Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Journal Impact Factor & Information

Publisher: Society for Personality and Social Psychology, SAGE Publications

Journal description

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin publishes theoretical articles and empirical reports of research in all areas of personality and social psychology.

Current impact factor: 2.52

Impact Factor Rankings

Additional details

5-year impact 3.52
Cited half-life 10.00
Immediacy index 0.23
Eigenfactor 0.02
Article influence 1.92
Website Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin website
Other titles Personality & social psychology bulletin, Personality and social psychology bulletin, PSPB
ISSN 0146-1672
OCLC 2878896
Material type Periodical, Internet resource
Document type Journal / Magazine / Newspaper, Internet Resource

Publisher details

SAGE Publications

  • Pre-print
    • Author can archive a pre-print version
  • Post-print
    • Author can archive a post-print version
  • Conditions
    • Authors retain copyright
    • Pre-print on any website
    • Author's post-print on author's personal website, departmental website, institutional website or institutional repository
    • On other repositories including PubMed Central after 12 months embargo
    • Publisher copyright and source must be acknowledged
    • Publisher's version/PDF cannot be used
    • Post-print version with changes from referees comments can be used
    • "as published" final version with layout and copy-editing changes cannot be archived but can be used on secure institutional intranet
  • Classification
    ​ green

Publications in this journal

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although it is widely assumed that collective apologies for intergroup harms facilitate forgiveness, evidence for a strong link between the two remains elusive. In four studies we tested the proposition that the apology-forgiveness link exists, but only among people who hold an implicit belief that groups can change. In Studies 1 and 2, perceived group malleability (measured and manipulated, respectively) moderated the responses to an apology by Palestinian leadership toward Israelis: Positive responses such as forgiveness increased with greater belief in group malleability. In Study 3, university students who believed in group malleability were more forgiving of a rival university's derogatory comments in the presence (as opposed to the absence) of an apology. In Study 4, perceived perpetrator group remorse mediated the moderating effect of group malleability on the apology-forgiveness link (assessed in the context of a corporate transgression). Implications for collective apologies and movement toward reconciliation are discussed. © 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 05/2015; 41(5):714-725. DOI:10.1177/0146167215576721
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Five studies tested four hypotheses on the drivers of punitive judgments. Study 1 showed that people imposed covertly retributivist physical punishments on extreme norm violators when they could plausibly deny that is what they were doing (attributional ambiguity). Studies 2 and 3 showed that covert retributivism could be suppressed by subtle accountability manipulations that cue people to the possibility that they might be under scrutiny. Studies 4 and 5 showed how covert retributivism can become self-sustaining by biasing the lessons people learn from experience. Covert retributivists did not scale back punitiveness in response to feedback that the justice system makes false-conviction errors but they did ramp up punitiveness in response to feedback that the system makes false-acquittal errors. Taken together, the results underscore the paradoxical nature of covert retributivism: It is easily activated by plausible deniability and persistent in the face of false-conviction feedback but also easily deactivated by minimalist forms of accountability. © 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 03/2015; 41(5). DOI:10.1177/0146167215571090
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In a four-wave longitudinal study with N = 1,321 adolescents in Germany, we examined the impact of class-level normative beliefs about aggression on aggressive norms and behavior at the individual level over the course of 3 years. At each data wave, participants indicated their normative acceptance of aggressive behavior and provided self-reports of physical and relational aggression. Multilevel analyses revealed significant cross-level interactions between class-level and individual-level normative beliefs at T1 on individual differences in physical aggression at T2, and the indirect interactive effects were significant up to T4. Normative approval of aggression at the class level, especially girls' normative beliefs, defined the boundary conditions for the expression of individual differences in aggressive norms and their impact on physically and relationally aggressive behavior for both girls and boys. The findings demonstrate the moderating effect of social norms on the pathways from individual normative beliefs to aggressive behavior in adolescence. © 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 03/2015; 41(5). DOI:10.1177/0146167215573212
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We tested whether the perceived physical attractiveness of a group is greater than the average attractiveness of its members. In nine studies, we find evidence for the so-called group attractiveness effect (GA-effect), using female, male, and mixed-gender groups, indicating that group impressions of physical attractiveness are more positive than the average ratings of the group members. A meta-analysis on 33 comparisons reveals that the effect is medium to large (Cohen's d = 0.60) and moderated by group size. We explored two explanations for the GA-effect: (a) selective attention to attractive group members, and (b) the Gestalt principle of similarity. The results of our studies are in favor of the selective attention account: People selectively attend to the most attractive members of a group and their attractiveness has a greater influence on the evaluation of the group. © 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 03/2015; 41(4). DOI:10.1177/0146167215572799
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The "rigidity of the right" hypothesis predicts that particularly the political right experiences fear and derogates outgroups. We propose that above and beyond that, the political extremes (at both sides of the spectrum) are more likely to display these responses than political moderates. Results of a large-scale sample reveal the predicted quadratic term on socio-economic fear. Moreover, although the political right is more likely to derogate the specific category of immigrants, we find a quadratic effect on derogation of a broad range of societal categories. Both extremes also experience stronger negative emotions about politics than politically moderate respondents. Finally, the quadratic effects on derogation of societal groups and negative political emotions were mediated by socio-economic fear, particularly among left- and right-wing extremists. It is concluded that negative emotions and outgroup derogation flourish among the extremes. © 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 02/2015; 41(4). DOI:10.1177/0146167215569706
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study investigated long-term correlated change between personality traits and perceived social support in middle adulthood. Two measurement occasions with an 8-year time interval from the Interdisciplinary Longitudinal Study on Adult Development (ILSE) were used. The sample consisted of 346 middle-aged adults (46-50 years at T1). Four different types of perceived social support were assessed. Personality traits were assessed with the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Longitudinal measurement invariance (MI) was established for both measures. The mean rank-order stabilities were .79 and .62 for personality traits and for perceived social support, respectively. The results demonstrated a mean-level increase for neuroticism and a decrease for extraversion and significant change variances for all constructs. The results of latent change models showed significant initial level correlations and correlated changes between personality traits and social support, implying that changes in these constructs show commonality. The results can expand our current thinking about correlated change in personality. © 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 01/2015; DOI:10.1177/0146167215569492
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Race and gender categories, although long presumed to be perceived independently, are inextricably tethered in social perception due in part to natural confounding of phenotypic cues. We predicted that target gender would affect race categorizations. Consistent with this hypothesis, feminine faces compelled White categorizations, and masculine faces compelled Asian or Black categorizations of racially ambiguous targets (Study 1), monoracial targets (Study 2), and real facial photographs (Study 3). The efficiency of judgments varied concomitantly. White categorizations were rendered more rapidly for feminine, relative to masculine faces, but the opposite was true for Asian and Black categorizations (Studies 1-3). Moreover, the effect of gender on categorization efficiency was compelled by racial phenotypicality for Black targets (Study 3). Finally, when targets' race prototypicality was held constant, gender still influenced race categorizations (Study 4). These findings indicate that race categorizations are biased by presumably unrelated gender cues. © 2015 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 01/2015; 41(3). DOI:10.1177/0146167214567153