A B POSITIVE ASSOC A B NEGATIVE ASSOC

  • Slides: 4
Download presentation
A B POSITIVE ASSOC A B NEGATIVE ASSOC A ≈ B « A» B

A B POSITIVE ASSOC A B NEGATIVE ASSOC A ≈ B « A» B MODERATION 1, 2, 3, . . . EMPIRICAL EQUIV NOTES A B A X VARIETIES OR Y EXAMPLES FUEL EFFICIENCY SAFETY IN AN ACCIDENT HONDA «SIZE» AMERICAN PRICE «HORSEPOWER» JAPANESE CARS TOYOTA FORD CHEVY DIESEL/GASOLINE CHASSIS ENGINE BODY CRANK SHAFT CYLINDER BLOCK SPARK PLUGS FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS TRUCK SUV

A B POSITIVE ASSOC A B NEGATIVE ASSOC A ≈ B « A» B

A B POSITIVE ASSOC A B NEGATIVE ASSOC A ≈ B « A» B MODERATION 1, 2, 3, . . . EMPIRICAL EQUIV FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS A B NOTES A X VARIETIES OR Y EXAMPLES VARIETIES OF MORAL JUDGMENT PHYS/EMO HARM ANGER 1 DISGUST AUTHORITY ≈ PURITY 3 NORM NEGATIVE AFFECT VIOLATION ≈ PERCEIVED HARM «RIGHT WING AUTHORITARIANISM» ADULTS CORPORATIONS SPIRITS THINKING AGENT 2 VULNERABLE PATIENT CAUSING DAMAGE SEEING CAUSATION «AUTISM » SOULS CHILDREN FUTURE SELF SEEING INTENTION SOCIAL ORDER PHYSICAL ASSAULT SACRILEGE VANDALISM FEELING EMPATHY «PSYCHOPATHY» EMOTION REGULATION 4 1: ANGER AND DISGUST ARE HIGHLY OVERLAPPING C ( AMERON, LINDQUIST, &GRAY, 2015) 2: PERCEIVED AGENCY, CAUSATION & PATIENCY ARE MUTUALLY REINFORCINGD(YADIC COMPLETION; GRAY, SCHEIN, &WARD, 2014) 3. CORRELATION BETWEEN AUTHORITY AND PURITY, R =. 80 (FIG 3; GRAHAM ET AL. , 2011) AND CORRELATION BETWEEN PURITY AND RWA, R =. 70 (TABLE 7; GRAHAM ET AL. , 2011) 4. OPERATIONALIZATION OF PSYCHOPATHY: SRP-III (PAULHUS, HEMPHILL, &HARD, 2009)

A B POSITIVE ASSOC A B NEGATIVE ASSOC A ≈ B « A» MODERATED

A B POSITIVE ASSOC A B NEGATIVE ASSOC A ≈ B « A» MODERATED B BY INDIV DIFF 1, 2, 3, . . . EMPIRICAL EQUIV A B NOTES FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS X VARIETIES OF Y ELEMENTS A DRIVERS OF INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION, WORD OF MOUTH, AND SOCIAL SHARING CONTENT SELF- 1 2 TRIGGERED CONTEXT 3 EMOTION OBSERVABLE ENHANCING VALANCE AROUSAL USEFUL INFO. ONLINE/ OFFLINE CHANNEL AUDIENCE SYNCHRONY 4 SYNCHRONOUS SENDER DIRECTED/ SOCIAL UNDIRECTED PRESENCE CHANNEL AUDIENCE TIE 5 STATUS SIZE 6 STRENGTH ONE-TO- ASYNCHRONOUS STRONG WEAK 1. INTERESTING, SURPRISING THINGS MORE LIKELY TO BE SHAREDB(ERGER &MILKMAN, 2012) 2. ACCESSIBILITY DRIVES SHARING (BERGER &SCHWARTZ 2011) 3: (RIME 2009), POSITIVE SHARED MORE THAN NEGATIVE BERGER ( &MILKMAN, 2012) BUT AROUSAL ALSO MATTERS (BERGER 2011) 4: SYNCHRONY LEADS PEOPLE TO SHARE WHAT IS TOP-OF-MINDB(ERGER &IYENGAR, 2013) 5. SHARE VALUABLE INFORMATION WITH STRONG TIES F ( RENZEN & NAKAMOTO, 1993) 6. ONE-TO-ONE ENCOURAGES SHARING OTHER FOCUSED THINGS BARASCH ( &BERGER, 2014) ONE

A B POSITIVE ASSOC A B NEGATIVE ASSOC A ≈ B EMPIRICAL EQUIV MODERATED

A B POSITIVE ASSOC A B NEGATIVE ASSOC A ≈ B EMPIRICAL EQUIV MODERATED B BY INDIV DIFF « A» 1, 2, 3, . . . NOTES A B FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS X VARIETIES OF Y ELEMENTS A OBJECTIVE SOCIAL SUBJECTIVE STABILITY/THREAT OBJECTIVE 2 «GENETIC/BIOLOGICAL FACTORS» 1 VARIANCE IN POLITICAL IDEOLOGY 3 EXISTENTIAL NEED FOR STRUCTURE, CERTAINTY, CLOSURE NEED FOR COGNITION 4 10 GROUP POSITION IN SOCIAL HIERARCHY COGNITIVE CAPABILITY MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION EPISTEMIC SUBJECTIVE RELATIONAL SITUATIONAL DETERMINANTS 7 «TRAIT ABILITY» SIZE COMPREHENSION- SALIENCE THREAT MGMT TEMPORAL PRESSURE LONG-TERM NEED FOR DISTINCTIVENESS/ UNIQUENESS 5 CONNECTION WITH LIKE-MINDED OTHERS 6 STATUS 8 ALCOHOL INTOXICATION MORTALITY POWER 9 KNOWLEDGE MEMORY 1. ALFORD, FUNK, &HIBBING, 2005 2. JOST, BANAJI, &NOSEK, 2004 3. JOST, GLASER, KRUGLANKSI, & SULLOWAY, 2003; JOST, STERLING, & STERN, IN PRESS 4. JOST, STERN, STERLING, &RULE, IN PRESS 5. STERN, WEST, & SCHMITT, 2014 6. GRAHAM, HAIDT, &NOSEK, 2009 7. EIDELMAN, CRANDALL, GOODMAN, & BLANCHAR, 2012 8. ONRAET, VAN HEIL, DHONT, HODSON, SCHITTEKATTE, &DE PAUW, 2015 9. CRAIG &RICHESON, 2014 10. FACTORS IN THIS MAP ARE NOT ORDERED BY CONCEPTUAL IMPORTANCE AND MAY HAVE VARYING EFFECT SIZES WHEN EMPIRICALLY ASSESSED.