comprehending) dispute with an autonomous feeling of self. We theorized that this dispute contributes to ladies’ resentment toward positive gender stereotypes that emphasize ladies interdependent qualities. Six preregistered researches (N = 2,094) demonstrated that U.S. ladies experienced more fury as a result to positive-gendered trait objectives much less motivation to comply with them compared to U.S. guys. We discovered that these impacts were partially attributable to stereotypically feminine public expectations affirming autonomy less than stereotypically masculine agentic objectives. Cross-cultural reviews involving the U.S. (a Western context) and India (a non-Western framework) further indicated that the dispute between communal expectations put on women and Western prioritization of autonomy plays a role in U.S. ladies fury toward positive sex stereotypes Although traits expected of women both in the U.S. and India oriented women away from feeling independent more than attributes expected of males, this reduced good sense to be autonomous only elicited fury in a U.S. context. For Western societies, findings illuminate the uniquely irritating nature of stereotyped objectives that demand interdependence and therefore the unequal psychological burden positioned on those that must deal with them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all legal rights set aside).For years, a recurring concern face-to-face perception research has already been whether people’s perceptions of other individuals’ character traits are linked to the way they see themselves ML133 on these traits. Undoubtedly, proof for such “assumed similarity” impacts has been discovered over and over repeatedly, at the least for many traits. However, current research shows that these conclusions is an artifact of specific variations in exactly how positively or adversely perceivers see other individuals in general, aside from trait-specific content. Overcoming the limits of prior studies, the current work provides a vital test of trait-specificity versus international positivity as types of assumed similarity in character judgments. In two huge scientific studies (Ns = 2,287 and 3,563) with preregistered hypotheses and analyses, perceivers ranked 10 targets (strangers) each in the honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to see; HEXACO (Study 1) and huge Five (Study 2) proportions to capture their particular perceptions of this “average other” (i.e., perceiver impacts). We then computed “positivity-corrected” assumed similarity effects making use of trait-based and profile-based methods. Although managing for worldwide positivity dramatically decreased the potency of assumed similarity, perceiver effects remained absolutely pertaining to self-reports. As predicted, these assumed similarity effects Bioactive wound dressings happened foremostly for characteristics highly connected to values. Especially, in learn 1, positivity-corrected assumed similarity had been observed just for honesty-humility and openness to have, albeit meaningful results just occurred on one of this two self-report measures.