We created a novel instrument to assess individual orientations toward the neoliberal capitalist system, the Neoliberal Orientation Questionnaire (NOQ), which is comprised of four dimensions: competitiveness, individual self-regulation, relational detachment, and public divestment. The instrument was intended to complement existing scales by (a) adopting a European perspective, and (b) incorporating personal as well as societal values, including lifestyle considerations. We sought to validate the NOQ in a European country with a strong history of public investment and social welfare provisions, namely France. In three nationally representative French samples, and one US student sample we assessed the internal consistency and construct validity of long and short versions of the scale. In terms of convergent and divergent validity, NOQ scores were positively correlated with scores on the Neoliberal Beliefs Inventory (NBI), general and economic forms of system justification, social dominance orientation, social and economic conservatism, internal locus of control, belief in free will, future-orientation, and a tendency to look on the ‘bright side’ in the face of hardships. The NOQ should prove useful for understanding the antecedents, concomitants, and consequences of attitudinal support versus opposition to the neoliberal capitalist system that dominates contemporary Western societies.
{"title":"How Neoliberal are You? Development and Validation of the Neoliberal Orientation Questionnaire","authors":"Lola Girerd, J. Jost, Virginie Bonnot","doi":"10.5334/irsp.663","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.663","url":null,"abstract":"We created a novel instrument to assess individual orientations toward the neoliberal capitalist system, the Neoliberal Orientation Questionnaire (NOQ), which is comprised of four dimensions: competitiveness, individual self-regulation, relational detachment, and public divestment. The instrument was intended to complement existing scales by (a) adopting a European perspective, and (b) incorporating personal as well as societal values, including lifestyle considerations. We sought to validate the NOQ in a European country with a strong history of public investment and social welfare provisions, namely France. In three nationally representative French samples, and one US student sample we assessed the internal consistency and construct validity of long and short versions of the scale. In terms of convergent and divergent validity, NOQ scores were positively correlated with scores on the Neoliberal Beliefs Inventory (NBI), general and economic forms of system justification, social dominance orientation, social and economic conservatism, internal locus of control, belief in free will, future-orientation, and a tendency to look on the ‘bright side’ in the face of hardships. The NOQ should prove useful for understanding the antecedents, concomitants, and consequences of attitudinal support versus opposition to the neoliberal capitalist system that dominates contemporary Western societies.","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44749536","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Perceiving low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) groups as less human than high-SES groups contributes to justifying socioeconomic inequality. Despite this issue’s relevance, previous research has not acknowledged the possible causes of this perceived humanity gap (differences in humanity between SES groups). In this project, we focus on analysing the possible influence of hierarchy-enhancing ideological variables on this gap. To do so, in a first correlational study (N = 765), we analyse the extent to which certain ideological variables predict the perceived humanity gap between low- and high-SES groups. Our results indicate that group dominance, system justification, and hostile classism are highly predictive of the humanity gap. In a second correlational study (N = 521) we found that the perceived humanity gap, the tendency to blame low-SES groups and praise high-SES groups for their economic standings, sequentially mediated the relationship among social dominance, system justification, and hostile classism with the support of social change policies. Finally, we manipulated each ideological variable in three equivalent studies (N = 631) to test its influence on the previous pattern of mediational results. The results confirmed the ideological variables’ antecedent roles in the mediation analysis. Finally, we discuss the role of the ideological hierarchy variables in the maintenance of socioeconomic differences through (de)humanisation.
{"title":"Group Dominance, System Justification, and Hostile Classism: The Ideological Roots of the Perceived Socioeconomic Humanity Gap That Upholds the Income Gap","authors":"Mario Sainz, Gloria Jiménez-Moya","doi":"10.5334/irsp.753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.753","url":null,"abstract":"Perceiving low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) groups as less human than high-SES groups contributes to justifying socioeconomic inequality. Despite this issue’s relevance, previous research has not acknowledged the possible causes of this perceived humanity gap (differences in humanity between SES groups). In this project, we focus on analysing the possible influence of hierarchy-enhancing ideological variables on this gap. To do so, in a first correlational study (N = 765), we analyse the extent to which certain ideological variables predict the perceived humanity gap between low- and high-SES groups. Our results indicate that group dominance, system justification, and hostile classism are highly predictive of the humanity gap. In a second correlational study (N = 521) we found that the perceived humanity gap, the tendency to blame low-SES groups and praise high-SES groups for their economic standings, sequentially mediated the relationship among social dominance, system justification, and hostile classism with the support of social change policies. Finally, we manipulated each ideological variable in three equivalent studies (N = 631) to test its influence on the previous pattern of mediational results. The results confirmed the ideological variables’ antecedent roles in the mediation analysis. Finally, we discuss the role of the ideological hierarchy variables in the maintenance of socioeconomic differences through (de)humanisation.","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44848986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nathalie Bick, L. Froehlich, Maria‐Therese Friehs, P. Kotzur, Helen Landmann
In the academic domain, belonging to a negatively stereotyped group can impair performance and peer relationships. In higher distance education, stereotypes may be particularly influential as face-to-face contact is limited and non-traditional students who are at risk of being stereotyped are overrepresented. Still, research on stereotypes in higher distance education is sparse. The current research addresses this gap by investigating the Big Two of social perception (warmth, competence) and subordinate facets (friendliness, morality, assertiveness, ability, conscientiousness) in the context of higher distance education. It tests a) how well models with warmth/competence or the facets fit the data, b) whether stereotypes in higher distance education depend on the student group, and c) how the Big Two and subordinate facets predict intergroup emotions and behavioral intentions in higher distance education. An online survey with N = 626 students (74% female) of a large distance university showed that a measurement model with four facets (i.e., friendliness, morality, ability, conscientiousness) reveals adequate model fit for 12 student groups. Perceived stereotypes were positive for female
{"title":"Social Evaluation at a Distance – Facets of Stereotype Content about Student Groups in Higher Distance Education","authors":"Nathalie Bick, L. Froehlich, Maria‐Therese Friehs, P. Kotzur, Helen Landmann","doi":"10.5334/irsp.686","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.686","url":null,"abstract":"In the academic domain, belonging to a negatively stereotyped group can impair performance and peer relationships. In higher distance education, stereotypes may be particularly influential as face-to-face contact is limited and non-traditional students who are at risk of being stereotyped are overrepresented. Still, research on stereotypes in higher distance education is sparse. The current research addresses this gap by investigating the Big Two of social perception (warmth, competence) and subordinate facets (friendliness, morality, assertiveness, ability, conscientiousness) in the context of higher distance education. It tests a) how well models with warmth/competence or the facets fit the data, b) whether stereotypes in higher distance education depend on the student group, and c) how the Big Two and subordinate facets predict intergroup emotions and behavioral intentions in higher distance education. An online survey with N = 626 students (74% female) of a large distance university showed that a measurement model with four facets (i.e., friendliness, morality, ability, conscientiousness) reveals adequate model fit for 12 student groups. Perceived stereotypes were positive for female","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41568120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Others? Evidence for the Primacy of the Horizontal Dimension of Social Evaluation in Workplace Gossip","authors":"E. Martinescu, K. Peters, B. Beersma","doi":"10.5334/irsp.687","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.687","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49427554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
V. Yzerbyt, Julien Barbedor, Antonin Carrier, O. Rohmer
Contemporary approaches of impression formation and stereotypes celebrate the role of the Big Two in social evaluation: the horizontal and vertical dimensions (Abele et al., 2021). Recently, interest has grown in making further distinctions within each of these dimensions (Abele et al., 2008). Here, we focused on the vertical facets, namely, assertiveness and ability. Research found that assertiveness is more strongly related to a target’s status than ability. Arguably, this pattern emerges because assertiveness comes across as less negotiable, whereas ability leaves more room for appreciation. Building on this assumption, we reasoned that judgments of ability provide more opportunity to justify or to reclaim positive identity, depending on one’s position in the hierarchy. Specifically, we hypothesized that the legitimacy beliefs and status of the judges are key factors to consider in that they moderate the perceived overlap between the vertical facets. Using a novel paradigm based on Goodman et al.’s (2001) social ladder, Studies 1a and 1b relied on judges’ legitimacy beliefs as a proxy for status, whereas Studies 2 and 3 directly examined the judges’ relative status. As predicted, we consistently found more overlap between assertiveness and ability among high-legitimacy/status judges than among low-legitimacy/status
当代印象形成和刻板印象的方法赞扬了“二巨头”在社会评价中的作用：横向和纵向（Abele et al.，2021）。最近，人们越来越有兴趣在这些维度中的每一个维度上做出进一步的区分（Abele等人，2008）。在这里，我们关注的是垂直方面，即自信和能力。研究发现，自信与目标的地位比能力更密切相关。可以说，这种模式的出现是因为自信给人的印象是不太可谈判的，而能力给人留下了更多的升值空间。基于这一假设，我们推断，根据一个人在等级制度中的地位，对能力的判断提供了更多的机会来证明或恢复积极的身份。具体而言，我们假设法官的合法性信念和地位是需要考虑的关键因素，因为它们缓和了纵向方面之间的重叠。使用基于古德曼等人（2001）社会阶梯的新范式，研究1a和1b依赖于法官的合法性信念作为地位的代表，而研究2和3直接考察了法官的相对地位。正如预测的那样，我们一致发现，在高合法性/地位法官中，自信和能力之间的重叠比在低合法性/身份法官中更多
{"title":"The Facets of Social Hierarchy: How Judges’ Legitimacy Beliefs and Relative Status Shape Their Evaluation of Assertiveness and Ability","authors":"V. Yzerbyt, Julien Barbedor, Antonin Carrier, O. Rohmer","doi":"10.5334/irsp.695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.695","url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary approaches of impression formation and stereotypes celebrate the role of the Big Two in social evaluation: the horizontal and vertical dimensions (Abele et al., 2021). Recently, interest has grown in making further distinctions within each of these dimensions (Abele et al., 2008). Here, we focused on the vertical facets, namely, assertiveness and ability. Research found that assertiveness is more strongly related to a target’s status than ability. Arguably, this pattern emerges because assertiveness comes across as less negotiable, whereas ability leaves more room for appreciation. Building on this assumption, we reasoned that judgments of ability provide more opportunity to justify or to reclaim positive identity, depending on one’s position in the hierarchy. Specifically, we hypothesized that the legitimacy beliefs and status of the judges are key factors to consider in that they moderate the perceived overlap between the vertical facets. Using a novel paradigm based on Goodman et al.’s (2001) social ladder, Studies 1a and 1b relied on judges’ legitimacy beliefs as a proxy for status, whereas Studies 2 and 3 directly examined the judges’ relative status. As predicted, we consistently found more overlap between assertiveness and ability among high-legitimacy/status judges than among low-legitimacy/status","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46582047","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Xueli Zhu, Lei Cheng, Zifei Li, Lijuan Xiao, Fang Wang
{"title":"Economic Inequality Perception Dampens Meritocratic Belief in China: The Mediating Role of Perceived Distributive Unfairness","authors":"Xueli Zhu, Lei Cheng, Zifei Li, Lijuan Xiao, Fang Wang","doi":"10.5334/irsp.673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.673","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46545209","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Human judgments are inherently comparative. Recently, a so-called more-less asymmetry in comparative communication has been demonstrated: ‘more than’ comparisons are preferred to corresponding ‘less than’ comparisons. Here we show that a ubiquitous social-structural factor – social power – shapes biases in such comparisons. Powerholders, relative to powerless individuals, liked more, agreed more with and considered more likely to be true ‘more than’ compared to ‘less than’ statements. This was true despite the fact that the differently formulated statements were logically equivalent. In Study 1 ( N = 153), induced high power (vs. control or low power) led to believing that ‘more than’ statements were more likely to be true. In Studies 2A/B ( N = 449) the judgments of participants in high power conditions were more favorable when comparisons were made using ‘more than’ comparisons. This was also the case in a pilot study ( N = 149) in which individual differences in chronic sense of power were assessed. These findings suggest that powerholders’ decisions based on comparative information are especially prone to the more-less judgmental bias resulting in asymmetry. They are in line with approaches positing that power increases and lack of power decreases reliance on subjective experiences, including – but not limited to – ease of information processing and the use of fast and frugal strategies in judgment and decision-making.
{"title":"For Powerholders ‘More is More’: Power Shapes Judgments of Logically Equivalent Comparative Statements","authors":"Karl-Andrew Woltin, A. Guinote, Cátia P Teixeira","doi":"10.5334/irsp.598","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.598","url":null,"abstract":"Human judgments are inherently comparative. Recently, a so-called more-less asymmetry in comparative communication has been demonstrated: ‘more than’ comparisons are preferred to corresponding ‘less than’ comparisons. Here we show that a ubiquitous social-structural factor – social power – shapes biases in such comparisons. Powerholders, relative to powerless individuals, liked more, agreed more with and considered more likely to be true ‘more than’ compared to ‘less than’ statements. This was true despite the fact that the differently formulated statements were logically equivalent. In Study 1 ( N = 153), induced high power (vs. control or low power) led to believing that ‘more than’ statements were more likely to be true. In Studies 2A/B ( N = 449) the judgments of participants in high power conditions were more favorable when comparisons were made using ‘more than’ comparisons. This was also the case in a pilot study ( N = 149) in which individual differences in chronic sense of power were assessed. These findings suggest that powerholders’ decisions based on comparative information are especially prone to the more-less judgmental bias resulting in asymmetry. They are in line with approaches positing that power increases and lack of power decreases reliance on subjective experiences, including – but not limited to – ease of information processing and the use of fast and frugal strategies in judgment and decision-making.","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42669377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Valérian Boudjemadi, B. Chauvin, Stéphane Adam, Charlay Indoumou-Peppe, M. Lagacé, F. Lalot, Wojciech Świątkowski, K. Gana
{"title":"Assessing the Cross-Cultural Validity of the Succession, Identity and Consumption (SIC) Scale Across Four French-Speaking Countries","authors":"Valérian Boudjemadi, B. Chauvin, Stéphane Adam, Charlay Indoumou-Peppe, M. Lagacé, F. Lalot, Wojciech Świątkowski, K. Gana","doi":"10.5334/irsp.544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.544","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45809995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Maria‐Therese Friehs, P. Kotzur, Johanna Böttcher, Ann-Kristin C. Zöller, Tabea Lüttmer, Uli Wagner, F. Asbrock, Maarten H. W. van Zalk
{"title":"Examining the Structural Validity of Stereotype Content Scales – A Preregistered Re-Analysis of Published Data and Discussion of Possible Future Directions","authors":"Maria‐Therese Friehs, P. Kotzur, Johanna Böttcher, Ann-Kristin C. Zöller, Tabea Lüttmer, Uli Wagner, F. Asbrock, Maarten H. W. van Zalk","doi":"10.5334/irsp.613","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.613","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42330805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We attempted a pre-registered replication and extension of Studies 1, 2, and 3 from Pronin and Ross (2006) regarding the effects of social and temporal distance on trait attributions with an online American Amazon MTurk sample (N = 911). We concluded mixed findings. We found support for the original findings: participants attributed more dispositional traits to others compared to themselves, although with weaker effects (original: f = 0.35, 95% CI [0.09, 0.61]; replication: f = 0.10, 95% CI [0.03, 0.16]). Also, similar to the original, we found that participants tended to attribute a favorable ratio of positive traits when mak ing self-assessments (original: f = 0.77, 95% CI [0.29, 1.25]; replication: f = 0.88, 95% CI [0.50, 1.26]). However, unlike the original, we failed to find support for the core hypothesis that participants would ascribe more dispositional traits to their temporally distant self compared to their present self (original: f = 0.54, 95% CI [0.27, 0.77]; replication: f = 0.02, 95% CI [0.00, 0.06]). Furthermore, in contrast to the original, we found that the positive traits ratio increases with temporal distance (original: f = 0.16, 95% CI [0.00, 0.36]; replication: f = 0.33, 95% CI [0.22, 0.42] in the opposite direction). Contrary to our hypothesis, in an extension, we found that people were more likely to ascribe a greater ratio of positive traits to their friends than to themselves ( 𝜉 = 0.3, 95% CI [0.21, 0.38]). All materials, data, and code are provided here: https://osf.io/gs2rx/ .
{"title":"Are Past and Future Selves Perceived Differently from Present Self? Replication and Extension of Pronin and Ross (2006) Temporal Differences in Trait Self-Ascription","authors":"N. Adelina, G. Feldman","doi":"10.5334/irsp.571","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.571","url":null,"abstract":"We attempted a pre-registered replication and extension of Studies 1, 2, and 3 from Pronin and Ross (2006) regarding the effects of social and temporal distance on trait attributions with an online American Amazon MTurk sample (N = 911). We concluded mixed findings. We found support for the original findings: participants attributed more dispositional traits to others compared to themselves, although with weaker effects (original: f = 0.35, 95% CI [0.09, 0.61]; replication: f = 0.10, 95% CI [0.03, 0.16]). Also, similar to the original, we found that participants tended to attribute a favorable ratio of positive traits when mak ing self-assessments (original: f = 0.77, 95% CI [0.29, 1.25]; replication: f = 0.88, 95% CI [0.50, 1.26]). However, unlike the original, we failed to find support for the core hypothesis that participants would ascribe more dispositional traits to their temporally distant self compared to their present self (original: f = 0.54, 95% CI [0.27, 0.77]; replication: f = 0.02, 95% CI [0.00, 0.06]). Furthermore, in contrast to the original, we found that the positive traits ratio increases with temporal distance (original: f = 0.16, 95% CI [0.00, 0.36]; replication: f = 0.33, 95% CI [0.22, 0.42] in the opposite direction). Contrary to our hypothesis, in an extension, we found that people were more likely to ascribe a greater ratio of positive traits to their friends than to themselves ( 𝜉 = 0.3, 95% CI [0.21, 0.38]). All materials, data, and code are provided here: https://osf.io/gs2rx/ .","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2021-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44049832","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","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：