Associate Professor, Management of Organizations, Harold Furst Chair in Management Philosophy and Values
Haas School of Business, University of California at Berkeley
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, 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, 104559. [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. Automation in Marketing and Consumption, 9(3). [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).
Epley, N., Kardas, M., Zhao, X., Atir, S., & Schroeder, J. (2022). Undersociality: Miscalibrated social cognition can inhibit social connection. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 26, 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, 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, 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. [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, 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, 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. (2021). 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).
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, 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, 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
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)