People tend to align their policy attitudes with the stereotypical attitudes of their political group (e.g., conservatives supporting gun rights, liberals supporting abortion rights). However, ingroups sometimes adopt positions that contradict such stereotypes (e.g., some liberals endorse gun rights, some conservatives endorse abortion rights). How does learning about these counter-stereotypical endorsements influence people’s attitudes toward the policy? Do such endorsements persuade the ingroups to support the policy, dissuade outgroups, or both? In the latter case, are these effects symmetric or asymmetric in magnitude? Five experiments conducted in a highly polarized society (Brazil; N = 3,380) demonstrate that policy endorsements made from counter-stereotypical sources (i.e., individuals who support a policy that most of their ingroups are perceived to oppose) systematically persuade the source’s ingroups and, to a lesser extent, dissuade outgroups—a pattern that reduces intergroup differences in policy attitudes. This phenomenon generalizes across a variety of policies (e.g., abortion, gun rights, welfare programs) and types of endorsers (e.g., political elites and regular citizens). Attitude change occurs even if beliefs about the societal benefits of the policy remain relatively stable but disappear when people are prompted to question the source’s ingroup status. Source credibility, perceived ingroup norms, and perceived policy extremity help explain the persuasive effects of counter-stereotypical sources.

Environmental sustainability is often depicted as an important attribute of consideration among consumers. Even if multiple barriers may prevent them from “walking the talk,” a common implicit assumption is that consumers think about sustainability but choose a less eco-friendly route once confronted with such obstacles (e.g., higher prices). Absent from the literature, however, is a systematic investigation of the extent to which sustainability thoughts even come to consumers’ minds. Across six studies using a diverse set of measurements (free and aided elicitation), time of purchase (past or contemporaneous), consumer contexts (online or brick-and-mortar settings), levels of consequentialism (hypothetical or incentive-compatible), and samples (Brazil, UK, and US; N=7,942), our research consistently demonstrates that most consumers neglect the products’ environmental impact when making purchase decisions of fast-moving consumer goods. Environmental sustainability considerations are low in absolute terms, relative to other attributes, and even compared to participants’ own injunctive norms. Cognitive accessibility and contextual salience help explain the phenomenon. Considerations increase among consumers with strong environmental goals (e.g., high on biospheric values), for products highly prototypical of the sustainability cause (e.g., plastic bags), and when consumers are prompted with sustainability cues prior to choice (e.g., eco-labels). Methodological, managerial, and policy implications are discussed, and a simple framework to promote environmental sustainability consideration is proposed.

Although researchers have considered the role of morality in consumer psychology, such investigations often fail to (a) recognize the different values that consumers might hold, and (b) provide proper context for why different moral considerations emerge. Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) provides just such a conceptual framework for understanding the diversity of moral thought that exists across cultures and demographic groups. We review the central claims of MFT and describe how it can offer new insights when applied to consumer psychology, providing examples from existing research on persuasion, emotion, and prosocial behavior.

We set forth an agenda for Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) research in consumer psychology, focusing in particular on four pathways: 1) factoring in multiple identities, including moral identities, to account for contextual elevation or suppression of moral foundations in predicting which decisions consumers moralize and when; 2) broadening the methodological usage of MFT to include more targeted causal research as well as expanding the utility of correlational research; 3) increasing discriminant validity between MFT and other constructs by studying moral foundations as individually manipulable and focusing on their incremental predictive validity over and above demographics and related constructs; and 4) recognizing that researcher biases regarding morality can leak into the publication process, necessitating clear distinctions between prescriptive versus descriptive research. These pathways facilitate more precise and stronger predictive validity for applying MFT in consumer psychology, yielding greater theoretical and practical utility across researcher perspectives.

Previous research has demonstrated that the wealthy harm the environment to a much greater extent than those with lesser means. According to recent estimates, the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population emit 50% more CO2 than the bottom half of the income distribution. The reason for this inequality is clear: affluence boosts consumption, which in turn increases the ecological footprint. Although the phenomenon seems intuitive, little is known as to whether the layperson notices it. The current study assesses the extent to which individuals recognize or fail to notice such massive ecological footprint inequality and why misperceptions may arise. Across four preregistered studies (N = 1,188) conducted in a highly unequal socio-economic environment (Brazil), we show that people often fail to accurately perceive the massive ecological footprint inequality that surrounds them. These misperceptions are explained by people’s (a) failure to properly incorporate the impact of income-based differences in consumption in their ecological footprint assessments and (b) tendency to associate wealth with superior environmental education, greater resources to act sustainably, and better local infrastructure (e.g., proper garbage collection). Emphasizing the lack of infrastructure in deprived neighborhoods further exacerbates the misperceptions, whereas highlighting key differences in consumption habits across the socio-economic spectrum substantially increases accuracy. This research, thus, identifies the factors that magnify existing misperceptions in ecological footprint inequality and provides avenues for policymakers to reduce such mistakes.

While political polarization in policy opinions, preferences, and observance is well established, little is known about whether and how such divisions evolve, and possibly attenuate, over time. Using the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil as the backdrop, we examine the longitudinal evolution of a highly relevant and polarizing policy: adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination. In three studies, we demonstrate that even in a highly politicized and divided social environment, the attenuation of political polarization can emerge over time. Studies 1 (N = 3,346) and 2 (N = 10,214) use nationwide surveys to document that despite substantial differences at the early stages of rollout, the gap in vaccination adherence between conservatives (“Bolsonaristas”) and non-conservatives (“non-Bolsonaristas”) significantly decreased with the passage of time, driven essentially by a much faster uptake among the initially most skeptic—the conservatives. With an original dataset (N = 742), Study 3 demonstrates that the asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence were associated with meaningful belief changes among the conservatives, especially about the perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines and the expected adherence of peers to the vaccination campaign. Together, these studies show that, in a context where the superiority of the promoted policy becomes clear over time and individuals have the opportunity to revisit prior beliefs, even intense political polarization can be attenuated.

People tend to believe they are more (less) likely to experience positive (negative) outcomes than similar others. While research has consistently shown that feeling unrealistically optimistic about future events influences the adoption of self-protective behaviors, much less is known about the opposite relationship. We address this gap by examining whether and how self-protective behaviors influence unrealistic optimism in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Across two preregistered, high-powered experiments ( N = 4,707), we document a generalized unrealistic optimism about the health risks associated with COVID-19. Critically, we show that prompting people to think about a precautionary behavior they often perform (i.e., mask wearing) magnifies this preexisting tendency. Egocentrism, but not self-enhancement and/or better-than-average effects, helps to explain the phenomenon. Theoretical contributions and substantive implications to health risk research and policy are discussed.

Social distancing practices have been widely recommended to curb the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the medical consensus, many citizens have resisted adhering to and/or supporting its implementation. While this resistance may stem from the non-negligible personal economic costs of implementing social distancing, we argue that it may also reside in more fundamental differences in normative principles and belief systems, as reflected by political orientation. In a study conducted in Brazil, we test the relative importance of these explanations by examining whether and how support for social distancing varies according to self-identified political orientation and personal economic vulnerability. Results show that while economic vulnerability does not influence support for social distancing, conservatives are systematically less supportive of these practices than liberals. Discrepancies in sensitivity to threats to the economic system help explain the phenomenon.

Affective polarization is commonly associated with negative sociopolitical outcomes, such as discrimination and the erosion of democratic norms. We assess liking and perceived intelligence over 5 waves of an original, pre-registered, and representative survey with 4 panel waves (N = 1,938-2,931) conducted before, during, and after the 2022 Brazilian elections. Levels and trends of affective polarization vary by political group definition. We document intense feelings between those with intention to vote for Lula vs. Bolsonaro before the election campaign, which remained stable through the elections, thereafter fading slightly, and approximately symmetrically. Experimental treatments correcting misperceptions of ingroup and outgroup opinions about controversial issues reduced outgroup animosity. As per the 8 January 2023 riots, we found no evidence that the Brazilian team’s performance in the FIFA World Cup impacted affective polarization between Lulistas and Bolsonaristas overall (yet across matches, differing symbolic perceptions of the team shirt were associated with opposite trends).

Older adults are more likely to share political misinformation than younger adults. Using Signal Detection Theory, this research examines two explanations: (a) age reduces the ability to distinguish true from false information, and (b) older people exhibit stronger partisan sharing patterns regardless of veracity. A study in the United States and Brazil (N’s =736 and 720, respectively) finds that age is linked to stronger partisan biases in sharing political news but not to reduced discernment or overall sharing. Age predicts greater partisan bias even after considering income, education, political orientation, and thinking style. This research shows that older individuals' sharing tendencies are driven more by partisan leanings than cognitive decline, providing key insights into why they are active sharers of misinformation.

Mental accounting is a construct that seeks to explain incongruent decision-making in which individuals weigh financial values relative to the context, rather than simply the actual amount. The construct plays a central role in behavioral sciences and challenges posed to classical economic theories. This preregistered work tests the replicability of seven studies covering the most important effects associated with mental accounting, such as emotion, relative values, and sunk costs. Across 5,589 participants from 21 countries, hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis showed a 100% replication rate across all seven. Unpooled analysis revealed a 90.5% replication rate (133 out of 147 effects). Effect sizes were only slightly weaker than the original studies. Exploratory analysis on the moderating effects of financial literacy and socio-demographic information was inconclusive, thus reiterating mental accounting as a pervasive phenomenon. Findings also support the robustness of the original studies across time and culture, confirming the role of mental accounting as a critical driver of human decision-making.

Mental accounting is a construct that seeks to explain incongruent decision-making in which individuals weigh financial values relative to the context, rather than simply the actual amount. The construct plays a central role in behavioral sciences and challenges posed to classical economic theories. This preregistered work tests the replicability of seven studies covering the most important effects associated with mental accounting, such as emotion, relative values, and sunk costs. Across 5,589 participants from 21 countries, hierarchical Bayesian meta-analysis showed a 100% replication rate across all seven. Unpooled analysis revealed a 90.5% replication rate (133 out of 147 effects). Effect sizes were only slightly weaker than the original studies. Exploratory analysis on the moderating effects of financial literacy and socio-demographic information was inconclusive, thus reiterating mental accounting as a pervasive phenomenon. Findings also support the robustness of the original studies across time and culture, confirming the role of mental accounting as a critical driver of human decision-making.