Tomas Ståhl's research while affiliated with University of Illinois at Chicago and other places

Publications (35)

Article
Full-text available
People differ in how much personal importance, and moral relevance, they ascribe to epistemic rationality. These stable individual differences can be assessed using the Importance of Rationality Scale (IRS), and Moralized Rationality Scale (MRS). Furthermore, these individual differences are conceptually distinct, and associated with different cogn...
Article
Analytic thinking has been put forth as one of the processes through which people may become atheists. According to this view, people who are more (vs. less) analytically inclined should be more likely to reject the existence of deities because they rely less on the various intuitive cognitive processes that support supernatural beliefs. Consistent...
Article
Full-text available
There is a widespread cross-cultural stereotype suggesting that atheists are untrustworthy and lack a moral compass. Is there any truth to this notion? Building on theory about the cultural, (de)motivational, and cognitive antecedents of disbelief, the present research investigated whether there are reliable similarities as well as differences betw...
Article
Why does belief in the paranormal, conspiracy theories, and various other phenomena that are not backed up by evidence remain widespread in modern society? In the present research we adopt an individual difference approach, as we seek to identify psychological precursors of skepticism toward unfounded beliefs. We propose that part of the reason why...
Article
Full-text available
In the present article we demonstrate stable individual differences in the extent to which a reliance on logic and evidence in the formation and evaluation of beliefs is perceived as a moral virtue, and a reliance on less rational processes is perceived as a vice. We refer to this individual difference variable as moralized rationality. Eight studi...
Data
List of all MR and IR items in Study 1. Items included in the final MR and IR scales in italics. (DOCX)
Data
Scenarios used to describe charities in Study 8. (DOCX)
Data
Scenarios used to manipulate target rationality in Study 7. (DOCX)
Data
Scenarios used to manipulate target rationality in Study 6. (DOCX)
Data
List of all variables in each dataset. (DOCX)
Article
People generally consider it more important to reach moral standards than other types of standards (e.g., competence). In this article it is argued that pursuit of goals that have implications for one's morality (vs. competence) therefore leads to increased engagement of the central executive. A first study demonstrates that individuals perform bet...
Article
Self-interested behavior may have positive consequences for individual group-members, but also negatively affects the outcomes of the group when group-level and individual-level interests are misaligned. In two studies, we examined such self-interested, group-undermining behavior from the perspective of regulatory focus theory. We predicted that wh...
Article
Prejudice expectations and other interpersonal rejection concerns have been found to direct attention towards social evaluative information. In some studies, rejection concerns have been found to direct attention towards social acceptance cues, whereas other studies have found an attention bias towards social rejection cues. In the present article...
Article
Full-text available
In two experiments, the authors investigated how differences in social value orientation predict evaluations of procedures that were accorded to self and others. Proselfs versus prosocials were either granted or denied an opportunity to voice an opinion in a decision-making process and witnessed how someone else was either granted or denied such an...
Article
Previous research has demonstrated that stereotype threat induces a prevention focus and impairs central executive functions. The present research examines how these 2 consequences of stereotype threat are related. The authors argue that the prevention focus is responsible for the effects of stereotype threat on executive functions and cognitive pe...
Article
The results of three experiments showed that regulatory focus influences the way in which the importance and likelihood of social change affect individuals' commitment to collective action. In Studies 1 (N= 82) and 2 (N= 153), the strength of participants' chronic regulatory focus was measured. In Study 3 (N= 52), promotion or prevention focus was...
Article
Full-text available
In two studies, we investigate the effect of individuals' promotion and prevention focus on engagement in collective action. We show that responding to group-based disadvantage out of a sense of moral conviction motivates prevention-oriented- but not promotion-oriented- individuals to engage in collective action. Furthermore, holding such strong mo...
Article
Full-text available
This research examined reactions towards female rape victims from a system justification perspective. Study 1 demonstrated that gender-related system justification motivation (Modern Sexism) predicted the propensity to blame a female rape victim among men, but not among women. Modern sexism predicted rape victim blaming among men even when statisti...
Article
In four studies, the authors investigated the individual-oriented versus social-oriented nature of procedural justice effects by comparing fairness-based responses to decision-making procedures among proself versus prosocial oriented individuals. In Studies 1 through 3, we measured participants’ social value orientation and manipulated whether or n...
Article
It is argued here that expectations of bias (vs. no bias) play a key role in explaining reactions to decisions made by outgroup authorities. Two experiments demonstrate that decision acceptance (Experiment 1) and intentions to protest against an outgroup authority's decisions (Experiment 2) are affected by procedural fairness when the authority has...
Article
We investigate how the direct activation of relational versus instrumental concerns affects reactions to decisions made by an authority. It is demonstrated that when instrumental concerns are experimentally induced, people's evaluations of the authority (Studies 1 and 2) as well as their intentions to protest (Study 3) are more strongly affected by...
Article
In the present article we build on previous work suggesting that people react more strongly to the favorability of outgroup authority allocations than ingroup authority allocations. Based on theorizing and research on intergroup perception and self-categorization, we refine this argument by suggesting that responses to outgroup authorities depend o...
Article
Theorizing on procedural justice has assumed that people's reactions to outgroup authorities are to a large extent based on instrumental concerns. Therefore, attention is primarily directed to outcomes rather than procedures in encounters with outgroup authorities. In the current article we propose that in order for people dealing with outgroup aut...

Citations

... Por otro lado Ståhl & Turner (2021), realizaron un estudio para esbozar el perfil de personalidad de quienes toman las decisiones con base en la racionalidad, es decir teniendo en cuenta la evidencia al respecto de algo, pero además, tomaron en cuenta el valor moral que le daban a la racionalidad, esto implicaría que el grupo de personas que le de un valor moral a la toma de decisiones con base en evidencia, puede presentar actitudes de juicio moral más severos hacia quienes toman decisiones sin un fundamento lógico suficiente. ...
... Participants' responses to both measures were aggregated into a single index of analytic thinking (α = .70; Ståhl & Van Prooijen, 2021). ...
... Scores on the IRS and MRS are moderately related, and stable over time [4]. Studies have also demonstrated that both of these measures are positively associated with belief in science, and negatively related to a number of epistemically suspect beliefs [4,6,7,21]. ...
... Several studies have found that people who are predisposed or motivated to dismiss randomness as a possible cause for an event are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories (Dieguez et al., 2015;van Prooijen et al., 2018). Though this general idea is highly influential in the literature on conspiracy theories (e.g., Barkun, 2003;Brotherton, 2019;Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009;Taleb, 2005;van Prooijen et al., 2020;Whitson & Galinsky, 2008), the empirical evidence is actually mixed with several null effects (e.g., Adam-Troian, et al., 2019;Dieguez et al., 2015;Ståhl & van Prooijen, 2018;van der Wal et al., 2018;van Prooijen et al., 2018;Wagner-Egger et al., 2018; see also Melley, 2020). To better understand the relationship between these two variables, the current paper examines the robustness and generality of this idea in a preregistered replication and meta-analysis. ...
... Research has identified demographic (e.g., education [6]), cognitive (e.g., social cognitive processes [7]), and motivational factors (e.g., existential needs, belonging needs [8][9][10]) underlying people's adherence to conspiracy beliefs and conspiracy mentalities. The role of epistemic motives has also been discussed [11]; for instance, reducing uncertainty and finding meaning in life underlie conspiratorial thinking. ...
... In so doing, I draw on recent research into the morality of social actions and evaluation suggesting that evaluation in aggression and conflictive contexts is sustained by culturally and contextually sensitive, moral foundations (see e.g. Ståhl, Zaal and Skitka, 2016;Parvaresh, 2019;Etaywe and Zappavigna, 2021). These are: ingroup/loyalty; authority/(dis)respect; harm/care; liberty/oppression. ...
... Experimental evidence further reveals that people devote more attention to guidelines that make them seem moral than to guidelines that make them seem smart or friendly, especially when they are aware their behavior is scrutinized by other ingroup members (Ellemers, Pagliaro, Barreto, & Leach, 2008). This was demonstrated with a Stroop task, allegedly demonstrating one's Morality or Competence (Ståhl & Ellemers, 2016). Likewise, participants showed less bias on an Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998), when they considered this as a test of their Morality rather than their Competence. ...
... The implicit assumption is that since individuals high in prevention focus are concerned about their obligations and anxious about making errors, they may vigilantly monitor their conducts to guard against immoral actions that may betray their responsibilities (Gino & Margolis, 2011). In contrast, since individuals high in promotion focus are concerned about gains and success, they may eagerly pursue opportunities that may potentially compromise morality (Zaal et al., 2015). Following this argument, Welsh et al. (2015) suggested and found that prevention focus reduced people's tendency to slide down the moral slippery slope (by engaging in increasingly ethical misconducts over time). ...
... As described earlier, coping with threat can at first boost energy and resources: individuals often try extra hard to overcome stereotypes and recruit extra resources to do so Blascovich, 2007, 2010;Ståhl et al., 2012a). In fact, the prevention focus or vigilance that accompanies stereotype threat may be especially useful to recruit such resources (Seibt and Förster, 2004;Koch et al., 2008Koch et al., , 2009Ståhl et al., 2012b;see also van Peer et al., 2007;Putman and Roelofs, 2011) and to more effectively differentiate (and thus choose) between signals and environments offering threat versus safety (Seligman, 1971;Öhman and Mineka, 2001;Ståhl et al., 2012b). However, coping with workplace stigma has many aspects: constant vigilance for threat, especially among those highly identified with their stigmatized group Huo, 2017, 2018); managing and suppressing stereotype-relevant thoughts and feelings; effectively negotiating threatening contexts; choosing to confront or not confront bias; avoiding mistakes and the confirmation of group-relevant stereotypes; and more generally regulating threat (emotional coping, accepting, or resisting). ...
... Following Stahl et al. (2008), we assessed protest intentions by asking respondents to indicate on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) to what extent they would like to criticize the ruling and to what extent they would like to protest against the ruling. Respondents' answers on these two items were averaged into a reliable protest intentions scale (α = 0.85). ...