Vladas Griskevicius
University of Minnesota
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Vladas Griskevicius.
Psychological Science | 2007
P. Wesley Schultz; Jessica M. Nolan; Robert B. Cialdini; Noah J. Goldstein; Vladas Griskevicius; San Marcos
Despite a long tradition of effectiveness in laboratory tests, normative messages have had mixed success in changing behavior in field contexts, with some studies showing boomerang effects. To test a theoretical account of this inconsistency, we conducted a field experiment in which normative messages were used to promote household energy conservation. As predicted, a descriptive normative message detailing average neighborhood usage produced either desirable energy savings or the undesirable boomerang effect, depending on whether households were already consuming at a low or high rate. Also as predicted, adding an injunctive message (conveying social approval or disapproval) eliminated the boomerang effect. The results offer an explanation for the mixed success of persuasive appeals based on social norms and suggest how such appeals should be properly crafted.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin | 2008
Jessica M. Nolan; P. Wesley Schultz; Robert B. Cialdini; Noah J. Goldstein; Vladas Griskevicius
The present research investigated the persuasive impact and detectability of normative social influence. The first study surveyed 810 Californians about energy conservation and found that descriptive normative beliefs were more predictive of behavior than were other relevant beliefs, even though respondents rated such norms as least important in their conservation decisions. Study 2, a field experiment, showed that normative social influence produced the greatest change in behavior compared to information highlighting other reasons to conserve, even though respondents rated the normative information as least motivating. Results show that normative messages can be a powerful lever of persuasion but that their influence is underdetected.
Perspectives on Psychological Science | 2010
Douglas T. Kenrick; Vladas Griskevicius; Steven L. Neuberg; Mark Schaller
Maslow’s pyramid of human needs, proposed in 1943, has been one of the most cognitively contagious ideas in the behavioral sciences. Anticipating later evolutionary views of human motivation and cognition, Maslow viewed human motives as based in innate and universal predispositions. We revisit the idea of a motivational hierarchy in light of theoretical developments at the interface of evolutionary biology, anthropology, and psychology. After considering motives at three different levels of analysis, we argue that the basic foundational structure of the pyramid is worth preserving, but that it should be buttressed with a few architectural extensions. By adding a contemporary design feature, connections between fundamental motives and immediate situational threats and opportunities should be highlighted. By incorporating a classical element, these connections can be strengthened by anchoring the hierarchy of human motives more firmly in the bedrock of modern evolutionary theory. We propose a renovated hierarchy of fundamental motives that serves as both an integrative framework and a generative foundation for future empirical research.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | 2009
Joshua M. Tybur; Debra Lieberman; Vladas Griskevicius
What is the function of disgust? Whereas traditional models have suggested that disgust serves to protect the self or neutralize reminders of our animal nature, an evolutionary perspective suggests that disgust functions to solve 3 qualitatively different adaptive problems related to pathogen avoidance, mate choice, and social interaction. The authors investigated this 3-domain model of disgust across 4 studies and examined how sensitivity to these functional domains relates to individual differences in other psychological constructs. Consistent with their predictions, factor analyses demonstrated that disgust sensitivity partitions into domains related to pathogens, sexuality, and morality. Further, sensitivity to the 3 domains showed predictable differentiation based on sex, perceived vulnerability to disease, psychopathic tendencies, and Big 5 personality traits. In exploring these 3 domains of disgust, the authors introduce a new measure of disgust sensitivity. Appreciation of the functional heterogeneity of disgust has important implications for research on individual differences in disgust sensitivity, emotion, clinical impairments, and neuroscience.
Developmental Psychology | 2012
Bruce J. Ellis; Marco Del Giudice; Thomas J. Dishion; Aurelio José Figueredo; Peter Gray; Vladas Griskevicius; Patricia H. Hawley; W. Jake Jacobs; Jenée James; Anthony A. Volk; David Sloan Wilson
This article proposes an evolutionary model of risky behavior in adolescence and contrasts it with the prevailing developmental psychopathology model. The evolutionary model contends that understanding the evolutionary functions of adolescence is critical to explaining why adolescents engage in risky behavior and that successful intervention depends on working with, instead of against, adolescent goals and motivations. The current article articulates 5 key evolutionary insights into risky adolescent behavior: (a) The adolescent transition is an inflection point in development of social status and reproductive trajectories; (b) interventions need to address the adaptive functions of risky and aggressive behaviors like bullying; (c) risky adolescent behavior adaptively calibrates over development to match both harsh and unpredictable environmental conditions; (d) understanding evolved sex differences is critical for understanding the psychology of risky behavior; and (e) mismatches between current and past environments can dysregulate adolescent behavior, as demonstrated by age-segregated social groupings. The evolutionary model has broad implications for designing interventions for high-risk youth and suggests new directions for research that have not been forthcoming from other perspectives.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | 2011
Vladas Griskevicius; Joshua M. Tybur; Andrew W. Delton; Theresa E. Robertson
Why do some people take risks and live for the present, whereas others avoid risks and save for the future? The evolutionary framework of life history theory predicts that preferences for risk and delay in gratification should be influenced by mortality and resource scarcity. A series of experiments examined how mortality cues influenced decisions involving risk preference (e.g.,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | 2011
Jill M. Sundie; Douglas T. Kenrick; Vladas Griskevicius; Joshua M. Tybur; Kathleen D. Vohs; Daniel J. Beal
10 for sure vs. 50% chance of
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | 2006
Vladas Griskevicius; Robert B. Cialdini; Douglas T. Kenrick
20) and temporal discounting (e.g.,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | 2011
Vladas Griskevicius; Andrew W. Delton; Theresa E. Robertson; Joshua M. Tybur
5 now vs.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology | 2009
Vladas Griskevicius; Joshua M. Tybur; Steven W. Gangestad; Elaine F. Perea; Jenessa R. Shapiro; Douglas T. Kenrick
10 later). The effect of mortality depended critically on whether people grew up in a relatively resource-scarce or resource-plentiful environment. For individuals who grew up relatively poor, mortality cues led them to value the present and gamble for big immediate rewards. Conversely, for individuals who grew up relatively wealthy, mortality cues led them to value the future and avoid risky gambles. Overall, mortality cues appear to propel individuals toward diverging life history strategies as a function of childhood socioeconomic status, suggesting important implications for how environmental factors influence economic decisions and risky behaviors.