Professor, Management of Organizations, Harold Furst Chair in Management Philosophy and Values
Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley
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).
Kim, T., Sezer, O., Schroeder, J., Risen, J., Gino, F., & Norton, M.I. (2021). Work group rituals enhance the meaning of work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 165, 197-212. [Science Direct Link]
Short Summary: This paper shows groups that perform more ritualistic behaviors together can feel their group work is more meaningful, which is associated with more organizational citizenship behaviors (5 studies).
Schroeder, J. (2021). Ending conversation is a fraught endeavor. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(7), 552-553. [Cell Press Link]
Short Summary: This is a commentary discussing the provocative conclusion from Mastroianni et al. (2021) that “conversations rarely end when people want them to end.”
Stein, D. H., Hobson, N. M., & Schroeder, J. (2021). A sacred commitment: How rituals promote group survival. Current Opinion in Psychology, 40, 114-120. [Science Direct Link]
Short Summary: This paper proposes that rituals enhance religious group survival not only by signaling external commitment but also by fostering internal commitment toward the group in three ways: (1) enhancing belief in the group’s values (‘committed cognition’), (2) increasing the desire to maintain membership in the group (‘committed affect’), and (3) increasing contributions to the welfare of the group (‘committed behavior’).
Belmi, P., & Schroeder, J. (2021). Human “resources”? Objectification at work. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(2), 384-417.[APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper shows that people engage in more objectification—treating people akin to objects—in work contexts than in non-work contexts because people engage in more calculative and strategic thinking at work (7 studies).
Listen to Dr. Peter Belmi talk about this research and its implications here →
White, S., Schroeder, J., & Risen, J. L. (2021). When “enemies” become close: Relationship formation among Palestinians and Jewish Israelis at a youth camp. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 76-94. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper uses 7 years of data from Jewish Israeli and Palestinian teenagers attending a three-week summer camp (Seeds of Peace) to show that propinquity (here, being quasi-randomly assigned to share an activity group together) increases the formation of outgroup relationships more than ingroup relationships (1 longitudinal field study). Thus, at least in this setting, propinquity counteracted homophily.
Note regarding data: Due to confidentiality concerns from the Institutional Review Board, we cannot publicly post data. Interested researchers can contact jschroeder@berkeley.edu directly to learn more about the data, and to submit a joint IRB protocol for access to the data.
Habbert, R., & Schroeder, J. (2020). To build efficacy, eat the frog first: People misunderstand how the difficulty-ordering of tasks influences efficacy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104032. [Science Direct Link]
Short Summary: This paper shows that completing tasks in increasing-easiness order builds efficacy more than increasing-difficulty (or randomized) order, but people prefer to complete tasks in the opposing order in part because they inaccurately believe that doing so will enhance their efficacy (7 experiments).
Schroeder, J., & Epley, N. (2020). Demeaning: Dehumanizing others by minimizing the importance of their psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119, 765-791. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper identifies a novel facet of dehumanization, the tendency to “demean” others’ needs by believing that psychological needs (e.g., need for meaning, autonomy) are relatively less important to others compared to physical needs (e.g., need for food and sleep; 9 experiments).
Rosenblum, M., Schroeder, J., & Gino, F. (2020). Tell is like it is: When politically incorrect language promotes authenticity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119, 75-103. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper tests how political language influences impressions of a communicator. Using more politically incorrect (vs. correct) language made a communicator appear more authentic but less warm, and these impressions were moderated by both the political ideology of the perceiver and of the target group to whom the language was applied. (9 experiments).
Outstanding Research Award, Society for Personality and Social Psychology
Dellaert, B., Shu, S., Arentze, T., Baker, T., Diehl, K., Donkers, B., Haeubl, G., Johnson, H., Karmarkar, U., Oppewal, H., Schmitt, B., Schroeder, J., Spiller, S., & Steffel, M. (2020). Consumer decisions with artificially intelligent voice assistants. Marketing Letters, 31(4), 335-347. [Springer Link]
Short Summary: Consumers are widely adopting Artificially Intelligent Voice Assistants. This paper (1) provides an overview of how consumer decision-making may change in the presence of AI voice assistants and (2) discusses how marketing managers and policymakers could effectively respond to these effects of AI voice assistants on consumer decisions.
Based on an Invitational Choice Symposium on Automated Decision Dialogues (2019)
Fast, N., & Schroeder, J. (2020). Power and decision making: new directions for research in the age of artificial intelligence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 172-176. [Science Direct Link]
Short Summary: New advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are creating the potential to experience power in human–AI interactions. This paper reviews findings on power and decision making in the context of human–human interactions and then considers how they may be meaningfully extended through interactions with artificially intelligent digital assistants.
Lieberman, A., & Schroeder, J. (2019). Two social lives: How differences between online and offline interaction influence social outcomes. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 16-21. [Science Direct Link]
Short Summary: Today, people communicate more online than offline. What does this shift mean for human social life? This paper provides a framework for studying the influence of technology on social life.
Sharps, D., & Schroeder, J. (2019). The preference for distributed helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 954-977. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper investigates the psychology underlying how people decide to allocate help (e.g., donations) among multiple needy requesters, and documents a preference for distribution (allocating help to multiple requesters) compared to concentration (allocating help to a single requester) (9 experiments).
Data and Materials, Pre-registration (Exp. 2), Pre-registration (Exp. 3), Pre-registration (Exp. 4), Pre-registration (Exp. 5a), Pre-registration (Exp. 5b)
See Dr. Juliana Schroeder talk about this Distributed Helping paper here →
Schroeder, J., Risen, J.L., Gino, F. & Norton, M.I. (2019). Handshaking promotes dealmaking by signaling cooperative intent. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 743-768. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper uses the context of economic games and integrative and distributive negotiations to examine whether handshakes—greeting rituals imbued with meaning beyond mere physical contact—signal a counterpart's intent to be cooperative and promote deal-making outcomes (7 studies).
Best Student-led Paper Award, International Association for Conflict Management
Data, Materials, and Audit, Pre-registration (Study 5 replication)
Hobson, N.M., Schroeder, J., Risen, J.L., Xygalatas, D., & Inzlicht, M. (2018). The psychology of rituals: An integrative review and process-based framework. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22, 260-284. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: Rituals primarily regulate (1) social connection, (2) emotions, and (3) performance goal states. This paper proposes a framework linking the top-down and bottom-up mechanisms behind each of these regulatory functions.
Student Publication Prize, Society for Personality and Social Psychology
Schroeder, J., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2017). The humanizing voice: Speech reveals, and text conceals, a more thoughtful mind in the midst of disagreement. Psychological Science, 28, 1745-1762. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: Disagreement on important political issues can incite dehumanization. This paper shows that hearing opposing opinions (vs. reading them) can reduce dehumanizing judgments of the opposition (4 experiments).
Schroeder, J., Fishbach, A., Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2017). Functional intimacy: Needing—but not wanting—the touch of a stranger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 910-924. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper shows that when intimacy is functional (i.e., for the purpose of achieving a non-relational goal), it leads recipients to prefer social distance from the service provider (7 experiments).
Schroeder, J., Waytz, A., & Epley, N. (2017). Endorsing help for others that you oppose for yourself: Mind perception alters the perceived effectiveness of paternalism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 1106-1125. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper shows that believing a person has less mental capacity makes givers expect paternalism will be a more effective method of helping the person (9 experiments).
Supplementals, Data, Analyses, Materials, Pre-registrations, Another Pre-registration
Schroeder, J., & Epley, N. (2016). Mistaking minds and machines: How speech affects dehumanization and anthropomorphism. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145, 1427-1437. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper shows that hearing a human speech (compared with reading the same words in text or watching a human communicator with subtitles) makes evaluators more likely to believe a script was created by a human (vs. computer) regardless of whether it actually was created by a human (4 experiments).
Schroeder, J., Caruso, E., & Epley, N. (2016). Many hands make overlooked work: Overclaiming of responsibility increases with group size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 22, 238-246. [APA PsycNet Link]
Short Summary: This paper finds that overclaiming (i.e., when group members’ contribution claims sum to more than 100 percent) increases as the group size increases because people fail to sufficiently consider their group members’ contributions (4 studies).