What could be? Depends on who you ask: Using latent profile analysis and natural language processing to identify the different types and content of utopian visions
Morgana Lizzio-Wilson, Emma F. Thomas, Michael Wenzel, Emily Haines, Jesse Stevens, Daniel Fighera, Patrick Williams, Samuel Arthurson, Danny Osborne, Linda J. Skitka
{"title":"What could be? Depends on who you ask: Using latent profile analysis and natural language processing to identify the different types and content of utopian visions","authors":"Morgana Lizzio-Wilson, Emma F. Thomas, Michael Wenzel, Emily Haines, Jesse Stevens, Daniel Fighera, Patrick Williams, Samuel Arthurson, Danny Osborne, Linda J. Skitka","doi":"10.1111/bjso.12853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>When people think of a utopian future, what do they imagine? We examined (a) whether people's self-generated utopias differ by how much they criticize, seek to change or escape from an undesirable present; and (b) whether these distinct types of utopian thinking predict system-critical attitudes and intentions to change the status quo. Participants (<i>N</i> = 509) wrote about a future where a social issue they supported was resolved (e.g. economic inequality and climate change). Latent profile analysis revealed a subgroup of <i>change-oriented utopian thinkers</i> with lower system satisfaction and higher action intentions than the other two subgroups. Unexpectedly, the remaining profiles imagined ominous (<i>dystopian thinkers</i>) or ‘neutral’ (<i>ambivalent future thinkers</i>) futures and expressed mixed social change support. Computerized linguistic analyses further revealed that dystopian thinkers used more hopelessness-related language than change-oriented utopian thinkers. Ambivalent future thinkers were as ‘hopeless’ as dystopian thinkers but, like change-oriented utopian thinkers, used more fairness-related language. Thus, change-oriented utopian thinkers distinctly imagined a fairer—and possible—future. These results illustrate heterogeneity in how people imagine the future of their societies on specific issues. Critically, the features of these visions predict system-critical attitudes and a willingness to agitate for change.</p>","PeriodicalId":48304,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Psychology","volume":"64 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/bjso.12853","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12853","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
When people think of a utopian future, what do they imagine? We examined (a) whether people's self-generated utopias differ by how much they criticize, seek to change or escape from an undesirable present; and (b) whether these distinct types of utopian thinking predict system-critical attitudes and intentions to change the status quo. Participants (N = 509) wrote about a future where a social issue they supported was resolved (e.g. economic inequality and climate change). Latent profile analysis revealed a subgroup of change-oriented utopian thinkers with lower system satisfaction and higher action intentions than the other two subgroups. Unexpectedly, the remaining profiles imagined ominous (dystopian thinkers) or ‘neutral’ (ambivalent future thinkers) futures and expressed mixed social change support. Computerized linguistic analyses further revealed that dystopian thinkers used more hopelessness-related language than change-oriented utopian thinkers. Ambivalent future thinkers were as ‘hopeless’ as dystopian thinkers but, like change-oriented utopian thinkers, used more fairness-related language. Thus, change-oriented utopian thinkers distinctly imagined a fairer—and possible—future. These results illustrate heterogeneity in how people imagine the future of their societies on specific issues. Critically, the features of these visions predict system-critical attitudes and a willingness to agitate for change.
期刊介绍：
The British Journal of Social Psychology publishes work from scholars based in all parts of the world, and manuscripts that present data on a wide range of populations inside and outside the UK. It publishes original papers in all areas of social psychology including: • social cognition • attitudes • group processes • social influence • intergroup relations • self and identity • nonverbal communication • social psychological aspects of personality, affect and emotion • language and discourse Submissions addressing these topics from a variety of approaches and methods, both quantitative and qualitative are welcomed. We publish papers of the following kinds: • empirical papers that address theoretical issues; • theoretical papers, including analyses of existing social psychological theories and presentations of theoretical innovations, extensions, or integrations; • review papers that provide an evaluation of work within a given area of social psychology and that present proposals for further research in that area; • methodological papers concerning issues that are particularly relevant to a wide range of social psychologists; • an invited agenda article as the first article in the first part of every volume. The editorial team aims to handle papers as efficiently as possible. In 2016, papers were triaged within less than a week, and the average turnaround time from receipt of the manuscript to first decision sent back to the authors was 47 days.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
