Selected Research
Whoever is Not With Me is Against Me:
The 'Moderate As Out-Group' Effect
Common intuition suggests that expressing moderate views would allow people to appeal to the broadest audience possible. But is that really the case? Across four preregistered studies (N = 2,476), we show that individuals holding a partisan view on a sociopolitical issue perceive moderates (i.e., people disclosing a genuinely non-extreme position on such issue) as belonging to the out-group ideology. We find that the ‘moderate as out-group’ effect occurs when sociopolitical issues are moralized (i.e., one side is perceived to be moral and the other immoral) and at the same time the opposing side is perceived to be a threat to oneself, close ones, or society at large. We also present evidence that the effect is due to people's perception that moderates agree with the opposing (immoral and threatening) ideology, rather than disagree with their own. In fact, the ‘moderate as out-group’ effect occurs when the moderate view is framed as ‘pro-both’ sides, but it is attenuated when it is framed as ‘pro-neither’ side.
Maimone G, & McKenzie CRM
Citation Penalties Following Sexual versus Scientific Misconduct Allegations
Maimone G, Appel G, McKenzie CRM, & Gneezy A (2025) Citation Penalties Following Sexual versus Scientific Misconduct Allegations,
PLoS ONE 20(3): e0317736. 10.1371/journal.pone.0317736
[PDF manuscript, PDF supplementary information]
Citations in academia have long been regarded as a fundamental means of acknowledging the contribution of past work and promoting scientific advancement. However, our analysis of data encompassing 31,941 publications across 18 diverse academic disciplines reveals that citations may also serve as a currency to reward and punish scientists’ morality. In particular, we find that the citation rates of scholars accused of sexual misconduct decrease in the three years after the accusations become public, while we do not find a significant citation penalty in the same time frame for scholars accused of scientific fraud. These findings add a new dimension to a body of research showing that citation decisions are sensitive to factors unrelated to a publication's scientific merit.
Not All Attributions Are Self-Serving:
Reconciling the Preferences for Assuming and Conceding Agency over Negative Outcomes
Two motives govern attributional preferences. One is self-determination, according to which people have a general desire for control over their lives and environment. The other is self-enhancement, according to which people are motivated to sustain their sense of self-worth. Whereas both motives predict a preference for assuming agency over positive outcomes, they make competing predictions for attributional preferences over negative outcomes. Specifically, self-determination predicts a preference for assuming agency, while self-enhancement predicts a preference for conceding agency to others. In three preregistered experiments (N=1,246), we reconcile these inconsistent predictions about attributional preferences over negative outcomes. We find that when negative outcomes are caused by single agents (oneself or someone else), people prefer assuming agency over these outcomes. However, when negative outcomes are caused jointly by multiple agents (oneself and someone else), people prefer conceding agency over these outcomes to others.
Maimone G, Vosgerau J, & Gneezy A
How Word Reversibility Impacts Message Efficacy
Maimone G, Karmarkar UR, & Amir O
From interpersonal to political messages, our world revolves around people making sense of communications. The present research illustrates how certain lexical choices affect message efficacy. Past work has shown that words can differ in their “reversibility,” that is, how easily their antonyms can be retrieved. We propose a novel concept-processing account predicting when and how synonyms that differ in reversibility engage distinct psychological processes that differentially affect downstream judgments and behaviors. First, we test the marketing implications of this account in a large-scale field experiment on a social media platform (N=20,118) where we show our framework’s predictions can be used to increase engagement with a non-profit’s persuasive messaging about aid to victims of war. We then provide evidence validating our theoretical framework in a controlled experiment in the lab (N=268).