Despite well-known problems associated with political prejudice, research that examines effects of political dissimilarity in organizational contexts is scarce. We present findings from a pre-registered online experiment (N = 973) which suggest that both Democrats and Republicans discriminate and negatively stereotype job applicants with a political orientation that is dissimilar to their own. The effects were small for competence judgments, moderate in size for hiring judgments, and large for warmth ratings and for willingness to cooperate and socialize with the applicant. Furthermore, for all outcomes except competence judgments, Democrats discriminated and stereotyped applicants to a larger extent than Republicans did. These findings shed light on the consequences of applicants disclosing or revealing their political orientation. They also have potentially important implications for the promotion of diversity in organizations.
{"title":"Judging job applicants by their politics: Effects of target–rater political dissimilarity on discrimination, cooperation, and stereotyping","authors":"Samantha Sinclair, Artur Nilsson, Jens Agerström","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/ctqmw","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ctqmw","url":null,"abstract":"Despite well-known problems associated with political prejudice, research that examines effects of political dissimilarity in organizational contexts is scarce. We present findings from a pre-registered online experiment (N = 973) which suggest that both Democrats and Republicans discriminate and negatively stereotype job applicants with a political orientation that is dissimilar to their own. The effects were small for competence judgments, moderate in size for hiring judgments, and large for warmth ratings and for willingness to cooperate and socialize with the applicant. Furthermore, for all outcomes except competence judgments, Democrats discriminated and stereotyped applicants to a larger extent than Republicans did. These findings shed light on the consequences of applicants disclosing or revealing their political orientation. They also have potentially important implications for the promotion of diversity in organizations.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44146348","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}
Jes L. Matsick, M. Kruk, Lindsay Palmer, E. Layland, A. Salomaa
The social category label effect describes how labels influence people’s perceptions of social groups. Though the label “homosexual” versus “lesbian/gay” decreases some heterosexual people’s support for sexual minorities, it is unknown how lesbian and gay (LG) people respond to “homosexual” as a label used to describe them. Across three experiments in a largely U.S. context (N=831), we examined how use of “homosexual” influenced people’s responses on psychological instruments, preferences for demographic questions, and evaluations of individuals who use “homosexual.” The use of different labels in psychological measures did not influence LG people’s responses (Study 1). However, LG people reacted less positively to “homosexual” compared to “lesbian/gay” in demographic questions and in interpersonal exchanges (Studies 2-3), whereas heterosexual people’s reactions were largely unaffected. LG people’s more negative reactions to “homosexual” than “lesbian/gay” were partially explained by them perceiving the “homosexual” label user as less culturally competent (i.e., less inclusive, less engaged in LGBTQ activism). In this article, we make progress in new empirical territory (sexual orientation-based cues research), propose the notion of linguistic heterosexism, and discuss the sociopolitical implications of people’s language choices.
{"title":"Extending the social category label effect to stigmatized groups: Lesbian and gay people’s reactions to “homosexual” as a label","authors":"Jes L. Matsick, M. Kruk, Lindsay Palmer, E. Layland, A. Salomaa","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/zjhdt","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zjhdt","url":null,"abstract":"The social category label effect describes how labels influence people’s perceptions of social groups. Though the label “homosexual” versus “lesbian/gay” decreases some heterosexual people’s support for sexual minorities, it is unknown how lesbian and gay (LG) people respond to “homosexual” as a label used to describe them. Across three experiments in a largely U.S. context (N=831), we examined how use of “homosexual” influenced people’s responses on psychological instruments, preferences for demographic questions, and evaluations of individuals who use “homosexual.” The use of different labels in psychological measures did not influence LG people’s responses (Study 1). However, LG people reacted less positively to “homosexual” compared to “lesbian/gay” in demographic questions and in interpersonal exchanges (Studies 2-3), whereas heterosexual people’s reactions were largely unaffected. LG people’s more negative reactions to “homosexual” than “lesbian/gay” were partially explained by them perceiving the “homosexual” label user as less culturally competent (i.e., less inclusive, less engaged in LGBTQ activism). In this article, we make progress in new empirical territory (sexual orientation-based cues research), propose the notion of linguistic heterosexism, and discuss the sociopolitical implications of people’s language choices.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42235281","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}
Dannagal G Young, Erin K Maloney, Amy Bleakley, Jessica Langbaum
This project examines the intersection of political constructs and epistemic motivations as they relate to belief in misinformation. How we value the origins of knowledge - through feelings and intuition or evidence and data - has important implications for our susceptibility to misinformation. This project explores how these epistemic motivations correlate with political ideology, party identification, and favorability towards President Trump, and how epistemic and political constructs predict belief in misinformation about COVID and the 2020 election. Results from a US national survey from Nov-Dec 2020 illustrate that Republicans, conservatives, and those favorable towards President Trump held greater misperceptions about COVID and the 2020 election. Additionally, epistemic motivations were associated with political preferences; Republicans and conservatives were more likely to reject evidence, and Trump supporters more likely to value feelings and intuition. Mediation analyses support the proposition that Trump favorability, Republicanism, and conservatism may help account for the relationships between epistemic motivations and misperceptions. Results are discussed in terms of the messaging strategies of right-wing populist movements, and the implications for democracy and public health.
{"title":"\"I feel it in my gut:\" Epistemic Motivations, Political Beliefs, and Misperceptions of COVID-19 and the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.","authors":"Dannagal G Young, Erin K Maloney, Amy Bleakley, Jessica Langbaum","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7823","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7823","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This project examines the intersection of political constructs and epistemic motivations as they relate to belief in misinformation. How we value the origins of knowledge - through feelings and intuition or evidence and data - has important implications for our susceptibility to misinformation. This project explores how these epistemic motivations correlate with political ideology, party identification, and favorability towards President Trump, and how epistemic and political constructs predict belief in misinformation about COVID and the 2020 election. Results from a US national survey from Nov-Dec 2020 illustrate that Republicans, conservatives, and those favorable towards President Trump held greater misperceptions about COVID and the 2020 election. Additionally, epistemic motivations were associated with political preferences; Republicans and conservatives were more likely to reject evidence, and Trump supporters more likely to value feelings and intuition. Mediation analyses support the proposition that Trump favorability, Republicanism, and conservatism may help account for the relationships between epistemic motivations and misperceptions. Results are discussed in terms of the messaging strategies of right-wing populist movements, and the implications for democracy and public health.</p>","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":"10 2","pages":"643-656"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10031655/pdf/nihms-1876577.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9187976","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
By means of qualitative longitudinal material, this article explores meaningfulness during persistent monetary poverty through an integrative framework, which builds upon conceptualisations of meaning in life (coherence, significance, and purpose) and modes of being (labour, work, action). The material consists of 36 autobiographical accounts and their follow-up accounts from 2006 and 2012. The analysis reveals that in the developed welfare state of Finland, prolonged monetary poverty is connected with the propensity for incoherence and a feeling of insignificance, particularly if life is governed by a vicious cycle of scarcity. Prolonged poverty 1) turns aspirations from long-term to short-term goals and frames life as something characterised by negative anticipation and a circular sense of time. Life primarily takes place in private space. It also 2) weakens the sense of belonging and 3) reduces public participation. These are the domains where the meaning in life is constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed. In a developed welfare state, the comprehensive and manageable social security scheme maintains coherence, yet universal social policy actions that enable participation in public activities nourish a sense of significance.
{"title":"On social and psychological consequences of prolonged poverty–A longitudinal narrative study from Finland","authors":"Anna-Maria Isola, Lotta Virrankari, H. Hiilamo","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7615","url":null,"abstract":"By means of qualitative longitudinal material, this article explores meaningfulness during persistent monetary poverty through an integrative framework, which builds upon conceptualisations of meaning in life (coherence, significance, and purpose) and modes of being (labour, work, action). The material consists of 36 autobiographical accounts and their follow-up accounts from 2006 and 2012. The analysis reveals that in the developed welfare state of Finland, prolonged monetary poverty is connected with the propensity for incoherence and a feeling of insignificance, particularly if life is governed by a vicious cycle of scarcity. Prolonged poverty 1) turns aspirations from long-term to short-term goals and frames life as something characterised by negative anticipation and a circular sense of time. Life primarily takes place in private space. It also 2) weakens the sense of belonging and 3) reduces public participation. These are the domains where the meaning in life is constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed. In a developed welfare state, the comprehensive and manageable social security scheme maintains coherence, yet universal social policy actions that enable participation in public activities nourish a sense of significance.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46667182","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}
Empowerment is a prominent concept in psychology, and for decades, it has been a key term in global development policy, theory, and practice. However, in line with similar turns toward individualism in psychology, the prevalent understanding of the concept centers on individual capacity to change circumstances, with less focus on empowerment as a context-dependent or communal approach. In this article, adopting decolonial feminist psychology as a lens, we analyze how rural Malawians make meaning of the overarching empowerment and development approach of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in their villages, and how they perceive the approaches as fitting with local contexts. When development implementers largely ignore Malawi’s communal lifestyle, individualized empowerment initiatives can lead to individual and communal disempowerment and distress. Given psychology’s large influence on other arenas, and psychology’s implication with the individualized gender-development-empowerment nexus, we argue that it is imperative to explore the effects and experiences of this empowerment approach in different contexts. A more context-appropriate understanding of empowerment—as with most other psychological concepts—is needed.
{"title":"Making meaning of empowerment and development in rural Malawi—International individualism meets local communalism","authors":"J. Adolfsson, Sigrun Marie Moss","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7549","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7549","url":null,"abstract":"Empowerment is a prominent concept in psychology, and for decades, it has been a key term in global development policy, theory, and practice. However, in line with similar turns toward individualism in psychology, the prevalent understanding of the concept centers on individual capacity to change circumstances, with less focus on empowerment as a context-dependent or communal approach. In this article, adopting decolonial feminist psychology as a lens, we analyze how rural Malawians make meaning of the overarching empowerment and development approach of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in their villages, and how they perceive the approaches as fitting with local contexts. When development implementers largely ignore Malawi’s communal lifestyle, individualized empowerment initiatives can lead to individual and communal disempowerment and distress. Given psychology’s large influence on other arenas, and psychology’s implication with the individualized gender-development-empowerment nexus, we argue that it is imperative to explore the effects and experiences of this empowerment approach in different contexts. A more context-appropriate understanding of empowerment—as with most other psychological concepts—is needed.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42894810","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}
M. J. van Bezouw, Jojanneke Van der Toorn, A. Honari, A. J. Rijken
Seeing the sociopolitical system as fair and legitimate is important for people’s participation in civic duties, political action, and the functioning of society in general. However, little is known about when migrants, without life-long socialization in a certain system, justify the sociopolitical system of their host country and how system justification influences their political participation. We examined antecedents of system justification using a survey among Iranian migrants in eight European countries (N = 935). Subsequently, we examined the relationship between system justification and political participation intentions. We found that system justification beliefs are generally high in our sample, mainly stemming from an assessment of opportunity to achieve changes in intergroup relations. Stronger social identity threat, feeling disadvantaged, a longer residence in Europe, and perceived intergroup stability all relate to less system justification. Conversely, stronger efficacy beliefs bolster system justification. Furthermore, we found some support for a curvilinear relationship between system justification and political participation intentions, but the size of this effect is small. The results show that the high levels of system justification of Iranian migrants are at risk when discrimination and disadvantage are perceived to be stable facets of society. Surprisingly, political participation to better Iranian migrants’ societal position is barely affected by system justification. We discuss implications and further research that can increase understanding of system justification among migrants.
{"title":"Antecedents and consequences of system justification among Iranian migrants in Western Europe","authors":"M. J. van Bezouw, Jojanneke Van der Toorn, A. Honari, A. J. Rijken","doi":"10.5964/jspp.5445","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.5445","url":null,"abstract":"Seeing the sociopolitical system as fair and legitimate is important for people’s participation in civic duties, political action, and the functioning of society in general. However, little is known about when migrants, without life-long socialization in a certain system, justify the sociopolitical system of their host country and how system justification influences their political participation. We examined antecedents of system justification using a survey among Iranian migrants in eight European countries (N = 935). Subsequently, we examined the relationship between system justification and political participation intentions. We found that system justification beliefs are generally high in our sample, mainly stemming from an assessment of opportunity to achieve changes in intergroup relations. Stronger social identity threat, feeling disadvantaged, a longer residence in Europe, and perceived intergroup stability all relate to less system justification. Conversely, stronger efficacy beliefs bolster system justification. Furthermore, we found some support for a curvilinear relationship between system justification and political participation intentions, but the size of this effect is small. The results show that the high levels of system justification of Iranian migrants are at risk when discrimination and disadvantage are perceived to be stable facets of society. Surprisingly, political participation to better Iranian migrants’ societal position is barely affected by system justification. We discuss implications and further research that can increase understanding of system justification among migrants.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41659630","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 counterfactual thinking, an imagined alternative to the reality that comprises an antecedent and a consequent is widely adopted in political discourse to justify past behaviors (i.e., counterfactual explanation) or to depict a better future (i.e., prefactual). However, they have not been properly addressed in political communication literature. Our study examines how politicians used counterfactual expressions for explanation of the past or preparation of the future during COVID-19, one of the most severe public health crises. All Congressional speeches of the Senate and House in the 116th Congress (2019-2020) were retrieved, and counterfactual expressions were identified along with time-focusing in each speech, using recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) techniques. The results show that counterfactuals were more practiced among Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. With the spread of the pandemic, the use of counterfactuals decreased, maintaining a partisan gap in the House. However, it was nearly stable, with no party differences in the Senate. Implications of our findings are discussed, regarding party polarization, institutional constraints, and the quality of Congressional deliberation. Limitations and suggestions for future research are also provided.
{"title":"Talking about what would happen versus what happened: Tracking Congressional speeches during COVID-19","authors":"Rinseo Park, Y. Baek","doi":"10.5964/jspp.6153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6153","url":null,"abstract":"In counterfactual thinking, an imagined alternative to the reality that comprises an antecedent and a consequent is widely adopted in political discourse to justify past behaviors (i.e., counterfactual explanation) or to depict a better future (i.e., prefactual). However, they have not been properly addressed in political communication literature. Our study examines how politicians used counterfactual expressions for explanation of the past or preparation of the future during COVID-19, one of the most severe public health crises. All Congressional speeches of the Senate and House in the 116th Congress (2019-2020) were retrieved, and counterfactual expressions were identified along with time-focusing in each speech, using recent advances in natural language processing (NLP) techniques. The results show that counterfactuals were more practiced among Democrats in the Senate and Republicans in the House. With the spread of the pandemic, the use of counterfactuals decreased, maintaining a partisan gap in the House. However, it was nearly stable, with no party differences in the Senate. Implications of our findings are discussed, regarding party polarization, institutional constraints, and the quality of Congressional deliberation. Limitations and suggestions for future research are also provided.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48228514","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}
During the 2020 U.S. Presidential primary season, we measured candidate support and cognitive and interpersonal variables associated with political ideology among 831 U.S. participants. Cognitive style variables included openness to experience, active open-minded thinking, dogmatism, and preference for one right answer. Interpersonal variables were compassion and empathy. We modeled candidate support across the political spectrum, ranging from the most conservative to the most liberal (Trump, Bloomberg, Biden, Warren, Sanders), testing competing pre-registered predictions informed by the symmetry and asymmetry perspectives on political ideology. Specifically, we tested whether mean levels on the variables of interest across candidate supporters conformed to patterns consistent with symmetry (i.e., a curvilinear pattern with supporters of relatively extreme candidates being similar to each other relative to supporters of moderate candidates) vs. asymmetry (e.g., linear differences across supporters of liberal vs. conservative candidates). Results broadly supported the asymmetry perspective: Supporters of liberal candidates were generally lower on cognitive rigidity and higher on interpersonal warmth than supporters of conservative candidates. Results and implications are discussed.
{"title":"Testing cognitive and interpersonal asymmetry vs. symmetry among voters in the 2020 Presidential primaries","authors":"Jake Womick, L. King","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7771","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7771","url":null,"abstract":"During the 2020 U.S. Presidential primary season, we measured candidate support and cognitive and interpersonal variables associated with political ideology among 831 U.S. participants. Cognitive style variables included openness to experience, active open-minded thinking, dogmatism, and preference for one right answer. Interpersonal variables were compassion and empathy. We modeled candidate support across the political spectrum, ranging from the most conservative to the most liberal (Trump, Bloomberg, Biden, Warren, Sanders), testing competing pre-registered predictions informed by the symmetry and asymmetry perspectives on political ideology. Specifically, we tested whether mean levels on the variables of interest across candidate supporters conformed to patterns consistent with symmetry (i.e., a curvilinear pattern with supporters of relatively extreme candidates being similar to each other relative to supporters of moderate candidates) vs. asymmetry (e.g., linear differences across supporters of liberal vs. conservative candidates). Results broadly supported the asymmetry perspective: Supporters of liberal candidates were generally lower on cognitive rigidity and higher on interpersonal warmth than supporters of conservative candidates. Results and implications are discussed.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46359665","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}
A. de-Graft Aikins, O. Sanuade, L. Baatiema, P. Asante, Francis Agyei, V. Asah-Ayeh, Jemima A. O. Okai, Annabella Osei‐Tutu, Kwadwo K. Koram
In the African region COVID-19 infection and death rates are increasing (writing in May 2020), most deaths have occurred among individuals with chronic conditions, and poor communities face higher risks of infection and socio-economic insecurities. We assessed the psychosocial needs of a chronic illness support group in Accra, Ghana, within the context of their broader community. The community lives in structural poverty and has a complex burden of infectious and chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Between March and May 2020, we conducted interviews, group discussions, and surveys, with members of the support group and their caregivers, frontline healthcare workers, and religious and community leaders. Data was analysed through the social psychology of participation framework. Community members understood COVID-19 as a new public health threat and drew on eclectic sources of information to make sense of this. Members of the support group had psychosocial and material needs: they were anxious about infection risk as well as money, food and access to NCD treatment. Some community members received government food packages during the lockdown period. This support ended after lockdown in April and while anti-poverty COVID policies have been unveiled they have yet to be implemented. We discuss the impact of these representational, relational and power dynamics on the community’s access to COVID-19 and NCD support. We argue that strategies to address immediate and post-COVID needs of vulnerable communities have to focus on the politics and practicalities of implementing existing rights-based policies that intersect health, poverty reduction and social protection.
{"title":"COVID-19, chronic conditions and structural poverty: A social psychological assessment of the needs of a marginalized community in Accra, Ghana","authors":"A. de-Graft Aikins, O. Sanuade, L. Baatiema, P. Asante, Francis Agyei, V. Asah-Ayeh, Jemima A. O. Okai, Annabella Osei‐Tutu, Kwadwo K. Koram","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7543","url":null,"abstract":"In the African region COVID-19 infection and death rates are increasing (writing in May 2020), most deaths have occurred among individuals with chronic conditions, and poor communities face higher risks of infection and socio-economic insecurities. We assessed the psychosocial needs of a chronic illness support group in Accra, Ghana, within the context of their broader community. The community lives in structural poverty and has a complex burden of infectious and chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Between March and May 2020, we conducted interviews, group discussions, and surveys, with members of the support group and their caregivers, frontline healthcare workers, and religious and community leaders. Data was analysed through the social psychology of participation framework. Community members understood COVID-19 as a new public health threat and drew on eclectic sources of information to make sense of this. Members of the support group had psychosocial and material needs: they were anxious about infection risk as well as money, food and access to NCD treatment. Some community members received government food packages during the lockdown period. This support ended after lockdown in April and while anti-poverty COVID policies have been unveiled they have yet to be implemented. We discuss the impact of these representational, relational and power dynamics on the community’s access to COVID-19 and NCD support. We argue that strategies to address immediate and post-COVID needs of vulnerable communities have to focus on the politics and practicalities of implementing existing rights-based policies that intersect health, poverty reduction and social protection.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42452666","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}
What explains affective polarization among voters and societal groups? Much of the existing literature focusing on mass political polarization in modern democracies originates in the US, where studies have shown that, while ideological separation has grown, political conflict increasingly reflects social identity divisions rather than policy disagreements, resulting in affective polarization. We focus on explaining such polarization in a multi-party context. Drawing on social identity theory and intergroup threat theory, we hypothesize that individuals who perceive an intergroup threat show stronger intergroup differentiation and increased affective polarization. We analyze the influence of perceived threat on affective polarization drawing on two large-scale representative surveys in Sweden (N = 1429 and 1343). We show that individual-level affective polarization is related to perceived intergroup threats among the voters in both studies, measuring affective polarization using social distance, negative trait attribution, and party like-dislike ratings.
{"title":"Intergroup threat and affective polarization in a multi-party system","authors":"Emma A. Renström, H. Bäck, Royce Carroll","doi":"10.5964/jspp.7539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.7539","url":null,"abstract":"What explains affective polarization among voters and societal groups? Much of the existing literature focusing on mass political polarization in modern democracies originates in the US, where studies have shown that, while ideological separation has grown, political conflict increasingly reflects social identity divisions rather than policy disagreements, resulting in affective polarization. We focus on explaining such polarization in a multi-party context. Drawing on social identity theory and intergroup threat theory, we hypothesize that individuals who perceive an intergroup threat show stronger intergroup differentiation and increased affective polarization. We analyze the influence of perceived threat on affective polarization drawing on two large-scale representative surveys in Sweden (N = 1429 and 1343). We show that individual-level affective polarization is related to perceived intergroup threats among the voters in both studies, measuring affective polarization using social distance, negative trait attribution, and party like-dislike ratings.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43836712","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：