Professor, Management of Organizations, Harold Furst Chair in Management Philosophy and Values
Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley
Kushlev, K., Moon, K., Motyl, M. et al. (2026). Social technology use and life satisfaction in a five-wave panel study of US adults. [Nature Human Behavior Link]
Read MoreHerndon, A. E., Sulaiman, S., Stein, D. H., Schroeder, J., & Chatman, J. (2026). Do narcissists find the “I” in team? How narcissism in teams affects individual performance. [Academy of Management Discoveries Link]
Read MoreRodriguez, M., Motyl, M., & Schroeder, J. (2026). From social media to empathic artificial intelligence: Applying past lessons to future technologies. In Cameron, C. D., & Perry, A. (Eds.) Empathy and Artificial Intelligence: Challenges, Advances, and Ethical Considerations. Cambridge University Press.
Short Summary: This chapter synthesizes two decades of research on social media to extract lessons for new forms of social technology like GenAI. It recommends future research on social technology consider three sources of heterogeneity — 1) the type and features of the technology, 2) how it is used, and 3) who is using it — to better understand how tech will affect social life.
This chapter leverages the Neely Social Media Index and Neely Technology Indices. Interested readers can see the links for more information.
Bevis, B., Schroeder, J., & Yeomans, M. (2026). Spoken disagreement is more constructive than written disagreement. [Nature Communications Link]
Short Summary: Spoken conversations with a disagreeing counterpart lead to greater understanding, lower conflict, more favorable impressions of one’s counterpart, and greater attitude alignment than written conversations (6 experiments).
Angrisani, M., Casanova, M., Fast, N. J., Narang, J., & Schroeder, J. (2026). Gaps in large language model awareness, usage, and perceptions in the United States: Evidence from a nationally representative longitudinal survey. [PNAS Nexus Link]
Short Summary: Across two survey waves spanning one year with more than 12,000 nationally representative U.S. adults, we observed marked gaps in LLM usage: groups more likely to use LLMs included men, younger adults, those with college education and higher incomes, individuals in more analytical occupations (e.g., STEM), Democratic-leaning respondents, and those with above-median cognitive ability, internet literacy, and openness to experience. These usage gaps are not declining over time; some are getting larger.
Data available on the Understanding America Survey website: https://uasdata.usc.edu/index.php (datasets UAS 574 and UAS 607)
Updated figures with third wave of data (2023, 2024, and 2025 waves)
Moore, D. A., Schroeder, J., Bailey, E. R., Gershon, R., Moore, J. E., & Simmons, J. P. (2024). Does thinking about God increase acceptance of artificial intelligence in decision making? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Letter to Editor), 121(31), e2402315121. [PNAS Link]
Short Summary: This paper reports failed replication attempts for five studies in Karataş and Cutright (2024), shedding doubt on whether thinking about God can increase acceptance of AI in decision-making.
Schroeder, J., & Fishbach, A. (2024). Feeling known predicts relationship satisfaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 111, 1-15. [Science Direct Link]
Short Summary: This paper finds that feeling known by a relationship partner is a stronger predictor of a person's relationship satisfaction than the feeling of knowing the partner (11 studies).
Bluvstein, S.*, Zhao, X.*, Barasch, A., & Schroeder, J. (2024). Imperfectly human: The humanizing potential of (corrected) errors in text-based communication. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 9(3), 332-343. [Article Link]
Short Summary: This paper shows that online communicators (e.g., customer service agents) who make and then correct typos are seen as more likely to be human (vs. AI) than communicators who don't make any typos or make but don't correct their typos (7 experiments).
Schroeder, J. (2024). The ordinary and extraordinary struggle of social life: Perceiving, understanding, and connecting with other minds. In Carlston, D., Johnson, K., & Hugenberg, K. (Eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition. Oxford University Press. [The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition Link]
Short Summary: This chapter highlights challenges and opportunities for mind perception (how people attribute mental capacity to others) and mind reading (how people assess others’ mental states) through the lens of six different types of “minds.” Three minds illustrate forms of mind perception—invisible minds, those we cannot directly experience, dehumanized minds, those that seem weaker than our own, and anthropomorphized minds, those that we perceive but may not actually exist. The other three illustrate mind reading—misread and misunderstood minds, those that are apparent but not accurately inferred, and unlocked minds, those that can be accurately read using effective communication.
Minson, J. A., Bendersky, C., de Dreu, C., Halperin, E., & Schroeder, J. (2023). Experimental studies of conflict: Challenges, solutions, and advice to junior scholars. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 177, 104257. [Science Direct Link]
Short Summary: This editorial presents a taxonomy of successful experimental approaches to the study of conflict and offers advice to researchers seeking to make impactful contributions to this area.
Abel, J. E., Vani, P., Abi-Esber, N., Blunden, H., & Schroeder. J. (2022). Kindness in short supply: Evidence for inadequate prosocial input. Current Opinion in Psychology, 48, 101458. [Science Direct Link]
Short Summary: This paper documents when and why people fail to give “prosocial input” (i.e., (information intended to benefit others), noting that potential givers overestimate the costs of doing so (e.g., making recipients uncomfortable) and underestimate the benefits (e.g., being helpful) for at least four psychological reasons.
Ernstoff, R., Blakey, W., Womick, J., Bail, C., Finkel, E., Han, H., Sarrouf, J., Schroeder, J., Sheeran, P., Van Bavel, J., Willer, R., & Gray, K. (2022). Interventions to reduce partisan animosity. Nature Human Behavior, 6, 1194-1205. [Nature Link]
Short Summary: This paper reviews interventions designed to reduce partisan animosity (i.e., negative thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward a political outgroup). It introduces the TRI framework (Thoughts - correcting misconceptions and highlighting commonalities; Relationships - building dialogue skills and fostering positive contact; Institutions - changing public discourse and transforming political structures).
Epley, N., Kardas, M., Zhao, X., Atir, S., & Schroeder, J. (2022). Undersociality: Miscalibrated social cognition can inhibit social connection. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(5), 406-418.[Article link]
Short Summary: This paper proposes that people are less social than is optimal for their own and others’ well-being (i.e., “undersocial”). It reviews the empirical literature demonstrating that people are undersocial and suggests 3 reasons for why people are undersocial.
Awad, E., Levine, S., Anderson, M., Anderson, S. L., Conitzer, V., Crockett, M. J., Everett, J. A. C., Evgeniou, T., Gopnik, A., Jamison, J. C., Kin, T. W., Liao, S. M., Lin, P., Meyer, M. N., Mikhail, J., Opoku-Agyemang, K., Schaich Borg, J., Schroeder, J., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Slavkovik, M., & Tennenbaum, J. B. (2022). Computational ethics. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26(5), 388-405.[Article link]
Short Summary: This paper proposes a framework – computational ethics – that specifies how the ethical challenges of AI can be addressed better by incorporating the study of how humans make moral decisions.
Lieberman, A., Schroeder, J., & Amir, O. (2022). A voice inside my head: The psychological and behavioral consequences of auditory technologies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 170, 104133. [Science Direct Link]
Short Summary: This paper shows that listening to a message using headphones, compared to using speakers, increases a listener's felt closeness to the communicator(s) of the message because headphones localize sound inside a listener’s head (5 experiments).
Abi-Esber, N., Abel, J. E., Schroeder, J., & Gino, F. (2022). “Just letting you know...” Underestimating others’ desire for constructive feedback. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(6), 1362–1385. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper shows that people tend to underestimate how much others want to receive constructive feedback (5 studies). This helps to provide one possible reason why people sometimes avoid giving feedback to others even when the feedback would help fix a problem immediately.
Martin, S. R., Harrison, S. H., Hoopes, C., Schroeder, J., & Belmi, P. R. (2022). Talking shop: An exploration of how talking about work affects our initial interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 168, 104104. [Science Direct Link]
Short Summary: This paper explores the linguistic cues that distinguish conversations about work topics from conversations about non-work topics and how those differences affect conversation partners (1 field experiment and 1 lab experiment).
Stein, D. H., Schroeder, J., Hobson, N. M., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2022). When alterations are violations: Moral outrage and punishment in response to (even minor) alterations to rituals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(1), 123–153.[APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper documents the sacrosanct nature of rituals: Because group rituals symbolize sacred group values, even minor alterations to them provoke moral outrage and punishment. We find that the more that ingroup members believe their rituals symbolize their sacred group values, the more they protect their rituals— by punishing those who violate them (7 primary studies, 3 supplemental studies).
Kardas, M., Schroeder, J., & O'Brien, E. (2022). Keep talking: (Mis)understanding the hedonic trajectory of conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(4), 717–740. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper shows that people misunderstand the hedonic trajectory of conversation. They expect their enjoyment to decline as a conversation continues but instead experience stable or increasing enjoyment in reality (5 experiments).
Schroeder, J., Lyons, D., & Epley, N. (2022). Hello, stranger? Pleasant conversations are preceded by concerns about starting one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(5), 1141–1153. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper suggests a reason for why people may avoid even potentially pleasant conversations with strangers: they expect starting the conversation to be relatively unpleasant (2 field experiments).