Apart or a part of : changing the construal of social choices to improve wellbeing
Keywords: Psychology.

The dominant guiding narrative in the U.S. is that people are individually in control of and responsible for their lives--the individual is considered as separate and apart from others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; 1994; Markus, 2017). Though this narrative has produced incredible technological and economic development in the Western world, many of the most urgent global demands, such as climate change and extreme inequality, will require an emphasis not on individual autonomy, but on people's fundamental interconnectedness with and accountability to one another and the natural world--or, an emphasis on how people are a part of a larger whole (e.g., Hamedani, Markus, & Fu, 2013). In this dissertation, I examine how foregrounding either individual autonomy or accountability to others as the salient guiding narrative can influence the meaning and likelihood of certain behaviors. In Part 1, I first demonstrate that people have differing ideologies about the importance of autonomy and accountability in community and social commitments. I show that though people valued autonomy, an emphasis on autonomy in community (Study 1) and social commitments (Study 2) predicted greater loneliness and had no relationship with life satisfaction. An emphasis on accountability in social commitments, on the other hand, predicted less loneliness and greater life satisfaction (Study 2). In Part 2, I draw on the default framework to examine how foregrounding either autonomy or accountability changes the behavior people are likely to do and how that behavior is perceived by themselves and others. Widely studied in public policy, default choices constrain behavior by signaling what is normative and the 'right' action to take (Davidai, Gilovich, & Ross, 2012). Here, I argue that foregrounding autonomy has the effect of communicating that a social choice or commitment is optional, and the choice available to a person is therefore whether or not to opt-in. In contrast, when accountability is foregrounded, commitment to others is perceived as normative and the construal of the choice available to people is whether or not to opt-out. In 4 studies I manipulate which social expectation was foregrounded by using subtle cues in language (Study 3) and then explicitly by creating different attendance policies for a Community Club (Study 4) and an academic workshop (Studies 5a and 5b). In the autonomy foregrounding ("opt-in") condition, I drew on the results from Part 1 to create a community that prioritizes individual autonomy. Participants were told members are free to attend events when they choose and that this ensures a highly engaged community. In the accountability foregrounding ("opt-out") condition, participants were told members are expected to attend every meeting, unless they are unable to do so, and that this creates a tight-knit community. In each of these studies I demonstrate that, as with default choices, an emphasis on either autonomy or accountability can communicate what is normative and expected, change the meaning of the behavior in consideration, and guide the choices that people ultimately make, as well as how those choices are construed by both themselves and others. Both a framing of autonomy and of accountability allow the exercise of choice, yet communicate very different ideas about what behavior is valued. The opt-in framing, which emphasizes autonomy and conveys that social commitments are optional, has the unintended consequences of discouraging participation and engagement in meaningful social and contexts, reducing a felt sense of accountability, and ultimately undermining wellbeing and motivation. Taken together, this work suggests that foregrounding accountability and interdependence, yet leaving the important safety valve of choice, may be one way to foster greater collective motivation and wellbeing.