The Golden Rule Ethic, its Measurement, and Relationships with Well-Being and Prosocial Values Across Four Religions in India

As a psychological principle, the golden rule represents an ethic of universal empathic concern. It is, surprisingly, present in the sacred texts of virtually all religions, and in philosophical works across eras and continents. Building on the literature demonstrating a positive impact of prosocial behavior on well-being, the present study investigates the psychological function of universal empathic concern in Indian Hindus, Christians, Muslims and Sikhs.

I develop a measure of the centrality of the golden rule-based ethic, within an individual’s understanding of his or her religion, that is applicable to all theistic religions. I then explore the consistency of its relationships with psychological well-being and other variables across religious groups.

Results indicate that this construct, named Moral Concern Religious Focus, can be reliably measured in disparate religious groups, and consistently predicts well-being across them. With measures of Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Quest religious orientations in the model, only Moral Concern and religiosity predict well-being. Moral Concern alone mediates the relationship between religiosity and well-being, and explains more variance in well-being than religiosity alone. The relationship between Moral Concern and well-being is mediated by increased preference for prosocial values, more satisfying interpersonal relationships, and greater meaning in life. In addition, across religious groups Moral Concern is associated with better self-reported physical and mental health, and more compassionate attitudes toward oneself and others.

Two additional types of religious focus are identified: Personal Gain, representing the motive to use religion to improve one’s life, and Relationship with God. Personal Gain is found to predict reduced preference for prosocial values, less meaning in life, and lower quality of relationships. It is associated with greater interference of pain and physical or mental health problems with daily activities, and lower self-compassion. Relationship with God is found to be associated primarily with religious variables and greater meaning in life.

I conclude that individual differences in the centrality of the golden rule and its associated ethic of universal empathic concern may play an important role in explaining the variability in associations between religion, prosocial behavior and well-being noted in the literature.

Brands, Close Relationships, and Consumer Well-Being

Consumers have relationships with other people, and they have relationships with brands similar to the ones they have with other people. Yet, very little is known about how brand and interpersonal relationships relate to one another. Even less is known about how they jointly affect consumer well-being. The goal of this research, therefore, is to examine how brand and interpersonal relationships influence and are influenced by consumer well-being. Essay 1 uses both empirical methods and surveys from individuals and couples to investigate how consumer preferences in romantic couples, namely brand compatibility, influences life satisfaction. Using traditional statistical techniques and multilevel modeling, I find that the effect of brand compatibility, or the extent to which individuals have similar brand preferences, on life satisfaction depends upon power in the relationship. For high power partners, brand compatibility has no effect on life satisfaction. On the other hand, for low power partners, low brand compatibility is associated with decreased life satisfaction. I find that conflict mediates the link between brand compatibility and power on life satisfaction. In Essay 2 I again use empirical methods and surveys to investigate how resources, which can be considered a form of consumer well-being, influence brand and interpersonal relations. Although social connections have long been considered a fundamental human motivation and deemed necessary for well-being (Baumeister and Leary 1995), recent research has demonstrated that having greater resources is associated with weaker social connections. In the current research I posit that individuals with greater resources still have a need to connect and are using other sources for connection, namely brands. Across several studies I test and find support for my theory that resource level shifts the preference of social connection from people to brands. Specifically, I find that individuals with greater resources have stronger brand relationships, as measured by self-brand connection, brand satisfaction, purchase intentions and willingness to pay with both existing brand relationships and with new brands. This suggests that individuals with greater resources place more emphasis on these relationships. Furthermore, I find that resource level influences the stated importance of brand and interpersonal relationships, and that having or perceiving greater resources is associated with an increased preference to engage with brands over people. This research demonstrates that there are times when people prefer and seek out connections with brands over other people, and highlights the ways in which our brand and interpersonal relationships influence one another.

Psychological and Interpersonal Implications of Believing that Everything is One: Identity, Personality, Values, and Worldviews

For thousands of years, people from a variety of philosophical, religious, spiritual, and scientific perspectives have believed in the fundamental unity of all that exists, and this belief appears to be increasingly prevalent in Western cultures. The present research was the first investigation of the psychological and interpersonal implications of believing in oneness. Self-report measures were developed to assess three distinct variants of the belief in oneness – belief in the fundamental oneness of everything, of all living things, and of humanity – and studies examined how believing in oneness is associated with people’s self-views, attitudes, personality, emotions, and behavior. Using both correlational and experimental approaches, the findings supported the hypothesis that believing in oneness is associated with feeling greater connection and concern for people, nonhuman animals, and the environment, and in being particularly concerned for people and things beyond one’s immediate circle of friends and family. The belief is also associated with experiences in which everything is perceived to be one, and with certain spiritual and esoteric beliefs. Although the three variations of belief in oneness were highly correlated and related to other constructs similarly, they showed evidence of explaining unique variance in conceptually relevant variables. Belief in the oneness of humanity, but not belief in the oneness of living things, uniquely explained variance in prosociality, empathic concern, and compassion for others. In contrast, belief in the oneness of living things, but not belief in oneness of humanity, uniquely explained variance in beliefs and concerns regarding the well-being of nonhuman animals and the environment. The belief in oneness is a meaningful existential belief that is endorsed to varying degrees by a nontrivial portion of the population and that has numerous implications for people’s personal well-being and interactions with people, animals, and the natural world.

Selecting renal replacement therapies: what do African American and non-African American patients and their families think others should know? A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the types of information African American and non-African American patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their families need to inform renal replacement therapy (RRT) decisions. METHODS: In 20 structured group interviews, we elicited views of African American and non-African American patients with CKD and their families about factors that should be addressed in educational materials informing patients' RRT selection decisions. We asked participants to select factors from a list and obtained their open-ended feedback. RESULTS: Ten groups of patients (5 African American, 5 non-African American; total 68 individuals) and ten groups of family members (5 African American, 5 non-African American; total 62 individuals) participated. Patients and families had a range (none to extensive) of experiences with various RRTs. Patients identified morbidity or mortality, autonomy, treatment delivery, and symptoms as important factors to address. Family members identified similar factors but also cited the effects of RRT decisions on patients' psychological well-being and finances. Views of African American and non-African American participants were largely similar. CONCLUSIONS: Educational resources addressing the influence of RRT selection on patients' morbidity and mortality, autonomy, treatment delivery, and symptoms could help patients and their families select RRT options closely aligned with their values. Including information about the influence of RRT selection on patients' personal relationships and finances could enhance resources' cultural relevance for African Americans.