Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology最新文献

Across three studies we applied predictions from Intergroup Contact Theory and Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT) to an examination of the role of contact and threats in predicting prejudice toward three outgroups. Reactions to African Americans (n = 227), Hispanic Americans (n = 155), and gay men (n = 217), largely supported predictions. Positive contact experiences consistently related to more favorable evaluations and reduced perceptions of threats. Each study largely supported ITT's proposition that threats indirectly influence the contact-prejudice relationship, with the most consistent findings found for negative contact. We found little support for relationships between contact, threats, and implicit preferences or for positive–negative asymmetry effects.

When a national leader is accused of impropriety, people often desire his/her ouster. To explain such desire for punishment, the authors tested two predictions of the model of intuitive prosecutors. While continuing in the position after the allegation activates the prosecutorial mind among people, resigning from the position deactivates it (Prediction 1). The relation between an inappropriate response by the leader and the desired punishment is mediated sequentially by dispositional attribution to, outrage with, and attitude toward him/her (Prediction 2). In Experiment 1, the accused leader had resigned (i.e., already punished) or hadn't resigned from the position (i.e., remained unpunished). In Experiment 2, the leader had also cooperated with (i.e., an appropriate response) or threatened the accusers and the investigators (i.e., an inappropriate response). Participants (Ns = 168 and 200) from India made the dispositional attribution, outrage, attitude, and punishment responses to the leader. Results supported both predictions. Theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.

Recent theoretical models stress the importance of both personal and contextual factors in the development of political extremism. One such theory is the Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT) that suggests a relationship between extremism and intergroup threat (i.e., the perception that one's ingroup is threatened by a particular social outgroup). Using an adaptation of the Semantic Misattribution Procedure (SMP), the present research aimed at replicating the results of previous studies using a novel measure. In a first study (N = 88, 77% female), self-reported intergroup threat was significantly and positively related to two types of extreme political attitudes, namely, right-wing authoritarianism and generic conspiracy beliefs. The SMP score, in contrast, was only significantly correlated to right-wing authoritarianism. In a second study, these results were replicated in a larger sample (N = 243, 68% female). Moreover, both self-reported and indirectly measured intergroup threat were related to hostile attitudes and stereotypes against immigrants. When compared to explicit intergroup threat, however, the SMP score was not incremental in the prediction of hostile attitudes against immigrants. These results support the validity of the SMP for the assessment of intergroup threat. Replications should explore the practical utility of the SMP in other samples using additional validation criteria.

This study advances the understanding of job crafting by examining its effect on different dimensions of employee outcome facets, such as work engagement and counterproductive work behavior. Drawing on the self-determination theory, we theorize and test how job crafting predicts different facets of employee outcomes through feelings of psychological ownership. Data were collected in several rounds over two time spans from 286 full-time employees in Taiwan. The hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling. The results show that job crafting is positively related to psychological ownership. In addition, psychological ownership positively predicts work engagement and is negatively associated with counterproductive work behaviors.

This paper introduces the social self-restriction (SSR) model, which highlights a drawback associated with the increasingly accessible privilege of social autonomy. Social autonomy enables individuals to connect with preferred social partners and avoid undesirable others. The benefits of social autonomy are undeniable; however, the SSR model makes the novel assertion that people tend to exercise social autonomy in ways that ultimately constrain their potential for social empowerment—a higher-order form of personal freedom. Attaining the ideal of high social empowerment requires both high social autonomy and high social adaptability. People with high social adaptability can feel reasonably comfortable and act competently in social environments they did not choose to inhabit. Unfortunately, people with high social autonomy are unlikely to possess high social adaptability. We propose that social autonomy undermines social adaptability by tempting people to avoid social challenges and socialize selectively with similar others in familiar contexts, a habit that limits social skill development, promotes social intolerance, and distorts social perceptions. In essence, we argue that social autonomy allows people to live in their social comfort zones, at the cost of restricting their social range. Our discussion of the SSR model incorporates evidence and perspectives from a broad range of academic disciplines, and includes consideration of opportunities for future research.