People with a market mindset attend to ratios and rates, and allocate rewards adequately to costs but are less sensitive to feelings. In this project, we demonstrate that activating a market mindset also affects people’s acceptance of free-market principles and their endorsement of individualizing moral dimensions—care/harm and fairness/cheating. Experiment 1 documented that a market mindset positively impacted people’s endorsement of fair market ideology. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the salience of such a market mindset hampered the importance of individualizing moral dimensions. Importantly, we found that political orientation moderated the negative effect of a market mindset on the endorsement of individualizing moral foundations—this effect held for participants who declared moderate and conservative political orientations, but not for liberals.
{"title":"Market mindset reduces endorsement of individualizing moral foundations, but not in liberals","authors":"T. Zaleskiewicz, Agata Gąsiorowska, A. Kuzminska","doi":"10.5964/jspp.8163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.8163","url":null,"abstract":"People with a market mindset attend to ratios and rates, and allocate rewards adequately to costs but are less sensitive to feelings. In this project, we demonstrate that activating a market mindset also affects people’s acceptance of free-market principles and their endorsement of individualizing moral dimensions—care/harm and fairness/cheating. Experiment 1 documented that a market mindset positively impacted people’s endorsement of fair market ideology. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that the salience of such a market mindset hampered the importance of individualizing moral dimensions. Importantly, we found that political orientation moderated the negative effect of a market mindset on the endorsement of individualizing moral foundations—this effect held for participants who declared moderate and conservative political orientations, but not for liberals.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42531959","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}
Fouad Bou Zeineddine, R. Saab, B. Lášticová, Arin H. Ayanian, Anna Kende
This paper offers an exploration of research production in social psychology as a global endeavor from the point of view of Anglophone social psychologists (N = 232) across 64 countries. We examine social psychologists’ beliefs regarding the difficulties in conducting research in social psychology and the inequalities that they report between the Global North, South and East Europe, and the Global South. Across all regions, we found pervasive critical awareness of obstacles to conducting research – including underinvestment in the field, precarious and counter-productive labor conditions, and excessive and biased disciplinary standards. However, we also found that colleagues outside the Global North reported quantitatively and qualitatively larger obstacles to research. These included well-known historically-rooted inequalities but also contemporary systemic procedural and distributive injustices in material, human, and social-political capital. Non-Northern colleagues in particular critically reflected on how these inequalities and injustices are amplified by Northern hegemonies in social, institutional, disciplinary, economic, and political systems. Discussion focuses on the implications of these results for social psychologists, social psychology as a discipline, and its situation within broader hierarchical systems and their intersectionalities.
{"title":"“Unavailable, insecure, and very poorly paid”: Global difficulties and inequalities in conducting social psychological research","authors":"Fouad Bou Zeineddine, R. Saab, B. Lášticová, Arin H. Ayanian, Anna Kende","doi":"10.5964/jspp.8311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.8311","url":null,"abstract":"This paper offers an exploration of research production in social psychology as a global endeavor from the point of view of Anglophone social psychologists (N = 232) across 64 countries. We examine social psychologists’ beliefs regarding the difficulties in conducting research in social psychology and the inequalities that they report between the Global North, South and East Europe, and the Global South. Across all regions, we found pervasive critical awareness of obstacles to conducting research – including underinvestment in the field, precarious and counter-productive labor conditions, and excessive and biased disciplinary standards. However, we also found that colleagues outside the Global North reported quantitatively and qualitatively larger obstacles to research. These included well-known historically-rooted inequalities but also contemporary systemic procedural and distributive injustices in material, human, and social-political capital. Non-Northern colleagues in particular critically reflected on how these inequalities and injustices are amplified by Northern hegemonies in social, institutional, disciplinary, economic, and political systems. Discussion focuses on the implications of these results for social psychologists, social psychology as a discipline, and its situation within broader hierarchical systems and their intersectionalities.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46994378","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}
J. Lammers, Marcin Bukowski, A. Potoczek, A. Fleischmann, W. Hofmann
In today’s elections, abundantly available polls inform voters what parties lead and what parties trail. This allows voters to accurately predict the likely outcomes of elections before the final results are in. Voters may react to these ex-ante election outcomes by shifting their votes either toward leading parties, often termed the “bandwagon effect” or toward trailing parties, often termed the “underdog effect”. The published literature presents different perspectives on the strength of both effects and the underlying psychological processes. Three preregistered studies (total N = 1,424) test the psychological causes of both effects. Exploratory Study 1 relates differences in interpersonal, moral, strategic, and epistemic psychological factors to shifts in voting intentions before the 2019 Polish parliamentary elections. Results suggest that the bandwagon effect reflects a lack of political expertise, whereas the underdog effect reflects fairness concerns. To provide experimental evidence, Studies 2a and 2b manipulate these two factors in a simulated election design. The results confirm that low expertise increases the bandwagon effect and that fairness concerns increase the underdog effect.
{"title":"Disentangling the factors behind shifting voting intentions: The bandwagon effect reflects heuristic processing, while the underdog effect reflects fairness concerns","authors":"J. Lammers, Marcin Bukowski, A. Potoczek, A. Fleischmann, W. Hofmann","doi":"10.5964/jspp.9241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.9241","url":null,"abstract":"In today’s elections, abundantly available polls inform voters what parties lead and what parties trail. This allows voters to accurately predict the likely outcomes of elections before the final results are in. Voters may react to these ex-ante election outcomes by shifting their votes either toward leading parties, often termed the “bandwagon effect” or toward trailing parties, often termed the “underdog effect”. The published literature presents different perspectives on the strength of both effects and the underlying psychological processes. Three preregistered studies (total N = 1,424) test the psychological causes of both effects. Exploratory Study 1 relates differences in interpersonal, moral, strategic, and epistemic psychological factors to shifts in voting intentions before the 2019 Polish parliamentary elections. Results suggest that the bandwagon effect reflects a lack of political expertise, whereas the underdog effect reflects fairness concerns. To provide experimental evidence, Studies 2a and 2b manipulate these two factors in a simulated election design. The results confirm that low expertise increases the bandwagon effect and that fairness concerns increase the underdog effect.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43757964","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}
Evidence suggests that politically right-leaning individuals are more likely to be closed-minded. Whether this association is inherent or subject to change has been the subject of debate, yet has not been formally tested. Through a meta-analysis, we find evidence of a changing association between conservatism and facets of closed-mindedness in the U.S. and international context using 341 unique samples, over 200,000 participants, and 920 estimates over 71 years. In the U.S., data ranging from 1948 to 2019 revealed a linear decline in the association between social conservatism (SC) and closed-mindedness, though economic conservatism (EC) did not vary in its association with closed-mindedness over time. Internationally across 18 countries, excluding the U.S., we observed a curvilinear decline in the association between SC and closed-mindedness over that same time, but no change in ECs association. We also tested variation over time for attitudinal measures of conservatism ranging between 1987 to 2018. In the U.S., we observed a linear increase in the association between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and closed-mindedness, with a similar linear increase in the association between social dominance orientation (SDO) and closed-mindedness. Internationally, there was a curvilinear increase in the association between RWA and closed-mindedness, but no change in the association with SDO. We discuss the changes to the political landscape that might explain our findings.
{"title":"The changing association between political ideology and closed-mindedness: Left and right have become more alike","authors":"Jesse Acosta, Markus Kemmelmeier","doi":"10.5964/jspp.6751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6751","url":null,"abstract":"Evidence suggests that politically right-leaning individuals are more likely to be closed-minded. Whether this association is inherent or subject to change has been the subject of debate, yet has not been formally tested. Through a meta-analysis, we find evidence of a changing association between conservatism and facets of closed-mindedness in the U.S. and international context using 341 unique samples, over 200,000 participants, and 920 estimates over 71 years. In the U.S., data ranging from 1948 to 2019 revealed a linear decline in the association between social conservatism (SC) and closed-mindedness, though economic conservatism (EC) did not vary in its association with closed-mindedness over time. Internationally across 18 countries, excluding the U.S., we observed a curvilinear decline in the association between SC and closed-mindedness over that same time, but no change in ECs association. We also tested variation over time for attitudinal measures of conservatism ranging between 1987 to 2018. In the U.S., we observed a linear increase in the association between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and closed-mindedness, with a similar linear increase in the association between social dominance orientation (SDO) and closed-mindedness. Internationally, there was a curvilinear increase in the association between RWA and closed-mindedness, but no change in the association with SDO. We discuss the changes to the political landscape that might explain our findings.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44425328","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}
P. Shrout, Mao Mogami, Qi Xu, Yasaman Ghodse-Elahi, Elizabeth R Mutter, M. Riccio, T. Valshtein, V. Baadan, S. Goudarzi
In an era of increased political polarization, it is important to measure how receptive US American citizens are to diverse political views. Being more open to diverse political viewpoints—openness to political pluralism—may involve holding emotional and intellectual tolerance, non-rigidity, and proactive motivation to seek out different political perspectives. In three preregistered studies of US residents, we present a new self-report measure of openness to political pluralism (OPP) consisting of 25 items. In Study 1 (MTurk n = 400), we verified a preregistered bifactor model with four facets, conducted initial validity analyses, and created a short five-item version (OPPS). Both OPP and OPPS have high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. In Studies 2 and 3, MTurk participants (n = 258) and Qualtrics panel participants (n = 296) completed OPP and measures of related constructs to validate our scale. OPP was modestly correlated with actively open-minded thinking (AOT) and highly correlated with open-minded cognition-political (OMC-P). Greater OPP was associated with an inverted U-shape relation to left-right political orientation. It was also correlated with more politically diverse social networks and varied information seeking. We discuss how our measure of openness to political pluralism can be used in future research.
在政治两极分化加剧的时代，衡量美国公民对不同政治观点的接受程度是很重要的。对不同的政治观点持更开放的态度——对政治多元化持开放态度——可能包括保持情感和智力上的宽容，不僵化，以及积极主动地寻求不同的政治观点。在对美国居民进行的三项预登记研究中，我们提出了一种新的自我报告衡量对政治多元化的开放性(OPP)，由25个项目组成。在研究1 (MTurk n = 400)中，我们验证了一个包含四个方面的预注册双因素模型，进行了初步的效度分析，并创建了一个简短的五项版本(OPPS)。OPP和OPPS都具有较高的内部一致性和重测信度。在研究2和3中，MTurk参与者(n = 258)和qualics小组参与者(n = 296)完成了OPP和相关构图的测量，以验证我们的量表。OPP与积极开放思维(AOT)有中度相关，与开放的认知-政治(OMC-P)有高度相关。较高的OPP与左右政治倾向呈倒u型关系。它还与政治上更多样化的社交网络和不同的信息寻求有关。我们将讨论如何在未来的研究中使用我们对政治多元化的开放程度。
{"title":"Measuring openness to political pluralism","authors":"P. Shrout, Mao Mogami, Qi Xu, Yasaman Ghodse-Elahi, Elizabeth R Mutter, M. Riccio, T. Valshtein, V. Baadan, S. Goudarzi","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7867","url":null,"abstract":"In an era of increased political polarization, it is important to measure how receptive US American citizens are to diverse political views. Being more open to diverse political viewpoints—openness to political pluralism—may involve holding emotional and intellectual tolerance, non-rigidity, and proactive motivation to seek out different political perspectives. In three preregistered studies of US residents, we present a new self-report measure of openness to political pluralism (OPP) consisting of 25 items. In Study 1 (MTurk n = 400), we verified a preregistered bifactor model with four facets, conducted initial validity analyses, and created a short five-item version (OPPS). Both OPP and OPPS have high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. In Studies 2 and 3, MTurk participants (n = 258) and Qualtrics panel participants (n = 296) completed OPP and measures of related constructs to validate our scale. OPP was modestly correlated with actively open-minded thinking (AOT) and highly correlated with open-minded cognition-political (OMC-P). Greater OPP was associated with an inverted U-shape relation to left-right political orientation. It was also correlated with more politically diverse social networks and varied information seeking. We discuss how our measure of openness to political pluralism can be used in future research.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45969314","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}
E. Grosfeld, D. Scheepers, A. Cuyvers, N. Ellemers
Previous research suggests that social identity influences public attitudes about the European Union, but little is known about the role of social identity for perceived legitimacy of the EU. This article explores the relation between different forms of identification (national, EU, dual) and EU legitimacy perceptions, and the moderation of this relationship by experienced threat to national power and sociocultural identity. A survey was conducted in six countries (N = 1136). A factor analysis of legitimacy items resulted in two subscales (institutional trust and duty to obey). Separate regression analyses were therefore run on these subscales. All forms of identification were positively related to perceived EU legitimacy, while threat was a strong and universal negative predictor. However, the results suggest that national identification only positively predicted legitimacy when participants experienced no threat to their nation by the EU, while dual identification positively predicted legitimacy even when participants experienced threat. Overall, respect for national identities and their values may offer opportunities to safeguard and improve the perceived legitimacy of the EU. Findings are discussed in terms of the literature on the ingroup projection model and the common ingroup model.
{"title":"The integration of subgroups at the supranational level: The relation between social identity, national threat, and perceived legitimacy of the EU","authors":"E. Grosfeld, D. Scheepers, A. Cuyvers, N. Ellemers","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7917","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7917","url":null,"abstract":"Previous research suggests that social identity influences public attitudes about the European Union, but little is known about the role of social identity for perceived legitimacy of the EU. This article explores the relation between different forms of identification (national, EU, dual) and EU legitimacy perceptions, and the moderation of this relationship by experienced threat to national power and sociocultural identity. A survey was conducted in six countries (N = 1136). A factor analysis of legitimacy items resulted in two subscales (institutional trust and duty to obey). Separate regression analyses were therefore run on these subscales. All forms of identification were positively related to perceived EU legitimacy, while threat was a strong and universal negative predictor. However, the results suggest that national identification only positively predicted legitimacy when participants experienced no threat to their nation by the EU, while dual identification positively predicted legitimacy even when participants experienced threat. Overall, respect for national identities and their values may offer opportunities to safeguard and improve the perceived legitimacy of the EU. Findings are discussed in terms of the literature on the ingroup projection model and the common ingroup model.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42625830","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}
This special thematic section spotlights the current state of political psychology in Southeast Asia. Drawing from various research methodologies, five papers published in this special thematic section provide psychological insights into different political topics in the past and present-day Southeast Asia, including 1) Islam and politics; 2) terrorist labelling; 3) violence against minorities; 4) moralised policies; and 5) vote-buying. Overall, this special thematic section contributes to the understanding of the political psychology of non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) populations, particularly in Southeast Asia. The need for more publications with non-WEIRD samples in the field of political psychology is discussed, as are some strategies to actualise this goal.
{"title":"Political psychology of Southeast Asia","authors":"Ali Mashuri, I. E. Putra, C. Montiel","doi":"10.5964/jspp.10133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.10133","url":null,"abstract":"This special thematic section spotlights the current state of political psychology in Southeast Asia. Drawing from various research methodologies, five papers published in this special thematic section provide psychological insights into different political topics in the past and present-day Southeast Asia, including 1) Islam and politics; 2) terrorist labelling; 3) violence against minorities; 4) moralised policies; and 5) vote-buying. Overall, this special thematic section contributes to the understanding of the political psychology of non-WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) populations, particularly in Southeast Asia. The need for more publications with non-WEIRD samples in the field of political psychology is discussed, as are some strategies to actualise this goal.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45683994","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}
Rizka Halida, Harry Susianto, Saiful Mujani, Annas J. Pratama
This study examines two stages of vote-selling among voters: to accept or refuse money, and then to vote for the vote-buyer or competitor. Using unethical behavior and money-as-temptation as a framework, we predict that the amount of the money will influence the decision to accept, but that the effect will be lower among voters with higher inhibitory self-control (ISC). We also predict that accepting money will influence the vote choice, but that the influence will be lower when the competitor has higher levels of integrity and leadership. Overall, the voters decision on money offered will moderate the relations between amount of money and vote choice. A population-based survey experiment with 1,220 participants of Indonesian voters was conducted to test these predictions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 12 groups using a 4 (money offered: IDR50,000 vs. 100,000 vs. 150,000 vs. none) × 3 (candidate's personal quality: high leadership competitor vs. high integrity competitor vs. equal) between-group design. They made two hypothetical decisions: to accept or refuse the money, and to vote for the vote buyer or the competitor. The results showed that participants were signicantly tempted by larger amount of money, but the effect was moderated by ISC. However, there were no significant interaction between decision on money offered and candidates’ quality in influencing vote choice. Results from mediation analysis showed that accepting money was significantly mediate the influence of money on vote choice. Theoretical implications for understanding the practice of vote-buying and vote-selling are discussed.
{"title":"Vote-selling as unethical behavior: Effects of voter’s inhibitory self-control, decision toward vote-buying money, and candidate’s quality in Indonesia election","authors":"Rizka Halida, Harry Susianto, Saiful Mujani, Annas J. Pratama","doi":"10.5964/jspp.5643","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.5643","url":null,"abstract":"This study examines two stages of vote-selling among voters: to accept or refuse money, and then to vote for the vote-buyer or competitor. Using unethical behavior and money-as-temptation as a framework, we predict that the amount of the money will influence the decision to accept, but that the effect will be lower among voters with higher inhibitory self-control (ISC). We also predict that accepting money will influence the vote choice, but that the influence will be lower when the competitor has higher levels of integrity and leadership. Overall, the voters decision on money offered will moderate the relations between amount of money and vote choice. A population-based survey experiment with 1,220 participants of Indonesian voters was conducted to test these predictions. Participants were randomly assigned to one of 12 groups using a 4 (money offered: IDR50,000 vs. 100,000 vs. 150,000 vs. none) × 3 (candidate's personal quality: high leadership competitor vs. high integrity competitor vs. equal) between-group design. They made two hypothetical decisions: to accept or refuse the money, and to vote for the vote buyer or the competitor. The results showed that participants were signicantly tempted by larger amount of money, but the effect was moderated by ISC. However, there were no significant interaction between decision on money offered and candidates’ quality in influencing vote choice. Results from mediation analysis showed that accepting money was significantly mediate the influence of money on vote choice. Theoretical implications for understanding the practice of vote-buying and vote-selling are discussed.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49209462","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}
Viewing a policy as harmful can lead to its moral condemnation. However, this harmfulness can be constructed and negotiated to lead to different moral positions by building upon available, accessible, and relevant discourses. This study examined how individuals constructed and negotiated harm in moral reasoning about a contentious policy, Philippine President Duterte’s war on drugs, locally known as tokhang. We conducted thematic analysis with attention to discourse to analyze interviews with 12 Filipino young adults, using the Theory of Dyadic Morality as a starting point to make sense of constructions of harm. Reasoning about tokhang showed different constructions of intentional agents and vulnerable victims serving as the basis for moral positions. Moral condemnation of the war on drugs emphasized the vulnerability of its victims and the intentionality of the government and police as agents. On the other hand, moral justification of the policy constructed drug war victims as agentic and guilty of crimes, the police as potentially vulnerable victims acting according to protocol to defend themselves, and rogue agents acting independently of the policy. Ambiguous positions were also made possible when the causality of harm is unclear. These constructions and negotiations were built upon broader discourses deployed in the sociopolitical context of urban young adults, with individual contexts and characteristics contributing to variations in the accessibility and relevance of certain discourses and resulting moral positions.
{"title":"Negotiated harms in moralized policies: The case of Duterte’s war on drugs","authors":"Danielle P. Ochoa, Michelle G. Ong","doi":"10.5964/jspp.5623","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.5623","url":null,"abstract":"Viewing a policy as harmful can lead to its moral condemnation. However, this harmfulness can be constructed and negotiated to lead to different moral positions by building upon available, accessible, and relevant discourses. This study examined how individuals constructed and negotiated harm in moral reasoning about a contentious policy, Philippine President Duterte’s war on drugs, locally known as tokhang. We conducted thematic analysis with attention to discourse to analyze interviews with 12 Filipino young adults, using the Theory of Dyadic Morality as a starting point to make sense of constructions of harm. Reasoning about tokhang showed different constructions of intentional agents and vulnerable victims serving as the basis for moral positions. Moral condemnation of the war on drugs emphasized the vulnerability of its victims and the intentionality of the government and police as agents. On the other hand, moral justification of the policy constructed drug war victims as agentic and guilty of crimes, the police as potentially vulnerable victims acting according to protocol to defend themselves, and rogue agents acting independently of the policy. Ambiguous positions were also made possible when the causality of harm is unclear. These constructions and negotiations were built upon broader discourses deployed in the sociopolitical context of urban young adults, with individual contexts and characteristics contributing to variations in the accessibility and relevance of certain discourses and resulting moral positions.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47710333","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}
Many societies are grappling with how to reduce high levels of economic inequality. Although often overlooked, labor unions can have significant flattening effects on inequality. However, unions are not highly supported by the general public. To provide some psychological explanation as to why this may be the case, we examined five potential predictors of general union attitudes (i.e., political orientation, prejudice toward union members, meritocratic beliefs, union knowledge and social mobility beliefs). We tested each variable at least twice across three studies (two in the U.S., one in Canada, total N = 1756). Results indicated that stronger political conservative orientation, prejudice feelings towards union members and less accurate knowledge of union activities uniquely explained lower pro-union attitudes across studies. Meritocratic and social mobility beliefs did not meaningfully explain union attitudes. Although mostly correlational, this research provides insight into potential reasons why everyday citizens may support or condemn unions in an increasingly unequal world. Implications for altering union attitudes and support for related policies are discussed.
{"title":"Some psychological determinants of broad union attitudes","authors":"Owen McAleese, Martin V. Day","doi":"10.5964/jspp.9659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.9659","url":null,"abstract":"Many societies are grappling with how to reduce high levels of economic inequality. Although often overlooked, labor unions can have significant flattening effects on inequality. However, unions are not highly supported by the general public. To provide some psychological explanation as to why this may be the case, we examined five potential predictors of general union attitudes (i.e., political orientation, prejudice toward union members, meritocratic beliefs, union knowledge and social mobility beliefs). We tested each variable at least twice across three studies (two in the U.S., one in Canada, total N = 1756). Results indicated that stronger political conservative orientation, prejudice feelings towards union members and less accurate knowledge of union activities uniquely explained lower pro-union attitudes across studies. Meritocratic and social mobility beliefs did not meaningfully explain union attitudes. Although mostly correlational, this research provides insight into potential reasons why everyday citizens may support or condemn unions in an increasingly unequal world. Implications for altering union attitudes and support for related policies are discussed.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46458918","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：