Research Projects for MA Students 2026 (Supervisor: Prof Kitty Dumont)

What is corruption for some might be cooperation for others  

Brief Description 

Corruption is never victimless because it involves the intended use of public office/resources for private gains at the expense (and sometimes to the detriment) of the rightful and intended beneficiaries (e.g., Jain, 2001; Kobis, 2017; Langseth, 2000; Nye, 1967; Pearce et al., 2008). Thus, it is considered the root cause of inequality and instability (Skenjana et al., 2010; Wei et al., 2022; Zaloznaya, 2014). Societies like South Africa with rampant corruption tend to have higher rates of poverty, higher rates of unemployment, and more inefficient institutions (Zaloznaya, 2014). Corruption destabilises the structure of societies because it negatively impacts individuals’ psychological well-being (Zyglidopoulos et al., 2017), their trust in institutions (Rothstein & Eek, 2009), affects their justice perceptions (Ramos & Mariconi, 2018), and tolerance toward illegal activity (Wang et al., 2015).  

Based on the argument that human cooperation, in its intensity and scale, exceeds the cooperative behaviour of any other mammals, evolutionary psychologists argue that corruption and cooperation are two sides of the same coin. According to this evolutionary perspective, human cooperation, which refers to helping others (or to avoid hurting them) even at a personal cost (Henrich & Muthukrishna, 2021, p. 208), ranges from small-scale, like within and between families (i.e., kinship) to large-scale, like within and between ethnolinguistic populations or nation-states. While small-scale cooperation is possible because of kin-based altruism and direct reciprocity, large-scale cooperation requires social norms and strong institutions (Henrich & Muthukrishna, 2021). Muthukrishna (2018) and Henrich and Muthukrishna (2021) propose the negative relationship between small-scale and large-scale cooperation and propose that corruption can be viewed as the flip side of cooperation. More specifically, small-scale and large-scale cooperation are negatively related as the former undermines the latter, in that cooperation in smaller groups (e.g., families, clans and villages) impedes the emergence of cooperation within and between larger groups as it hinders the development of impersonal institutions that are governed by norms and the rule of law. Corruption, as the flip side of cooperation, suggests that members of impersonal-relationship groups may view kin-based cooperation as corruption. For example, a politician awarding a government contract to his cousin’s wife might be seen as corrupt from an impersonal perspective, while within a kinship framework, it could be considered family support.  

The research project will test this argument by studying the effects of the relational orientations – kin-based versus impersonal.  

Research Methodologies 

Surveys and Social Psychological Experiments 

Degree 

Masters by Research 

Supervisor 

Prof Kitty Dumont (dumonkb@unisa.ac.za) 

Space available 

One MA candidate 

The fear of common knowledge as a predictor of speech policing 

Brief Description 

There is a story playing in the late nineteenth century about a woman who, upon learning about Darwin’s theory, reacted by saying: “My dear, descended from the apes! Let us hope it is not true, but if it is, let us pray that it will not become generally known”. As recent incidents from South Africa and internationally show, there are people who are all too eager to police common knowledge. Thus, one could conclude that what terrifies the censors and cancelers is not that a dangerous idea might be thought, or even expressed, but that it might become common knowledge. The fear that common knowledge is what makes an idea dangerous helps explain the common sequence: a person (heretic) who expresses an idea publicly must be punished (cancelled) publicly. Based on this reasoning, Steven Pinker proposed the following prediction: The speech police would not be particularly upset if a taboo idea were widely but privately known than if the same taboo idea were commonly known. 

The research project will test this prediction systematically.  

Research Methodologies 

Surveys and Psychological Experiments 

Degree 

Masters by Research 

Supervisor 

Prof Kitty Dumont (dumonkb@unisa.ac.za)  

Space available 

One MA candidate 

Humiliation from a Self-Discrepancy perspective 

Brief Description 

Vorster, Dumont and Waldzus (2025) proposed to define psychological humiliation as the experience of receiving an unsolicited message that implies being seen or perceived by one or more significant other(s) in a manner incompatible with one’s social self-concept. Based on a content of 2635 narratives capturing definitions of humiliation and accounts of humiliating situations from 1048 participants, it was found that humiliation entails specific self-discrepancies that not only refer to the fundamental content dimensions of communion and/or agency but also affect different aspects of the self. Vorster, Dumont and Waldzus (2025) propose that this psychological definition of humiliation offers the potential for predicting factors contributing to an individual’s susceptibility to humiliation. Two main predictors were proposed: narcissism and the dominant social construction of the social world (i.e., Culture). For instance, it is reasonable to predict that individuals with an excessively inflated self-concept, either on a personal or group level (e.g., collective narcissism; see Golec de Zavala & Lantos, 2020), are more likely to experience humiliation. It is also reasonable to assume that people experience and resolve psychological humiliation differently depending on whether their self-worth is embedded in dignity cultures, where reputation is not bestowed by others but rather intrinsic, or in face and honour cultures, where reputation is heavily reliant on others and encompasses not only personal but also familial reputation.  

According to some of the outlined arguments, the proposed research project should aim to study the interplay between the experience of humiliation and self-concept. 

According to some of the outlined arguments, the proposed research project should aim to study the interplay between the experience of humiliation and self-concept. 

Research Methodologies 

Surveys and Social Psychological Experiments 

Degree 

Masters by Research 

Supervisor 

Prof Kitty Dumont (dumonkb@unisa.ac.za) 

Space available 

One MA candidate 

Can being perceived as better, faster, or more beautiful than one perceives oneself to be humiliating? 

Brief Description 

Vorster, Dumont and Waldzus (2025) proposed to define psychological humiliation as the experience of receiving an unsolicited message that implies being seen or perceived by one or more significant other(s) in a manner incompatible with one’s social self-concept. This proposed definition of psychological humiliation does not imply (as in previous concepts) that psychological discrepancy results only from perceiving oneself as being judged as less competent or worthy. Self-discrepancies can also arise from perceiving oneself as being judged as more competent or worthy than one actually is. This proposal raises an intriguing empirical question: Are these positive self-discrepancies also experienced as aversive, and if so, are they similar to the more common experience of humiliation as negative self-discrepancy? Orson Welles’ movie Citizen Kane might offer some insight into the concept of humiliation resulting from positive self-discrepancy through the character of Susan, who nearly committed suicide due to her husband’s grandiose illusions about her talents as an opera singer. Susan, who was painfully aware of her vocal limitations and grew increasingly traumatised by the humiliation of having to perform in front of an audience, might have survived her suicide attempt. However, she never forgave her husband for refusing to see her for who she was. 

The proposed research project should aim to provide evidence on whether “positive” humiliation exists psychologically. 

Research Methodologies 

Surveys and Social Psychological Experiments 

Degree 

Masters by Research 

Supervisor 

Prof Kitty Dumont (dumonkb@unisa.ac.za) 

Space available 

One MA candidate