Introduction

Envy typically results from upward comparisons in which one lacks a desirable thing that is possessed by another person, reflecting a sense of inferiority and hostility (Cohen-Charash 2009). Lange and Crusius (2015) conceptualized envy into two forms, malicious and benign envy. Both forms of envy cause discomfort as upward comparison is usually accompanied by feelings of inadequacy. Yet, they differ in the motives to level the difference between oneself and superior others (Van de Ven et al., 2009). Malicious envy emphasizes a sense of hostility towards the superior others, motivating one to pull others down to level the difference. Previous research has shown that malicious envy is associated with moral disengagement (Rengifo and Laham 2022) and negative gossiping (Latif et al. 2021). Benign envy highlights the perceived deservingness of superior others, leading to a motivation to level oneself up, and has been shown to be associated with higher goal setting (Lange and Crusius 2015) and tendency to self-improve (Latif et al. 2021). Despite the fact that different levels of state malicious and benign envy can be experienced from time to time, some people reveal a chronic inclination to experience these two forms of envy across situations (Lange et al. 2018a). This stable tendency to respond to upward comparisons is described as dispositional malicious and benign envy, which would be the focus of this research. Dispositional malicious and benign envy has been consistently shown to be linked with various well-being indicators. For instance, dispositional malicious (benign) envy was negatively (positively) associated with both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (e.g., Briki 2019; Ng et al. 2020b, 2021) and positively (negatively) associated with depression and anxiety (e.g. Li et al. 2022; Rentzsch and Gross 2015; Smith et al. 1999). Overall, the consequences of dispositional malicious and benign envy have been extensively investigated in previous research.

Although previous findings tended to indicate that malicious envy is linked to negative outcomes while benign envy is related to positive outcomes, it is untenable to draw a simplistic moral conclusion that malicious envy is purely destructive whereas benign envy is purely constructive (Lange and Protasi 2021). In essence, the dual forms of envy do have overlapping characteristics and are just partly opposing to each other (Crusius et al. 2020). For instance, as entailing the painful inferiority in upward comparisons, both malicious and benign envy has been found to elicit negative affect (Lange et al. 2018c) and Machiavellian behaviors (Lange et al. 2018b), while malicious envy, similar to benign envy, has also been shown to correlate with socially adaptive behaviors (Lange and Boecker 2019; Van de Ven et al. 2010).

How individual difference traits shape dispositional envy

Compared to its consequences, relatively fewer studies attempted to examine the determinants of both forms of dispositional envy. Among these studies, most of them focused on examining how more general traits may predict envy. For instance, Jiang et al. (2022) have examined the effects of Big Five personality traits on dispositional malicious and benign envy; neuroticism was negatively associated with dispositional malicious envy while the other four personality traits were positively associated with dispositional benign envy (see also Li et al. 2023b). Berant and Baumel (2017) also revealed that anxiety attachment style was more strongly associated with dispositional malicious envy than avoidance attachment style (see also Baumel and Berant 2015).

Apart from the classic general traits like Big Five personality traits and attachment styles, recent research also studied how dispositional envy could be predicted by various sets of traits which are more domain-specific. For instance, Lange and Crusius (2015) revealed that hope for success positively predicted dispositional benign envy and negatively predicted dispositional malicious envy, whereas fear of failure only positively predicted dispositional malicious envy. Besides, Lange et al. (2016) showed that narcissistic rivalry positively predicted dispositional malicious and benign envy, while narcissistic admiration positively predicted dispositional benign envy, indicating that the two forms of dispositional envy are conceptually linked to different sets of traits. Similar observations can also be found in dispositional gratitude (Xiang and Yuan, 2021; Xiang et al. 2018) and dispositional mindfulness (Dong et al. 2020; Xiang et al. 2021).

Apart from the constructs that show differential effects on dispositional malicious and benign envy, previous studies have identified the antecedents that are common to both forms of dispositional envy. Hasty et al. (2022) found that trait prestige positively predicted dispositional benign envy and negatively predicted dispositional malicious envy, while trait dominance positively predicted both dispositional malicious and benign envy. Over and above Big Five personality traits, Milić et al. (2023) revealed that Dark Triad personality traits of Machiavellianism and narcissism positively predicted both dispositional malicious and benign envy (see also Lange et al. 2018b). Similarly, previous research found that both dispositional malicious and benign envy could be positively predicted by dispositional greed (Crusius et al. 2021) and dispositional entitlement (Lange et al. 2019). Overall, in alignment with earlier research (Crusius et al. 2020; Lange and Protasi 2021), these studies again demonstrated that the dual forms of dispositional envy are just partly opposing to each other and do have overlapping characteristics.

The aforementioned research examining how individual difference traits predict dispositional envy indeed aligns with the theoretical framework of self-view that has long been proposed (Kuiper and Rogers 1979; Markus 1977). As a cognitive framework that highlights information about self, self-views have been shown to predict various psychological outcomes (Swann et al. 2007). Likewise, individual difference traits (e.g., Big five personality traits, dispositional gratitude) captures beliefs and perceptions about oneself and can be conceptualized as a representation of self-views. For instance, neuroticism captures one’s perception of his/her own self as being tense, emotional, and nervous, while dispositional gratitude reflects one’s perception of his/her own self regarding the appreciation of the positive aspects of life and the kindness of others. Thus, it is predictable to observe the effects from various individual difference traits on dispositional malicious and benign envy.

Notably, while the individual difference traits discussed above typically measure one’s perception of their own self (i.e., self-view), some of them include a small subset of items that reflect one’s perception of a different focus, such as their social world. For instance, in the measurement of narcissistic rivalry, there are items that to some extent reflect views on the social world (e.g., “most people won’t achieve anything”). Similar items can also be found in trait prestige (e.g., “others always expect me to be successful”), trait dominance (e.g., “some people are afraid of me”), and dispositional entitlement (e.g., “people like me deserve an extra break now and then”).

Going beyond self-views: how worldviews shape dispositional envy

Extending the predictive framework of self-view, recent studies have started to incorporate the role of worldview in predicting various psychological outcomes (Bond et al. 2004a; Kurman 2011; Ng et al. 2020a). Worldview represents propositions and beliefs that people endorse about the world and how it functions (Koltko-Rivera 2004) and is conceptually distinguishable from self-view that highlights one’s perceptions and beliefs about oneself (Chen et al. 2006a, 2006b). Lange et al. (2018a) suggested that envy, at its core, results from a threat to social status which highlights a possible loss of respect and social influence in the eyes of others. Critically, given this objective threat, people may exhibit different emotional and behavioral reactions to these situations. Lange et al. (2018a) further suggested that some reactions might be more prevalent in certain groups/societies than others because of differing views on how status is gained across social environments. As such, the varying reactions to upward comparison may be shaped by one’s subjective belief about the world (i.e., worldviews). Therefore, going beyond previous research that examined how various self-views (e.g., personality traits, dispositional gratitude) are linked to dispositional envy, the present investigation attempted to study how worldviews may shape one’s dispositional malicious and benign envy.

Previous research investigating the link between belief about the world and envy is notably limited, except for the studies conducted by Crusius et al. (2016), Den Nieuwenboer et al. (2023), and Li et al. (2023a). For instance, Crusius et al. (2016) demonstrated that belief in Protestant work ethics positively predicted benign envy while belief in status fatalism positively predicted malicious envy. In a similar context, Den Nieuwenboer et al. (2023) and Li et al. (2023a) found that individuals’ beliefs towards their organization (viz., status importance and competitive climate in organization) were associated with higher levels of workplace envy. Yet, these prior studies focused on the beliefs that are relatively domain- and context-specific (e.g., work ethics and workplace) and may not be applicable to non-laboring individuals (e.g., students and retirees). Therefore, to enhance generalizability, we aimed at examining the relationship between generalized beliefs about the world and envy.

In the present research, we attempted to study how dispositional malicious and benign envy is related to five dimensions of social axioms that represent five generalized worldviews. Leung and Bond (2004) proposed the construct of social axioms to quantify worldviews, tapping into a person’s generalized beliefs about people, social groups, social institutions, the physical environment, and the spiritual world. Social axioms are organised into five dimensions, and these have been identified and validated in 40 nations (Cheung et al. 2006) and across developmental stages (Chen et al. 2016). The five pan-cultural dimensions are (1) social cynicism, denoting a negative view of human nature, (2) reward for application, a belief in the positive role of effort on achievement, (3) social complexity, the belief that multiple ways exist to achieve the same goal, (4) fate control, the belief that fate influences life events but people can alter fate, and (5) religiosity, which denotes the positive functions of religious belief.

The validity and usefulness of the five dimensions of social axioms in predicting outcomes have been demonstrated both for national groups and for individuals. For national level, social axioms were associated with a series of societal-level outcomes, such as GDP, life expectancy, suicide rate, unemployment rate, pace of life, and work hours per week (Bond et al. 2004b; Leung and Bond 2004; Zhou et al. 2009). For individual level, the predictability of social cynicism and reward for application has been more reliably demonstrated than the other three dimensions of social axioms. For instance, social cynicism was consistently linked with higher levels of psychological illness, mistrust, relationship conflict, and moral disengagement (Alexandra 2019; Kurman 2011; Lai et al. 2007; Li et al. 2011). On the other hand, reward for application was frequently associated with higher levels of psychological well-being, optimism, loci-of-hope, and exertion of effort (Bernardo and Nalipay 2016; Hui and Bond 2010; Ng et al. 2020a; Zhou et al. 2009). In general, previous findings have revealed the predictability of undesirable and favorable outcomes for social cynicism and reward for application respectively. Comparatively, the predictability for the dimensions of social complexity, fate control, and religiosity is less systematic and conclusive. For instance, previous research indicated that these three dimensions were not correlated with stress, depressive cognition, self-esteem, optimism, and either approach or avoidance motivation (Chen et al. 2009; Hui and Bond 2010). Instead, social complexity was positively associated with dialectical thinking (Ng and Chen 2023), fate control was positively associated with perceived benefit of gambling (Wu et al. 2019), while religiosity was negatively correlated with cognitive abilities (Stankov and Lee 2018). Taken together, previous findings revealed that the predictions of social complexity, fate control, and religiosity are highly diverse. Based on these findings, it is expected that social cynicism and reward for application may be more strongly linked to individual’s dispositional malicious and benign envy than other social axiom dimensions.

The present research

Our objectives in this research were threefold.

First, although previous studies have examined the links between different beliefs and envy, these beliefs are mostly domain-specific and are likely to vary across groups, such as beliefs about work ethics (Crusius et al. 2016). To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have been conducted to examine the relationship between generalized beliefs about the world and dispositional envy. Thus, we aimed at investigating how the five dimensions of social axioms, which are well-validated across cultures and developmental stages, link with dispositional malicious and benign envy.

Second, social axioms have been mostly studied in isolation using a variable-centered approach (e.g. Bond et al. 2004a; Chen et al. 2016). This approach merely considers one’s scores on the single axiom factors in explaining the effects of social axioms on a certain outcome. For instance, a variable-centered approach may reveal a positive effect of social cynicism and fate control and a negative effect of reward for application on dispositional malicious envy. An interpretation is commonly made as “people high in social cynicism and fate control and low in reward for application might have a stronger chronic tendency to experience malicious envy”. Yet, the validity of this interpretation is questionable and can even be misleading since it implies that the findings from a variable-centered approach are person-centered in nature (see Brewer et al. 2016). Put it differently, this interpretation assumes that a person’s profile high in social cynicism and fate control and low in reward for application is empirically available. Thus, through addressing the heterogeneity across people in the empirical sample, a person-centered approach is preferred to identify the distinct profiles that are empirically available (Howard and Hoffman 2018). In the present research, the five social axiom dimensions function jointly as a profile since one’s worldview varies as a function of multiple dimensions of social axioms rather than a single dimension. Thus, we aimed at identifying the individual social axiom profiles in empirical data through a person-centered approach that have not been utilized in previous studies.Footnote 1 Upon identifying the profiles, we would examine how they are linked to dispositional malicious and benign envy.

Finally, as our worldviews are contingent to our social environment (Leung and Bond 2004), it is necessary to examine the social axiom profiles and their influences across different social groups. Chen et al. (2016) showed that the effects of social axioms varied among developmental groups, including children, adolescents, and adults (see also Boehnke 2009). These findings highlighted the importance of incorporating multiple samples in this research to capture the potential group differences in social axiom profiles and their influences. Moreover, apart from social axioms, previous research has documented that the associations of dispositional malicious and benign envy with other constructs, such as self-esteem (Ng et al. 2020b) and happiness (Ng et al. 2019), differed across adolescents and adults. Hence, relying solely on research evidence from a single group of participants may overlook the intriguing patterns observed in social axiom profiles and their associations with dispositional malicious and benign envy. In this study, we aimed to identify the social axiom profiles among two developmental groups with varying social environments (viz., adolescents and working adults), thereby exploring the possible similarities and differences in these profiles.

Method

Participants and procedure

A sample of 664 adolescents and 584 working adults were recruited in Hong Kong, yielding a total sample size of 1248. The sample of adolescents (327 females; Mage = 14.32, SD = 1.74) was recruited from six different grades in a secondary school in Hong Kong (equivalent to Grade 7 to 12 in the American school system) with an age range from 11 to 19. A comparable number of students from junior grades (Grade 7 to 9; 54.8%) and senior grades (Grade 10 to 12; 45.2%) were recruited for this study. To recruit working adults, we partnered with a Hong Kong-based participant recruitment and data collection company (Kantar Hong Kong Ltd.). This company curates a massive pool of over 450,000 Hong Kong people who have consented to receiving information about various research investigations they can be involved in. Our survey was sent out to the pool of potential participants who met our requirements (i.e., full-time employees from a variety of industries in low to high level positions). Among the sample of working adults (317 females; Mage = 35.69, SD = 7.78), around 34.9% had a college education or below and 65.1% had a bachelor’s degree or above, while around 49.0% were single and 51.0% were married. All the participants completed a survey consisting of the measurements of social axioms and dispositional malicious and benign envy. Informed consent was obtained from all the participants as well as the parents of adolescents in advance. The sample size in each group should be able to address our research questions of interest.Footnote 2

Measures

Social axioms

The 40-item Social Axioms Survey (Leung et al. 2012) was used to assess five generalized beliefs about the world. The items were anchored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disbelieve) to 5 (strongly believe). Sample items include “People who become rich and successful forget the people who helped them along the way” (social cynicism; α = 0.78 and 0.72 for adolescents and working adults, respectively), “Difficult problems can be overcome by hard work and persistence” (reward for application; α = 0.84 and 0.78 for adolescents and working adults, respectively), “A bad situation can suddenly change for the better” (social complexity; α = 0.68 and 0.70 for adolescents and working adults, respectively), “Fate determines a person’s success in life” (fate control; α = 0.81 and 0.75 for adolescents and working adults, respectively), and “Religion helps people make good choices for their lives” (religiosity; α = 0.90 and 0.84 for adolescents and working adults, respectively).Footnote 3

Dispositional malicious and benign envy

The 10-item Benign and Malicious Envy Scale (Lange and Crusius 2015) was used to measure one’s chronic experiences of malicious and benign envy. The items were anchored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items include “Seeing other people’s achievements makes me resent them” (dispositional malicious envy; α = 0.83 and 0.80 for adolescents and working adults, respectively) and “If I notice that another person is better than me, I try to improve myself” (dispositional benign envy; α = 0.81 and 0.83 for adolescents and working adults, respectively).

Data Analysis Plan

To examine whether adolescents and working adults with different social axiom profiles would have different levels of dispositional malicious and benign envy, a three-step approach was utilized. In Step 1, measurement invariance of social axioms and dispositional malicious and benign envy was evaluated to ensure the compatibility of these constructs across samples of adolescents and working adults. In Step 2, latent profile analysis was then conducted to identify the latent profiles of adolescents and working adults based on the scores for the five social axioms. In Step 3, the levels of dispositional malicious and benign envy were compared across the social axiom profiles identified in Step 2. Mplus 8.0 was used to perform multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis in Step 1 and latent profile analysis in Step 2, while SPSS 29.0 was used to perform correlation analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) in Step 3.

Results

Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics, Alphas, and Bivariate Correlations of Measures Among Adolescents (AD) and Adults (WA).
Full size table

Evaluating the measurement invariance of social axioms and dispositional malicious and benign envy

Prior to the latent profile analysis on social axioms in Step 2 and the comparisons of dispositional malicious and benign envy across adolescents and working adults in Step 3, it is important to ensure the equivalency in the measurements of social axioms and dispositional malicious and benign envy across the two samples. Specifically, a series of multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis was performed to evaluate the configural, metric, scalar invariance in all measurements. The factor analytic model was fitted with parceling in which two to three indicators were randomly combined into four parcels (Little et al. 2002).Footnote 4

First, the configural model showed an acceptable fit to the data, χ2 (658) = 1673.527, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.930, NNFI = 0.920, SRMR = 0.051, RMSEA = 0.050, 90% CI for RMSEA [0.047, 0.053], revealing the equivalent factor structure in the constructs across adolescents and young adults. Second, to test for metric invariance, factor loadings were constrained to be equal across the two samples. The constrained model also fitted the data well, χ2 (679) = 1730.534, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.928, NNFI = 0.920, SRMR = 0.055, RMSEA = 0.051, 90% CI for RMSEA [0.047, 0.053]. All factor loadings were statistically significant in both samples, ranging from 0.46 to 0.94 with an average of 0.72. To confirm metric invariance, a comparison of model fit between unconstrained and constrained models was required to examine whether the constrained model had a substantial drop in model fit. Instead of using the chi-square difference statistic, which is sensitive to sample size and the violation of normality assumption (Boer et al. 2018; Rutkowski and Svetina 2014), we adopted the recommendation proposed by Chen (2007) in which ΔCFI less than 0.010 supplemented with ΔRMSEA less than 0.015 or ΔSRMR less than 0.030 indicate model invariance. The comparison on goodness-of-fit indices indicated that the constrained model had a trivial drop in model fit, providing support for the metric invariance of the constructs across adolescents and working adults, ΔCFI = 0.002, ΔRMSEA = −0.001, ΔSRMR = −0.004. Finally, for scalar invariance, we tested a model in which intercepts were constrained to be equal across the two samples. This constrained model also yielded an acceptable fit to the data, χ2 (700) = 1873.156, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.919, NNFI = 0.913, SRMR = 0.057, RMSEA = 0.052, 90% CI for RMSEA [0.049, 0.055]. Importantly, the comparison on goodness-of-fit indices indicated that the constrained model just had a trivial drop in model fit, supporting for the scalar invariance of the constructs across the two samples, ΔCFI = 0.009, ΔRMSEA = −0.001, ΔSRMR = −0.002. Overall, the results of measurement invariance ensured the compatibility of the measurements of social axioms and dispositional malicious and benign envy across the samples of adolescents and working adults. Therefore, the latent profile analysis on social axioms in Step 2 and the comparisons of dispositional malicious and benign envy across the two samples in Step 3 could be safely employed.

Identifying the worldview profiles among adolescents and working adults

Latent profile analysis was conducted to identify the latent profiles of individuals based on the scores for the five social axioms. A series of latent profile models, ranging from two- to five-profile solutions, was tested in both adolescents and adults. As shown in Table 2, Bayesian information criteria (BIC) and sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criteria (aBIC) dropped as the profiles increased, while the bootstrap likelihood ratio test (BLRT) was significant in all profile solutions. Yet, some profile sizes in the solutions were extremely small (e.g., a profile size of 6 in the five-profile solution in adolescents). Importantly, among both adolescents and adults, the entropy index was highest and larger than the conventional cutoff of 0.80 in the three-profile solution (Celeux and Soromenho 1996; Tein et al. 2013). To achieve balance across profile size, entropy index, fit probability, and interpretability, the three-profile solution was preferred among both adolescents and adults as it showed an acceptable level of entropy (≥ 0.80), a large fit probability in each latent profile (≥ 0.80), and a reasonable size of each latent class (≥ 20).

Table 2 Model Fit for Different Profile Solutions Among Adolescents and Adults.
Full size table

The levels of the five social axioms for each of the three latent profiles are presented in Table 3 and Fig. 1. As shown in Fig. 1, The pattern of the three profiles was similar across adolescents and adults. Among adolescents, the first profile consisted of those who were relatively high in social cynicism, and low in reward for application and religiosity, reflecting a “skeptical-pessimistic” profile (12.7% of the sample). The second profile consisted of those who were relatively high in reward for application and religiosity, and low in social cynicism, reflecting a “hopeful-optimistic” profile (83.4%). The third profile was the smallest (3.9%) and consisted of those who were high in all social axioms, and we termed this profile “flexible”. Adults showed a comparable profile pattern (Fig. 1), with a “skeptical-pessimistic” profile (5.3%) and a “hopeful-optimistic” profile (20.0%). The third and largest profile (74.7%) consisted of those who were relatively moderate in all social axioms, the “reserved profile”. The means of the indicators in the skeptical-pessimistic and hopeful-optimistic profiles were generally comparable across adolescents and adults, while the means of the indicators in the last profile differed across adolescents and adults (see the upper panel of Table 3).Footnote 5

Table 3 Results of the Three-Profile Solution Among both Adolescents and Adults, and Mean Comparisons of Dispositional Malicious and Benign Envy across Three Profiles.
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Estimated Mean of Social Axioms as a Function of the Three-Profile Solution Among Adolescents (Left) and Adults (Right).

Full size image

Examining the patterns of dispositional malicious and benign envy across worldview profiles

To examine whether people with different social axiom profiles experienced different levels of dispositional malicious and benign envy, we compared the levels of dispositional malicious and benign envy across the profiles in both adolescents and adults. As in the lower panel of Table 3 and Fig. 2, adolescents in the skeptical-pessimistic and flexible profiles generally reported a higher level of dispositional malicious envy than those in the hopeful-optimistic profile, F(2, 661) = 31.92, p < 0.001, \(\eta _{{{\mathrm{p}}}}^2\) = 0.088, revealing a medium-to-large size of differences across profiles (Cohen 1988). Adolescents in the hopeful-optimistic and flexible profiles showed a higher level of dispositional benign envy than the skeptical-pessimistic profile, F(2, 661) = 18.59, p < 0.001, \(\eta _{{{\mathrm{p}}}}^2\) = 0.053, indicating a medium size of differences across profiles. Among adults, dispositional malicious envy did not statistically differ across the three profiles, F(2, 581) = 0.83, p = 0.436, \(\eta _{{{\mathrm{p}}}}^2\) = 0.003, while a medium-to-large size of differences in dispositional benign envy was observed across profiles in which those in the hopeful-optimistic profile reported a higher level of dispositional benign envy than the other two profiles, F(2, 581) = 31.51, p < 0.001, \(\eta _{{{\mathrm{p}}}}^2\) = 0.098.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Mean Comparisons of Dispositional Malicious and Benign Envy Across Three Profiles Among Adolescents (Left) and Adults (Right).

Full size image

As the supplementary information, we also employed the variable-centered approach to examine the associations between five social axioms and dispositional malicious and benign envy (Table 4). Briefly put, based on the multiple-group path analysis, social cynicism (positively), social complexity (negatively), and fate control (positively) predicted dispositional malicious envy among both adolescents and adults, while reward for application also positively predicted dispositional benign envy among both adolescents and adults. Interestingly, religiosity negatively predicted dispositional benign envy among adolescents only. As aforementioned, based on these findings from the variable-centered approach, it is tempting to conclude that people high in social cynicism and fate control and low in social complexity might have a higher level of dispositional malicious envy. Yet, by a close inspection of the social axiom profiles among both adolescents and adults, none of the profiles indicated the standings of these social axiom dimensions. Besides, through comparing the profiles (e.g., flexible vs. hopeful-optimistic profiles), social cynicism (but not social complexity and fate control) is the factor that can differentiate people with different levels of dispositional malicious envy in the empirical sample. Overall, in this study, the person-centered approach helped to identify social axiom profiles that empirically exist, thereby providing a legitimate examination of the associations between worldview profiles and dispositional malicious and benign envy.

Table 4 Results of the Path Analysis with Worldviews Predicting Dispositional Malicious and Benign Envy Among Adolescents and Adults.
Full size table

Discussion

This research examined whether worldviews are associated with dispositional malicious and benign envy. Using a person-centered approach, we identified different individual profiles based on five social axioms among adolescents and working adults. Then, we examined whether the identified profiles would show different levels of dispositional malicious and benign envy.

Two similar profiles were identified in both adolescents and adults, namely, the skeptical-pessimistic and hopeful-optimistic profiles. We also identified a flexible profile consisting of adolescents high in all social axioms, and a reserved profile consisting of adults who are relatively moderate in all social axioms. Interestingly, the dominant profile in adolescents (i.e., the hopeful-optimistic profile) was not the dominant adult profile. For adults, the reserved profile was dominant, seemingly implying a shift of profiles across developmental groups. This shift is consistent with previous findings that adolescents revealed more optimistic bias than adults (Arnett 2000). Since one’s sense of primary control has been found to increase from birth and peak at middle age (Schulz et al. 1991), younger people may feel more optimistic and hopeful because of a stronger belief in personal control. This may explain the shift from hopeful-optimistic to reserved across adolescents and adults.

Among adolescents, a higher level of dispositional malicious envy was observed in the skeptical-pessimistic and flexible profiles that show a higher level of social cynicism. Among adults, dispositional malicious envy was comparable across the three profiles that show a similar level of social cynicism. In this sense, dispositional malicious envy is sensitive to the level of social cynicism in profiles. This observation aligns with the conceptualization of social cynicism, in which social cynics tend to achieve a goal without taking ethical issues into consideration (Leung and Bond 2004). Previous research has also shown that people experiencing malicious envy are more likely to attack the envied person to get that which they desire (Van de Ven et al. 2009). Therefore, people with a skeptical-pessimistic or flexible profile are likely to feel hostile to and pull down the superior others, yielding a stronger chronic tendency to experience malicious envy. Indeed, Kuo et al. (2020) observed a positive relationship between this cynical view of the world and dispositional malicious envy.

A close inspection of both adolescent and adult profiles reveals that a higher level of dispositional benign envy is generally reported among those with profiles showing a higher level of reward for application and religiosity (e.g., the flexible and hopeful-optimistic profiles). Reward for application refers to a belief that a thoughtful investment of effort and resources will lead to positive outcomes, while religiosity refers to a belief that supernatural forces and religious practices have beneficial functions for human social life (Leung and Bond 2004). Both beliefs highlight one’s positive worldviews and have been shown to associate with a wide range of constructive behaviors. For instance, people high in reward for application were more willing to exert effort (Zhou et al. 2009) and adopt active coping styles such as compromising, accommodating, and collaborating strategies to overcome challenges (Bond et al. 2004a). Besides, Bernardo and Nalipay (2016) showed that people high in religiosity were more likely to maintain hope as they think that external resources from spiritual forces may help them to solve problems. More explicitly, Nalipay et al. (2017) showed that religiosity was associated with adaptive cognitive processing and posttraumatic growth in survivors of a natural disaster, providing one with a positive sense of meaning during distressing and difficult moments. Taken together, these findings may explain why people with profiles denoting a high level of both reward for application and religiosity (e.g., the flexible and hopeful-optimistic profiles) may reveal a high level of dispositional benign envy. Benign envy is a painful experience which motivates people to pull themselves up to reduce the difference between themselves and superior others (Van de Ven et al. 2009). Essentially, benign envy reflects a challenge-accepting response during difficult times, such as hope for success (Lange and Crusius 2015) and self-improvement (Ng et al. 2023). Therefore, people with the flexible and hopeful-optimistic profiles should be more likely to maintain hope and employ adaptive positive strategies to cope with situations that highlight their inadequacy, thereby yielding a stronger chronic tendency to experience benign envy during upward social comparison. Furthermore, the current findings may complement the explanation of the association between psychological entitlement and benign envy (Lange et al. 2019). It has been observed that individuals with high psychological entitlement experienced more benign envy in upward social comparisons due to their endorsement of a higher level of prestige motivation. Prestige motivation entails sharing expertise and skills to attain status. These sharing behaviors can be regarded as adaptive coping strategies against challenging moments and highlight a hopeful attitude towards human nature. Thus, the current findings in the flexible and hopeful-optimistic profiles may help elucidating why prestige motivation may increase benign envy, which represents a response of accepting challenges during difficult times. Moreover, the present findings may offer insights into why individuals with a high level of benign envy may engage in more Machiavellian behaviors (Lange et al. 2018b). It is important to note that individuals with a hopeful-optimistic profile may not always exhibit desirable behaviors. Previous studies have indicated that being unrealistically optimistic can sometimes be maladaptive, leading to negative experiences in subsequent events (Dillard et al. 2006) and displaying risky behavioral intentions (Radcliffe and Klein 2002). Hence, it is plausible that individuals with a high level of benign envy may occasionally demonstrate unrealistic optimism, which may prompt them to employ Machiavellian tactics that reflect duplicity and manipulation.

Methodologically, the findings obtained through a person-centered approach in the present research offer two implications over those that can be derived from a variable-centered approach. First, in order to classify individuals into different social axiom profiles, it is necessary to consider the theoretical maximum number of profiles (e.g., dichotomizing each of the five social axioms into high and low levels would result in a total of 32 profiles). However, as revealed in our findings from latent profile analysis, many of these theoretically possible profiles do not empirically exist. For instance, even though it is theoretically possible to classify individuals into a profile characterized by relatively high social cynicism and relatively low social complexity, no individuals in reality appeared to belong to this profile. Hence, our latent profile analysis helped to identify heterogeneous and realistic subgroups within the population. Second, based on our supplementary findings from path analysis (see Table 4), dispositional malicious and benign envy varied as a linear function of the five social axioms. For instance, social complexity and fate control linearly predicted dispositional malicious envy among adolescents. Considering the comparable standings of social complexity and fate control in both skeptical-pessimistic and hopeful-optimistic profiles, dispositional malicious envy should not differ significantly across the two profiles. However, as demonstrated in our profile comparisons, dispositional malicious envy did actually differ. These findings suggest that the linear effects of social complexity and fate control alone do not fully capture the complexity within social axiom profiles. Put it differently, different social axioms may interact with each other, exerting non-linear effects on dispositional malicious envy. In this case, the remaining three social axioms may interact to weaken or intensify the linear effects of social complexity and fate control across profiles. Theoretically, testing all possible higher-order interactions among the five social axioms in path analysis could capture the complexity within social axiom profiles. However, this approach is empirically infeasible due to the unrealistically large number of higher-order interaction terms required. Hence, compared to a variable-centered approach, our findings obtained through a person-centered approach offer a crucial advantage in capturing the complex associations between social axiom profiles and dispositional malicious and benign envy.

This study has some noteworthy limitations. First, while this research revealed the associations between social axiom profiles and dispositional envy, it is uncertain whether these associations hold after accounting for various antecedents of dispositional envy, such as Big Five and Dark Triad personality traits. Thus, future studies should include a range of general and specific traits as covariates to demonstrate the incremental validity of social axiom profiles beyond the previous research findings. Additionally, building upon the predictive framework of self-view and worldview, it would be intriguing to compare the predictive power of individuals’ perceptions of themselves versus their perceptions of the social world in predicting dispositional envy. Second, the present research employed a cross-sectional design, measuring constructs at the trait level. Causality cannot be inferred as the temporal directions between social axioms and dispositional envy remain unclear in this design. While the experience of envy is conceptualized as arising from differing views on how status is gained (i.e., one of the subjective beliefs about the world), it is also plausible that the reverse causal direction holds true, where dispositional envy, reflecting accumulated experiences of envy, may predispose individuals to adopt certain worldviews (e.g., a cynical worldview). As such, future studies should employ a multi-wave longitudinal design to examine this reciprocal dynamic.

In conclusion, moving beyond the variable-centered approach, the present study utilizes a person-centered approach to identify the individual profiles underlying different worldviews and examines how people with different profiles show different levels of dispositional malicious and benign envy. Our results reveal that across different profiles, the chronic tendency to experience malicious and benign envy is mostly linked to the worldviews of social cynicism, reward for application, and religiosity.