Much recent work has focused on Americans’ positive and negative feelings toward their own and opposing political parties. However, there is neither a consensus on how to model such partisan affect, nor a detailed understanding of its consequences for political participation. This work addressed these two gaps by first, empirically examining how many dimensions best characterize American partisan affect. Study 1A used contemporary, categorical approaches to factor analyses across an extensive set of partisan affect items from the Pew American Trends Panel to test two competing hypotheses: that (1A-1) partisan affect is one-dimensional, or that (1A-2) partisan affect is two-dimensional. Results suggested support for Hypothesis 1A-2; two dimensions of partisan affect covered inparty affinity and outparty animosity. Second, Study 1B investigated the predictive validity of different aspects of partisan affect in terms of discrete forms of political participation. Study 1B had three competing hypotheses implied by prior partisan affect literature: that (1B-1) outparty animosity (but not inparty affinity) would predict most forms of behavior, that (1B-2) outparty animosity would predict higher-cost forms of behavior, and inparty affinity would predict lower-cost forms of behavior, or that (1B-3) the combination/interaction of outparty animosity and inparty affinity would predict most forms of behavior. Results of logistic regressions suggested partial support for Hypothesis 1B-1 and direct support for Hypothesis 1B-2. Outparty animosity predicted more medium-cost forms of political participation, whereas inparty affinity predicted lower-cost forms of political participation. Implications are discussed for theory, the measurement of partisan affect, and the prediction of political participation.
{"title":"The dual nature of American partisan affect: Examining the impact of inparty affinity and outparty animosity on unique forms of political behavior","authors":"Adi Wiezel, John K. Wagner","doi":"10.5964/jspp.8135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.8135","url":null,"abstract":"Much recent work has focused on Americans’ positive and negative feelings toward their own and opposing political parties. However, there is neither a consensus on how to model such partisan affect, nor a detailed understanding of its consequences for political participation. This work addressed these two gaps by first, empirically examining how many dimensions best characterize American partisan affect. Study 1A used contemporary, categorical approaches to factor analyses across an extensive set of partisan affect items from the Pew American Trends Panel to test two competing hypotheses: that (1A-1) partisan affect is one-dimensional, or that (1A-2) partisan affect is two-dimensional. Results suggested support for Hypothesis 1A-2; two dimensions of partisan affect covered inparty affinity and outparty animosity. Second, Study 1B investigated the predictive validity of different aspects of partisan affect in terms of discrete forms of political participation. Study 1B had three competing hypotheses implied by prior partisan affect literature: that (1B-1) outparty animosity (but not inparty affinity) would predict most forms of behavior, that (1B-2) outparty animosity would predict higher-cost forms of behavior, and inparty affinity would predict lower-cost forms of behavior, or that (1B-3) the combination/interaction of outparty animosity and inparty affinity would predict most forms of behavior. Results of logistic regressions suggested partial support for Hypothesis 1B-1 and direct support for Hypothesis 1B-2. Outparty animosity predicted more medium-cost forms of political participation, whereas inparty affinity predicted lower-cost forms of political participation. Implications are discussed for theory, the measurement of partisan affect, and the prediction of political participation.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42127621","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
COVID-19 spawned many bogus beliefs (e.g., that it could be treated by ingesting household cleaners) and induced resistance to established facts (e.g., that it could be managed by vaccines). We tested whether transitory distress and insufficient psychosocial resources explain these maladaptive perspectives. According to the Resources and Perception Model (RPM; Harber et al., 2011, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023995), distress distorts perception and judgment, but psychosocial resources (e.g., social support, self-esteem, purpose) mitigate such distortions by buffering distress. Two cross-sectional studies of COVID-19 beliefs fit within the RPM framework. General life distress was related to endorsing bogus beliefs and denying facts. COVID-specific distress was also related to bogus beliefs but not to denial of facts. Resources, in contrast, were associated with fewer bogus beliefs and with greater acceptance of facts. As per RPM, distress mediated the relation between resources and bogus beliefs. Additionally, rejection of CDC recommendations and adoption of survivalist strategies were positively associated with distress and negatively associated with resources. All results were retained even after controlling for mood and individual differences including political ideology and news sources.
{"title":"Fevered reasoning: How heightened distress and lowered resources relate to COVID-19 beliefs","authors":"K. Harber, Valeria M. Vila","doi":"10.5964/jspp.9267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.9267","url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 spawned many bogus beliefs (e.g., that it could be treated by ingesting household cleaners) and induced resistance to established facts (e.g., that it could be managed by vaccines). We tested whether transitory distress and insufficient psychosocial resources explain these maladaptive perspectives. According to the Resources and Perception Model (RPM; Harber et al., 2011, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023995), distress distorts perception and judgment, but psychosocial resources (e.g., social support, self-esteem, purpose) mitigate such distortions by buffering distress. Two cross-sectional studies of COVID-19 beliefs fit within the RPM framework. General life distress was related to endorsing bogus beliefs and denying facts. COVID-specific distress was also related to bogus beliefs but not to denial of facts. Resources, in contrast, were associated with fewer bogus beliefs and with greater acceptance of facts. As per RPM, distress mediated the relation between resources and bogus beliefs. Additionally, rejection of CDC recommendations and adoption of survivalist strategies were positively associated with distress and negatively associated with resources. All results were retained even after controlling for mood and individual differences including political ideology and news sources.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48529034","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Damilola Makanju, Andrew G. Livingstone, Joseph Sweetman
Group members’ appraisals of their in-group’s collective history have been found to shape their engagement with the in-group and its collective goals. We add to this research by examining the complexity and dimensionality of how group members appraise collective history, and how different forms of appraisals relate to different forms of in-group engagement. We do so by (1) outlining four key dimensions – richness, clarity, valence and subjective importance – of how an in-group’s collective history can be appraised, and (2) examining how these appraisal dimensions relate to group members’ engagement with the in-group. Focussing on the African in-group category, we tested these ideas using a qualitative, essay writing approach. Analysis of responses (N = 33) indicated varied use of each of these dimensions of collective history appraisal, and that they relate to in-group engagement in differing ways. Two specific rhetorical strategies were identified: deploying the in-group’s history as a contrast; and deploying the in-group’s history as an inspiration. When collective history was appraised as rich, complex, negatively-valenced and unimportant, it was characterised as something from which the in-group should break away (history-as-contrast). Conversely, when collective history was appraised as rich, complex, positively-valenced and important, history was characterised as something to be used as a resource for the in-group (history-as-inspiration). Our findings build a fuller and more nuanced picture of how collective history shapes in-group engagement in a non-western setting.
{"title":"How group members appraise collective history: Appraisal dimensions of collective history and their role in in-group engagement","authors":"Damilola Makanju, Andrew G. Livingstone, Joseph Sweetman","doi":"10.5964/jspp.6355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6355","url":null,"abstract":"<p xmlns=\"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/JATS1\">Group members’ appraisals of their in-group’s collective history have been found to shape their engagement with the in-group and its collective goals. We add to this research by examining the complexity and dimensionality of how group members appraise collective history, and how different forms of appraisals relate to different forms of in-group engagement. We do so by (1) outlining four key dimensions – richness, clarity, valence and subjective importance – of how an in-group’s collective history can be appraised, and (2) examining how these appraisal dimensions relate to group members’ engagement with the in-group. Focussing on the African in-group category, we tested these ideas using a qualitative, essay writing approach. Analysis of responses (N = 33) indicated varied use of each of these dimensions of collective history appraisal, and that they relate to in-group engagement in differing ways. Two specific rhetorical strategies were identified: deploying the in-group’s history as a contrast; and deploying the in-group’s history as an inspiration. When collective history was appraised as rich, complex, negatively-valenced and unimportant, it was characterised as something from which the in-group should break away (history-as-contrast). Conversely, when collective history was appraised as rich, complex, positively-valenced and important, history was characterised as something to be used as a resource for the in-group (history-as-inspiration). Our findings build a fuller and more nuanced picture of how collective history shapes in-group engagement in a non-western setting.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135493375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Damilola Makanju, Andrew G. Livingstone, Joseph Sweetman
Group members’ appraisals of their in-group’s collective history have been found to shape their engagement with the in-group, in terms of identification and willingness to work towards group goals. However, previous research has not examined the complexity and dimensionality of how collective history is appraised by group members, or how different forms of appraisals relate to different forms of in-group engagement. Our paper addresses this shortcoming by (1) outlining four key dimensions – richness, clarity, valence and subjective importance – of how an in-group’s collective history can be appraised, and (2) examining how these appraisal dimensions relate to group members’ engagement with the in-group. Focussing on the African in-group category, we tested these ideas using a qualitative – essay writing – approach. Analysis of responses (N = 33) indicated varied use of each of these dimensions of collective history appraisal, and that they relate to in-group engagement in differing ways. Two specific rhetorical strategies were identified: deploying the in-group’s history as a contrast; and deploying the in-group’s history as an inspiration. When collective history was appraised as rich, complex, negatively-valenced and unimportant, it was characterised as something from which the in-group should break away (i.e., history-as-contrast). Conversely, when collective history was appraised as rich, complex, positively-valenced and important, history was characterised as something to be used as a resource for the in-group (i.e., history-as-inspiration). Our findings build a fuller and more nuanced picture of how collective history shapes in-group engagement in a non-western setting.
{"title":"How group members appraise collective history: Appraisal dimensions of collective history and their role in in-group engagement","authors":"Damilola Makanju, Andrew G. Livingstone, Joseph Sweetman","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/p4rxj","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/p4rxj","url":null,"abstract":"Group members’ appraisals of their in-group’s collective history have been found to shape their engagement with the in-group, in terms of identification and willingness to work towards group goals. However, previous research has not examined the complexity and dimensionality of how collective history is appraised by group members, or how different forms of appraisals relate to different forms of in-group engagement. Our paper addresses this shortcoming by (1) outlining four key dimensions – richness, clarity, valence and subjective importance – of how an in-group’s collective history can be appraised, and (2) examining how these appraisal dimensions relate to group members’ engagement with the in-group. Focussing on the African in-group category, we tested these ideas using a qualitative – essay writing – approach. Analysis of responses (N = 33) indicated varied use of each of these dimensions of collective history appraisal, and that they relate to in-group engagement in differing ways. Two specific rhetorical strategies were identified: deploying the in-group’s history as a contrast; and deploying the in-group’s history as an inspiration. When collective history was appraised as rich, complex, negatively-valenced and unimportant, it was characterised as something from which the in-group should break away (i.e., history-as-contrast). Conversely, when collective history was appraised as rich, complex, positively-valenced and important, history was characterised as something to be used as a resource for the in-group (i.e., history-as-inspiration). Our findings build a fuller and more nuanced picture of how collective history shapes in-group engagement in a non-western setting.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41246054","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Anarchism signifies the actions taken to bring about a fairer, more equal, non-hierarchical, and democratic society, one that exists without State coercion or domination. Although community psychology has engaged with some anarchist practices, such as mutual aid, the discipline has had little explicit or direct engagement with anarchism’s broader project of sociopolitical organization, with a notable exception. Almost fifty years ago, Seymour Sarason argued for what he called the anarchist insight, urging community psychologists to be wary of how they interact with oppressive State apparatuses that cause considerable psychological damage within communities. In this article, I draw on Sarason’s conception of the anarchist insight as an entry point into what I prefer to think of as the insights of anarchism. The insights of anarchism, I posit, are the knowledges derived from the fragments of anarchism that already exist in communities. The task of community psychologists concerned with the insights of anarchism is to work with people to communicate, strengthen, and make connections between these different fragments. Drawing from my own work, I examine how residents from a low-income community produced and screened a participatory documentary film that connected the everyday anarchism of a community garden to social movement organizing, where the role of the State was intensely debated. I conclude by considering some of the ways by which future community psychology work can consolidate the insights of anarchism.
{"title":"Returning community psychology to the insights of anarchism: Fragments and prefiguration","authors":"Nick Malherbe","doi":"10.5964/jspp.9385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.9385","url":null,"abstract":"Anarchism signifies the actions taken to bring about a fairer, more equal, non-hierarchical, and democratic society, one that exists without State coercion or domination. Although community psychology has engaged with some anarchist practices, such as mutual aid, the discipline has had little explicit or direct engagement with anarchism’s broader project of sociopolitical organization, with a notable exception. Almost fifty years ago, Seymour Sarason argued for what he called the anarchist insight, urging community psychologists to be wary of how they interact with oppressive State apparatuses that cause considerable psychological damage within communities. In this article, I draw on Sarason’s conception of the anarchist insight as an entry point into what I prefer to think of as the insights of anarchism. The insights of anarchism, I posit, are the knowledges derived from the fragments of anarchism that already exist in communities. The task of community psychologists concerned with the insights of anarchism is to work with people to communicate, strengthen, and make connections between these different fragments. Drawing from my own work, I examine how residents from a low-income community produced and screened a participatory documentary film that connected the everyday anarchism of a community garden to social movement organizing, where the role of the State was intensely debated. I conclude by considering some of the ways by which future community psychology work can consolidate the insights of anarchism.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47958985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic led most of the involved countries to take measures to contain the spread of the virus. Among these, the authorities banned gatherings and tough measures, involving also the use of force, were at times adopted to disperse people breaking this rule. The aim of this research was to investigate to what extent harsh measures are considered acceptable to prevent such gatherings. Specifically, in line with political orientation theory, we hypothesized that people with a low value-based orientation to authority would be more likely to accept such measures when implemented by countries perceived as democratic. This tendency to assume that a democratic state never adopts anti-democratic measures has been defined a democratic delusion paradox. As hypothesized, results on 359 Italian participants showed that respondents with low scores on value orientation were more likely to be affected by this paradox. They were more likely to consider harsh measures as acceptable if implemented by a country they perceived as democratic. Conversely, when the issuing country was judged to be authoritarian, the use of force was more frequently condemned. The implication of this research was to show the importance of monitoring established democracies and maintaining a sense of critical participation on the policies issued by the authorities. We provide support for the political orientation theory arguing that a political orientation based on values can help watching democratic systems from degenerating into autocracy.
{"title":"Accepting controversial measures in times of COVID-19: The democratic delusion paradox","authors":"S. Passini, D. Morselli","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7821","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7821","url":null,"abstract":"The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic led most of the involved countries to take measures to contain the spread of the virus. Among these, the authorities banned gatherings and tough measures, involving also the use of force, were at times adopted to disperse people breaking this rule. The aim of this research was to investigate to what extent harsh measures are considered acceptable to prevent such gatherings. Specifically, in line with political orientation theory, we hypothesized that people with a low value-based orientation to authority would be more likely to accept such measures when implemented by countries perceived as democratic. This tendency to assume that a democratic state never adopts anti-democratic measures has been defined a democratic delusion paradox. As hypothesized, results on 359 Italian participants showed that respondents with low scores on value orientation were more likely to be affected by this paradox. They were more likely to consider harsh measures as acceptable if implemented by a country they perceived as democratic. Conversely, when the issuing country was judged to be authoritarian, the use of force was more frequently condemned. The implication of this research was to show the importance of monitoring established democracies and maintaining a sense of critical participation on the policies issued by the authorities. We provide support for the political orientation theory arguing that a political orientation based on values can help watching democratic systems from degenerating into autocracy.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45155467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We examined the implications of the institutional racial/ethnic designation of Arab Americans as White. Do Arab Americans prefer this categorization or another, and what factors predict categorization in one way or another? In Study 1, a representative sample of Arab Americans in Southeast Michigan (N = 1,001 57% female, ages 18 to 88, Age M = 43.64) completed measures of perceived discrimination, various forms of social identification, and self-categorized from Census-designated racial categories. Self-categorization as “Other” was significantly predicted by experiences of discrimination, Muslim religious affiliation, and having darker skin. In Study 2, with a convenience sample of Arab American college students (52% female, Age M = 20.25), participants were randomly assigned to self-categorize as either “White” or as “Middle Eastern/North African” and then completed measures of perceived discrimination and various forms of social identification. Assigned self-categorization as “Middle Eastern/North African” significantly predicted subgroup respect towards Arabs, but only among those who strongly identified as American. Far from being a neutral, merely reflective method of categorization, the Census and similar categorization forms are sites of racial/ethnic socialization. Respondents bring to such forms their social psychological experience. For many Arab Americans, a host of social experiences indicate the (in)appropriateness and meaning of being forced to self-categorize as White or being allowed to self-categorize differently.
{"title":"White, or not quite? Predicting Arab American responses to racial categorization forms","authors":"N. Hakim, N. Branscombe","doi":"10.5964/jspp.5503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.5503","url":null,"abstract":"We examined the implications of the institutional racial/ethnic designation of Arab Americans as White. Do Arab Americans prefer this categorization or another, and what factors predict categorization in one way or another? In Study 1, a representative sample of Arab Americans in Southeast Michigan (N = 1,001 57% female, ages 18 to 88, Age M = 43.64) completed measures of perceived discrimination, various forms of social identification, and self-categorized from Census-designated racial categories. Self-categorization as “Other” was significantly predicted by experiences of discrimination, Muslim religious affiliation, and having darker skin. In Study 2, with a convenience sample of Arab American college students (52% female, Age M = 20.25), participants were randomly assigned to self-categorize as either “White” or as “Middle Eastern/North African” and then completed measures of perceived discrimination and various forms of social identification. Assigned self-categorization as “Middle Eastern/North African” significantly predicted subgroup respect towards Arabs, but only among those who strongly identified as American. Far from being a neutral, merely reflective method of categorization, the Census and similar categorization forms are sites of racial/ethnic socialization. Respondents bring to such forms their social psychological experience. For many Arab Americans, a host of social experiences indicate the (in)appropriateness and meaning of being forced to self-categorize as White or being allowed to self-categorize differently.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47117206","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In light of the continuing rise of economic inequality, understanding why even individuals who are concerned about it often still oppose redistributive policies is crucial. This research investigates two mechanisms that may contribute to this phenomenon. Across two studies (N1 = 172; N2 = 232), we find that capitalist ideology strongly predicts opposition to redistributive policies, above SDO as a measure of anti-egalitarianism. This provides support for an ideological perspective whereby opposing redistribution is understood as the result of an endorsement of capitalism with its rejection of government interference in the economy. On the other hand, we did not find support for an intergroup approach whereby, akin to discrimination, opposition to redistribution is understood as a harmful act against its would-be recipients. Classism, referring to negative stereotypes about the lower social class as the beneficiaries of redistribution, predicted only interpersonal discrimination but not support for redistributive policies. We conclude that when it comes to the issue of economic inequality and how to remedy it, the crucial obstacle to redistributive policies appears not to lie in negative perceptions of their recipients but a more fundamental ideological opposition.
{"title":"The role of ideological and intergroup mechanisms in predicting opposition to redistribution and discrimination against the lower social class","authors":"Lea Hartwich, J. Becker","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7171","url":null,"abstract":"In light of the continuing rise of economic inequality, understanding why even individuals who are concerned about it often still oppose redistributive policies is crucial. This research investigates two mechanisms that may contribute to this phenomenon. Across two studies (N1 = 172; N2 = 232), we find that capitalist ideology strongly predicts opposition to redistributive policies, above SDO as a measure of anti-egalitarianism. This provides support for an ideological perspective whereby opposing redistribution is understood as the result of an endorsement of capitalism with its rejection of government interference in the economy. On the other hand, we did not find support for an intergroup approach whereby, akin to discrimination, opposition to redistribution is understood as a harmful act against its would-be recipients. Classism, referring to negative stereotypes about the lower social class as the beneficiaries of redistribution, predicted only interpersonal discrimination but not support for redistributive policies. We conclude that when it comes to the issue of economic inequality and how to remedy it, the crucial obstacle to redistributive policies appears not to lie in negative perceptions of their recipients but a more fundamental ideological opposition.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49039766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
F. Lalot, Gaëlle Marinthe, Alice Kasper, D. Abrams
We tested how well the Identity-Deprivation-Efficacy-Action-Subjective-wellbeing (IDEAS) model predicts citizens’ intentions to engage in collective action opposing their government, and their subjective well-being. Representative samples from Scotland, Wales, and the county of Kent in England were surveyed during the COVID-19 pandemic in October 2020 (N = 1,536). Results largely support our preregistered hypotheses, confirming that the IDEAS model offers a valid explanatory framework for how relative deprivation predicts both collective action opposing one’s government and levels of subjective well-being. In the case of collective action, there were significant effects of collective relative deprivation (cognitive and affective) and collective efficacy on social change beliefs, which in turn positively predicted collective action intentions. The role of national identification was more nuanced, revealing both negative indirect effects via collective efficacy and relative deprivation, and a positive indirect effect via political orientation. Findings also suggest interesting directions for future research on national identification.
{"title":"Mobilising ideas in the COVID-19 pandemic: Anti-lockdown actions and the Identity-Deprivation-Efficacy-Action-Subjective well-being model","authors":"F. Lalot, Gaëlle Marinthe, Alice Kasper, D. Abrams","doi":"10.5964/jspp.8351","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.8351","url":null,"abstract":"We tested how well the Identity-Deprivation-Efficacy-Action-Subjective-wellbeing (IDEAS) model predicts citizens’ intentions to engage in collective action opposing their government, and their subjective well-being. Representative samples from Scotland, Wales, and the county of Kent in England were surveyed during the COVID-19 pandemic in October 2020 (N = 1,536). Results largely support our preregistered hypotheses, confirming that the IDEAS model offers a valid explanatory framework for how relative deprivation predicts both collective action opposing one’s government and levels of subjective well-being. In the case of collective action, there were significant effects of collective relative deprivation (cognitive and affective) and collective efficacy on social change beliefs, which in turn positively predicted collective action intentions. The role of national identification was more nuanced, revealing both negative indirect effects via collective efficacy and relative deprivation, and a positive indirect effect via political orientation. Findings also suggest interesting directions for future research on national identification.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47139807","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
While much research has been conducted on the antecedents and outcomes of activism, relatively lesser attention has been paid within social and political psychological research to the understandings of people themselves about their involvement in activism or the ways in which they conceptualise social change. Informed by social representations theory, we conducted interviews with UK peace activists, to examine how they made sense of social change dynamics in the context of their activism, and how the beliefs, opinions, and perceptions of other people (meta-representations) were implicated in these understandings. Three themes were developed using reflexive thematic analysis: (1) imagining and enacting an alternative; (2) impression management; and (3) refining the argument. Participants consistently oriented towards meta-representations of militarism in their activism, which was were consequential both for the ways in which activists communicated with and presented themselves to the public. This reflexive orientation was described as a barrier to social change but also a potential source of strength. Findings are discussed in relation to previous theoretical and empirical work.
{"title":"Stretching the elastic: UK peace activists’ understandings of social change","authors":"E. O’Dwyer, Neus Beascoechea Seguí","doi":"10.5964/jspp.11497","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.11497","url":null,"abstract":"While much research has been conducted on the antecedents and outcomes of activism, relatively lesser attention has been paid within social and political psychological research to the understandings of people themselves about their involvement in activism or the ways in which they conceptualise social change. Informed by social representations theory, we conducted interviews with UK peace activists, to examine how they made sense of social change dynamics in the context of their activism, and how the beliefs, opinions, and perceptions of other people (meta-representations) were implicated in these understandings. Three themes were developed using reflexive thematic analysis: (1) imagining and enacting an alternative; (2) impression management; and (3) refining the argument. Participants consistently oriented towards meta-representations of militarism in their activism, which was were consequential both for the ways in which activists communicated with and presented themselves to the public. This reflexive orientation was described as a barrier to social change but also a potential source of strength. Findings are discussed in relation to previous theoretical and empirical work.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45126094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：