I am a social and organizational psychologist with a focus on three main lines of research: (a) roles and identities (b) personal values and (c) decision making.

I am intrigued by how roles and identities influence the conceptualization and behavior of individuals and how these roles and identities are perceived by others and influence other's behavior and responses. 

The role of representatives

One line of research, which evolved from a research project funded by the Israeli Science Foundation (ISF, 351/13), investigates the unique role of groups’ representatives, within different contexts. In negotiations, for example, representatives and constituents differ in the level of control they experience, which influences their valuation of the agreement (Amit, 2020, Negotiation and Conflict Management Research). In the context of consumer behavior, customers are sensitive to the intensity of the emotional displays of customer representatives, where intense emotional displays are interpreted as inauthentic, thereby reducing trust in the representatives and undermining the valuation of the actual product (Cheshin, Amit, & van Kleef; Organizational Behavior and Human Decision making Processes, 2018). 

In the political context, my research on the role of representatives concerns the interplay between the identity of political representatives and the political identity of constituents. Together with Sharon Arieli and Sari Mentser, I showed that constituents are more likely to attribute the actions of ingroup political leaders as benefitting to the national group whereas they are more likely to attribute the actions of outgroup political leaders to benefitting egoistic reasoning (Arieli, Amit, & Mentser, 2019, Cognition). Together with a different group of collaborators, I am currently pursuing the motivational underpinning of this phenomenon, looking at the mental representation of political representatives vis-à-vis the superordinate, national category (Amit, Leviatan, Mentser, Venzhik, Karmel & Moran, 2024, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology).

Identity complexity

I found the interplay between multiple, often nested, identities fascinating and am following up the legacy of Prof. Sonia Roccas (dec.) and her model of social identity complexity. In our last paper together, we showed that holding a complex view of ones' own multiple identities influences the interpretation of deviant behavior. It benefits identities inclusive of oneself rather than identities exclusive of oneself, as determinants of punitiveness (Roccas, Amit, Oppenheim, Hazan, & Sagiv, 2022, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations). In a current study of perceptions and multiple identities, (together with Shani Oppenheim) we propose that individuals perceive and evaluate the level of identity integration of others, and that these perceptions influence tolerance towards them. 

Identity and morality

My most exciting recent research project focuses on the interplay of social identities and moral judgment (funded by the ISF, grant No. 604/20). Broadly, we ask why, when and how do people care about the morality of outgroups. In a series of studies (with my Master’s students at the Open University), we show differential exclusion patterns for ingroup and outgroup (im)moral members, as means to reassert ingroup superiority (Amit & Venzhik, 2024, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin). In parallel, we show that people hold similar expectations for withholding certain moralities, such as loyalty, even among outgroup members (Amit, Ben David, & Venzhik, 2025, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations). Along those lines, my Master’s student, Eitan Venzhik, is asking whether we expect others to employ their set of moralities or our set of moralities in judging our behavior.

Individuals differ not only in their social identities, but also in what is personally important to them. Values are broad, trans-situational and enduring motivations that serve as guiding principles in people's lives, representing what they consider good and worthy.

Conservation values

Together with the late Prof. Sonia Roccas, I studied how personal values interact with social identities. We focused on conservation values, pointing to their importance in social processes. Our findings indicate that the more importance individuals attribute to values of tradition and conformity (i.e., conservation) values, the more likely they are to estimate that others adopt the same political attitudes and beliefs as they themselves hold (Amit, Roccas, & Meidan, 2010; European Journal of Social Psychology) and the more they identify with the dominant (but not marginal) national identity (Roccas, Schwartz, & Amit, 2010; Political Psychology). In addition, those who emphasize these values express more tolerance towards deviant group members when exposed to group homogeneity over heterogeneity (Roccas & Amit, 2011; Journal of Experimental Social Psychology). 

Perceived values

I am currently focusing on unraveling the role of perceived values – that is the values we believe others hold. In her Master’s thesis, my student Sari Mentser showed the importance of value perceptions on people’s choices in interdependent situations (Mentser & Amit, 2024; European Journal of Social Psychology). In an on-going project (with Shani Oppenheim) we further suggest that perceived values play a crucial role in forming functional relations with professionals that go beyond known value-based mechanisms.

Information complexity

In the era of information revolution, large quantities of information are available to decision-makers. Individuals often seek to acquire as much information as possible hoping to promote knowledgeable decisions. Alas, handling vast, complex, information poses a genuine challenge. In my PhD program, I investigated customers' ability to cope with complex information in the form of multiple attributes and multiple alternatives, while pointing to the moderating role of motivation to engage in deep thinking (Amit & Sagiv, 2013, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes). In the context of career choice, I showed that whilst people tend to accurately perceive most information (in terms of occupational alternatives), they systematically misperceive some alternatives (Amit & Sagiv, 2009; Journal of Career Assessment; partly funded by a grant from the Louis Guttman Facet-Theory Fund). 

Thinking styles

Integrating the study of individual differences in complex decision making, I investigate thinking styles. Together with my students (Sari Mentser & Niva Porzycki) and colleague (Sharon Arieli) I noted that the decision-making literature often assumes that intuitive thinking is heuristic and biased, whereas systematic thinking is deep and rational. However, we have suggested and showed that the motivation for deep thinking (epistemic motivation) is orthogonal to and should be teased apart from the piecemeal vs. holistic processing of information (Amit, Mentser, Arieli, & Porzycki, 2021, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). 

This distinction is consistent with our prior work showing that the different dimensions display differential associations with personality constructs and are more pronounced among different professional groups (Sagiv, Amit, Ein-Gar & Arieli , 2014; Journal of Personality). Adopting such a distinction calls for developing interventions tailored for individuals with different thinking styles. Specifically, there is a need to design interventions that encourage deep-holistic processing and not just deep-systematic processing (e.g., Amit & Sagiv, 2013; Journal of Career Assessment; Amit & Gati, 2013; Career Development Quarterly). 

The influence of the complex social context on individuals' thoughts and behavior is fascinating and important. We are living in a period of social instability, in which individuals are exposed to a vast amount of information. They are required to reflect on their own (and their groups') moral compass while acknowledging differences from other groups' moral compasses. The representation of their interests depends on the reliance and trust they place in their leaders. 

Research in social psychology is a key to understanding present-day collective action, intergroup (in)tolerance and political polarization. It is with this understanding that I am inspired to further expand our understanding of how individuals process information when making decisions (and perceive others' decisions) to engage in collective action; how their identities influence their perceptions of and trust in their representatives and leaders; how they are guided by their own values and what are their expectations of other's morality.