Explore the vast range of titles available.

Drawing upon theory on social judgments and impression formation from social psychology, this paper explores the socio-cognitive processes that shape the formation of favorable and unfavorable organizational reputations. Specifically, we suggest that stakeholders make distinctions between an organization's capabilities and its character. We explain the nature and function of each and articulate the manner in which judgment heuristics and biases manifest in the development of capability and character reputations. In doing so, this research explores both the positive and negative sides of organizational reputation by examining the manner in which different types of reputations are built or damaged, and how these processes influence the ability of managers to enhance and protect these reputations.

What people feel shapes their perceptions of others. In the studies reported here, we examined the assimilative influence of visceral states on social judgment. Replicating prior research, we found that participants who were outside during winter overestimated the extent to which other people were bothered by cold (Study 1), and participants who ate salty snacks without water thought other people were overly bothered by thirst (Study 2). However, in both studies, this effect evaporated when participants believed that the other people under consideration held political views opposing their own. Participants who judged these dissimilar others were unaffected by their own strong visceral-drive states, a finding that highlights the power of dissimilarity in social judgment. Dissimilarity may thus represent a boundary condition for embodied cognition and inhibit an empathic understanding of shared out-group pain. Our findings reveal the need for a better understanding of how people's internal experiences influence their perceptions of the feelings and experiences of those who may hold values different from their own.

Recent research suggests that lower-class individuals favor explanations of personal and political outcomes that are oriented to features of the external environment. We extended this work by testing the hypothesis that, as a result, individuals of a lower social class are more empathically accurate in judging the emotions of other people. In three studies, lower-class individuals (compared with upper-class individuals) received higher scores on a test of empathic accuracy (Study 1), judged the emotions of an interaction partner more accurately (Study 2), and made more accurate inferences about emotion from static images of muscle movements in the eyes (Study 3). Moreover, the association between social class and empathie accuracy was explained by the tendency for lower-class individuals to explain social events in terms of features of the external environment. The implications of class-based patterns in empathic accuracy for well-being and relationship outcomes are discussed.

We conducted three experiments indicating that characteristically deontological judgments—here, disapproving of sacrificing one person for the greater good of others—are preferentially supported by visual imagery. Experiment I used two matched working memory tasks—one visual, one verbal—to identify individuals with relatively visual cognitive styles and individuals with relatively verbal cognitive styles. Individuals with more visual cognitive styles made more deontological judgments. Experiment 2 showed that visual interference, relative to verbal interference and no interference, decreases deontological judgment. Experiment 3 indicated that these effects are due to people's tendency to visualize the harmful means (sacrificing one person) more than the beneficial end (saving others). These results suggest a specific role for visual imagery in moral judgment: When people consider sacrificing someone as a means to an end, visual imagery preferentially supports the judgment that the ends do not justify the means. These results suggest an integration of the dual-process theory of moral judgment with construal-level theory.

Although robots are increasingly used in service provision, research cautions that consumers are reluctant to accept service robots. Five lab, field, and online studies reveal an important boundary condition to earlier work and demonstrate that consumers perceive robots less negatively when human social presence is the source of discomfort. We show that consumers feel less judged by a robot (vs. a human) when having to engage in an embarrassing service encounter, such as when acquiring medication to treat a sexually transmitted disease or being confronted with one’s own mistakes by a frontline employee. As a consequence, consumers prefer being served by a robot instead of a human when having to acquire an embarrassing product, and a robot helps consumers to overcome their reluctance to accept the service provider’s offering when the situation becomes embarrassing. However, robot anthropomorphism moderates the effect as consumers ascribe a higher automated social presence to a highly human-like robot (vs. machine-like robot), making consumers feel more socially judged.

Positive judgments on the Self are good predictors of academic achievement. It could be useful to benefit from an instrument able to assess how pupils elaborate self-judgments. So far, such a tool does not exist. The purpose of the present study was to develop a self-report measure of social judgment for children at school (the School Social Judgment Scale—SSJS). 660 pupils completed a questionnaire addressing 12 socio-academic behaviors. An exploratory factor analysis highlighted a four-factor structure of social judgment (Assertiveness, Competence, Effort and Agreeability). A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) provided further support for this model, both in terms of factorial and construct validity. Reliability ranged from questionable to good depending on SSJS subscales. Multigroup CFA revealed invariance of the SSJS across gender and showed that boys had higher scores than girls for the assertiveness scale. Overall, the SSJS represents an efficient tool to better understand how social judgment for children works. As such, it could assist professionals of education to develop suitable educational support to assist poorly performing children at school.