Research

Humans are often prosocial and cooperative – they share their money with others in need or they work hard to reach high performance in a team. Yet sometimes, humans do not help others or do not contribute to the groups they operate in. Why? We investigate when and why people act prosocially towards others and cooperate in small groups – and when and why they fail to do so, may it be intentionally or unintentionally. We are interested both in situational influence factors (like risk) and in physiological aspects, that is in the effects of common psycho-physiological states (like stress or hunger), as well as the neuro-psychological underpinnings of prosocial and cooperative behaviour in groups. In this research area, we are using theory and methodology from psychology, behavioural economics, and neuroscience.

Researchers:
Nadira Faber, Lotte Pummerer, collaborators from psychology and neuroscience

Example publications: 

• Faber, N. S., & Häusser, J. A. (2022). Why stress and hunger both increase and decrease prosocial behaviour. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 49-57. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.023

• Faber, N. S., Häusser, J. A., & Kerr, N. L. (2017). Sleep deprivation impairs and caffeine enhances my performance, but not always our performance: How acting in a group can change the effects of impairments and enhancements. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21, 3-28. doi: 10.1177/1088868315609487

• Gross, J.†, Faber, N. S.†, Kappes, A., Nussberger, A.-M., Cowen, P., Browning, M., Kahane, G., Savulescu, J., Crockett, M., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2021). When Helping is Risky: The Behavioral and Neurobiological Tradeoff of Social and Risk Preferences. Psychological Science, 32, 1842-1855. doi: 10.1177/09567976211015942 ( † shared first authorship)

• Häusser, J. A., Stahlecker, C., Mojzisch, A., Leder, J., Van Lange, P. A. M., & Faber, N. S. (2019). Acute hunger does not always undermine prosociality. Nature Communications, 10, 4733. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12579-7

• Wittmann, M. K., Kolling, N., Faber, N. S., Scholl, J., Nelissen, N., & Rushworth, M. F. S. (2016). Self-other-mergence in frontal cortex during cooperation and competition. Neuron, 91, 482–493. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.06.022

Ongoing projects:

• Fabar et al.: Prosociality norms buffer the impairing effect of acute stress on sharing strategies

• Halfmann et al.: Sleep deprivation and negotiation

• Pummerer et al.: The influence of risk on character judgments of helpers

• Rottman et al.: The depth and breadth of prosocial concern

• Wittmann et al.: Basis functions for complex social decisions in dorsomedial frontal cortex

The question what is morally right or wrong fundamentally influences human behaviour. Morality determines how people treat others and want themselves to be treated, both in direct social interactions and on a societal level. We are interested in the moral views people hold, what influences those views, and how they, in turn, shape behaviour. Why do people think that some humans and their interests count more than others? What personal attributes (age, personality or other beliefs) go along with a human beings’ moral views, like whether they endorse a utilitarian morality? Next to the psychological study of such fundamental questions of morality, we aim to contribute to literature in practical philosophy with the empirical investigation of topics in bioethics. In the research area of morality, we are using theory and methodology from psychology and philosophy.

Researchers:
Nadira Faber, Ezgi Beki Körpe, Talha Körpe, Juan Carlos Marulanda Hernandez, Lotte Pummerer, collaborators from psychology and philosophy

Example publications:

• Everett, J. A. C., Faber, N. S., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018). The costs of being consequentialist: Social inference from instrumental harm and impartial beneficence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 200-216. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2018.07.004

• Faber, N. S., Douglas, T., Heise, F., & Hewstone, M. (2015). Cognitive enhancement and motivation enhancement – An empirical comparison of intuitive judgments. American Journal of Bioethics: Neuroscience, 13, 18-20. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2014.991847

• Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Caviola, L., Faber, N. S., Crockett, M. J., & Savulescu, J. (2018). Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychological Review, 125, 131-164. doi: 10.1037/rev0000093

• Lucas, S., Douglas, T., & Faber, N. S. (2024). How moral bioenhancement affects perceived praiseworthiness. Bioethics, 28, 129-137. doi: 10.1111/bioe.13237

• Schubert, S., Caviola, L., & Faber, N. S. (2019). The psychology of existential risk: Moral judgments about human extinction. Scientific Reports, 9, 15100. doi:10.1038/s41598-019-50145-9

Ongoing projects:

• Beki Körpe et al.: Utilitarianism in childhood

• Körpe et al.: Personality and utilitarianism

• Marulanda Hernandez et al.: Determinants of moral status attribution

• Morgenroth et al.: The strategic use of harm-based moral arguments in the context of women’s bodily autonomy

• Pummerer et al.: Conspiracy beliefs and moral views

An integral part of humans’ social world are non-human animals. People encounter animals on a daily basis: they can be companions, pests, or food. Humans’ relationship to animals forms an intriguing conundrum: while some animals are seen as family members (e.g., pet dogs), ill-treatment is societally accepted for others (e.g., factory-farmed pigs). We investigate what is called speciesism, that is the differential treatment of beings based on which species they belong to. What psychological criteria determine whether a person assigns a high moral value to animals or rather accepts them being harmed? How does speciesism develop from childhood to adulthood? And how does people’s cultural background influence their view on animals? We are working towards answering these questions using theory and methodology from psychology and philosophy.

Researchers:
Nadira Faber, Alexander Carter, Juan Carlos Marulanda Hernandez, collaborators from psychology and philosophy

Example publications:

• Caviola, L., Everett, J. A. C., & Faber, N. S. (2019). The moral standing of animals: Towards a psychology of speciesism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116, 1011-1029. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000182

• Caviola, L., Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Teperman, E., Savulescu, J., & Faber, N. S. (2021). Utilitarianism for animals, Kantianism for people? Harming animals and humans for the greater good. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150, 1008-1039. doi:10.1037/xge0000988

• Caviola, L., Schubert, S., Kahane, G., & Faber, N. S. (2022). Humans first: Why people value animals less than humans. Cognition, 225, 105139. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105139

• Everett, J. A. C., Caviola, L., Savulescu, J., & Faber, N. S. (2019). Speciesism, generalized prejudice, and perceptions of prejudiced others. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 22, 785–803. doi: 10.1177/1368430218816962

• McGuire, L., Palmer, S. B., & Faber, N. S. (2023). The development of speciesism: Age-related differences in the moral view of animals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14, 228-237. doi: 10.1177/19485506221086182

Ongoing projects:

• Carter et al.: The development of speciesism across cultures

• Carter et al.: Food norms and the acceptance of meat-eating across age groups

• McGuire et al.: Exploring the “missing link” in speciesism development: How adolescents reason about animals

• McGuire et al.: Motivated reasoning to justify eating animals from childhood to adulthood

• Salmen et al.: Misogyny on the menu: Gender role beliefs and the evaluation of meat alternatives

A qualitative evaluation study is being carried out on the functionality of a new advice and violence protection center in Verden (start of construction in 2024) based on four project goals: "Openness instead of anonymity", "24/7/365 protection and safety", "Separate residential units for each resident - with and without child(ren)", "Fast, comprehensive help - interdisciplinary with external experts on site". The aim of the conceptual reorientation of the violence protection work is to protect all women and children affected by violence without restrictions. The evaluation takes place at two points in time (before the move of the previous women's shelter to the new center / six months afterwards). The results of the evaluation measures will include an assessment of how the project goals of the Verden "Mittendrin - Offen - Sicher" counseling and violence protection center have been implemented. The results will enable a well-founded description of the conceptual changes from the subjective perspective of the users. The survey methods used are workshops, group discussions and expert interviews. The evaluation methods will be qualitative content analysis and the core set method. 

Researchers:

Iris Stahlke, collaborators from organizational psychology 

Example publications:

• Schmidt-Semisch, H.; Stahlke, I.; Rubscheit, S.; Schnepf, F.; Jochem, G., (2023): Das Bremer Hilfesystem für gewaltbetroffene Frauen. Eine qualitative Erhebung der Betroffenenperspektive, in: Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung 19, S.198-205, Download PDF 
• Stahlke, I. (2022). Häusliche Gewalt - Forschungsstand. In: A. Behrmann, K. Riekenbrauk, I. Stahlke & G. Temme (Hrsg.), Handbuch Psychosoziale Prozessbegleitung(S. 695-718). Opladen: Budrich, Download über die Universitätsbibliothek Bremen, Download PDF
• Kühn, T. & Stahlke, I. (2017). Das Unsichtbare sichtbar machen – Psychodynamische und humanistische Ansätze als Grundlage für Verstehen in der Beratung. In: Wirtschaftspsychologie. 19. Jahrgang, IV 2017