Maurice E. Schweitzer’s research while affiliated with University of Pennsylvania and other places

Humor is a fundamental managerial tool that can help managers communicate, build trust, and promote cooperation. Humor, however, is complex, and humor scholarship has identified both benefits and risks of using humor for leaders, employees, and organizations. Although humor is both pervasive and impactful in organizations, humor scholarship is vastly under-represented relative to its managerial relevance and impact in leading management journals. In this review, we build on scholarship in the psychology, communication, and management literatures to define humor, introduce a framework and nomenclature for studying humor, and distinguish organizational humor from social humor. We identify open questions worthy of scholarly attention and barriers that have likely limited the publication of humor scholarship in management journals. We conclude with a call to action to guide future research in organizational humor.

In this review, we identify emerging trends in negotiation scholarship that embrace complexity, finding moderators of effects that were initially described as monolithic, examining the nuances of social interaction, and studying negotiation as it occurs in the real world. We also identify areas in which research is lacking and call for scholarship that offers practical advice. All told, the existing research highlights negotiation as an exciting context for examining human behavior, characterized by features such as strong emotions, an intriguing blend of cooperation and competition, the presence of fundamental issues such as power and group identity, and outcomes that deeply affect the trajectory of people's personal and professional lives. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Psychology, Volume 74 is January 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

Although many virtuous leaders are guided by the ideal of prioritizing the needs and welfare of their subordinates, others advance their self-interest at the expense of the people they purport to serve. In this article, we discuss conspiracy theories as a tool that leaders use to advance their personal interests. We propose that leaders spread conspiracy theories in service of four primary goals: 1) to attack opponents; 2) to increase support from their ingroup members; 3) to shift blame and responsibility; and 4) to undermine institution that threaten their power. We argue that authoritarian, populist, and conservative leaders are most likely to spread conspiracy theories during periods of instability.

Significance Encouraging vaccination is a pressing policy problem. Our megastudy with 689,693 Walmart pharmacy customers demonstrates that text-based reminders can encourage pharmacy vaccination and establishes what kinds of messages work best. We tested 22 different text reminders using a variety of different behavioral science principles to nudge flu vaccination. Reminder texts increased vaccination rates by an average of 2.0 percentage points (6.8%) over a business-as-usual control condition. The most-effective messages reminded patients that a flu shot was waiting for them and delivered reminders on multiple days. The top-performing intervention included two texts 3 d apart and stated that a vaccine was “waiting for you.” Forecasters failed to anticipate that this would be the best-performing treatment, underscoring the value of testing.

Many patients with advanced illness have unrealistic survival expectations, largely due to cognitive biases. Studies suggests that when people are motivated to be accurate, they are less prone to succumb to these biases. Using a randomized survey design, we test whether offering advanced cancer patients ( n = 200) incentives to estimate their prognosis improves accuracy. We also test whether presenting treatment benefits in terms of a loss (mortality) rather than a gain (survival) reduces willingness to take up a hypothetical treatment. Results are not consistent with the proposed hypotheses for either accuracy incentives or framing effects.

Objective: Many patients with advanced illness are unrealistically optimistic about their prognosis. We test for the presence of several cognitive biases, including optimism bias, illusion of superiority, self-deception, misattribution, and optimistic update bias, that could explain unrealistically optimistic prognostic beliefs among advanced cancer patients and quantifies the extent to which hope exacerbates these biases. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 200 advanced cancer patients with physician-estimated prognoses of one year or less. Hope was measured using the Herth Hope Index (HHI). Hypotheses were tested using linear and logistic regressions and a structural-equation model. Results: Results are consistent with the presence of optimism bias, illusion of superiority, self-deception, and misattribution. All of these biases are amplified by higher levels of hope. Each 1-point higher HHI is associated with a 6% (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01-1.11) greater odds of believing their illness is curable, a 0.33-year (95% CI: 0.17-0.49) longer expected survival, a 6% (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.02-1.11) higher probability of believing that survival outcomes are better than the average patient, a 5% higher odds of believing primary intent of treatment is curative (OR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.10), and a 12% (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.05-1.17) higher odds of believing they are well-informed. Mediation analyses revealed that hope significantly mediates the effect of mental-well-being and loneliness on expected survival. Conclusions: Results suggest advanced cancer patients succumb to several cognitive biases which are exacerbated by greater levels of hope. As a result, they are susceptible to possible over-treatment and regret. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.