{"title":"How Do People Evaluate Themselves in Terms of Assertiveness and Ability After Having Failed or Succeeded: The (Economic) Consequences Matter!","authors":"Delphine Miraucourt, Sylvain Caruana, P. Mollaret","doi":"10.5334/irsp.692","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.692","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70669731","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}
Sebastian Siuda, Thomas Schlösser, D. Fetchenhauer
{"title":"Do We Know Whom to Trust? A Review on Trustworthiness Detection Accuracy","authors":"Sebastian Siuda, Thomas Schlösser, D. Fetchenhauer","doi":"10.5334/irsp.623","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.623","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70669477","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}
Pascal Wagner-Egger, J. Adam‐Troian, Laurent Cordonier, F. Cafiero, G. Bronner
{"title":"The Yellow Vests in France: Psychosocial Determinants and Consequences of the Adherence to a Social Movement in a Representative Sample of the Population","authors":"Pascal Wagner-Egger, J. Adam‐Troian, Laurent Cordonier, F. Cafiero, G. Bronner","doi":"10.5334/irsp.556","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.556","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70669589","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":"Robustness Tests Replicate Corneille et al.’s (2020) Fake News by Repetition Effect","authors":"J. Béna, O. Corneille, A. Mierop, C. Unkelbach","doi":"10.5334/irsp.683","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.683","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70669817","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":"Young Greeks’ Social Representation of Protest: Dialogical Structure and Ideological Function","authors":"Alexandros Vlazakis, A. Baka, Lia Figgou","doi":"10.5334/irsp.648","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.648","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":"22 12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70669645","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}
Benedek Kurdi, I. Hussey, Christoph Stahl, Sean Hughes, C. Unkelbach, M. Ferguson, O. Corneille
–
{"title":"Unaware Attitude Formation in the Surveillance Task? Revisiting the Findings of Moran et al. (2021)","authors":"Benedek Kurdi, I. Hussey, Christoph Stahl, Sean Hughes, C. Unkelbach, M. Ferguson, O. Corneille","doi":"10.5334/irsp.546","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.546","url":null,"abstract":"–","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"70668920","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}
Vincenzo Iacoviello, G. Valsecchi, Jacques Berent, Islam Borinca, J. Falomir-Pichastor
Traditional masculinity norms are still prevalent in our societies. As a result, men who deviate from these norms face adverse reactions (i.e., backlash), mainly from other men. The present research investigated whether the perceived threat to gender status quo accounts for this phenomenon. In two studies using a sample of heterosexual men (N total = 338), we measured male participants’ endorsement of traditional masculinity beliefs and their political orientation. As a means of examining the role of threat to the gender status quo, we then manipulated whether traditional masculinity norms remained stable (stability) or changed across time (men’s feminization). Finally, we assessed participants’ evaluation of men who deviate from traditional masculinity norms (i.e., a backlash against a non-traditional man). This target was either compared to a traditional man (Study 1) or a traditional woman (Study 2). The general hypothesis was that men who are strongly motivated to maintain the gender status quo (i.e., those who endorse traditional masculinity beliefs to a higher extent or support right-wing political ideologies) should show greater backlash, particularly when the gender status quo is threatened (i.e., in the men’s feminization condition). The results of a small-scale meta-analysis supported our hypothesis. We discuss the impact of these findings on the gender literature.
{"title":"The Impact of Masculinity Beliefs and Political Ideologies on Men’s Backlash Against Non-Traditional Men: The Moderating Role of Perceived Men’s Feminization","authors":"Vincenzo Iacoviello, G. Valsecchi, Jacques Berent, Islam Borinca, J. Falomir-Pichastor","doi":"10.5334/irsp.588","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.588","url":null,"abstract":"Traditional masculinity norms are still prevalent in our societies. As a result, men who deviate from these norms face adverse reactions (i.e., backlash), mainly from other men. The present research investigated whether the perceived threat to gender status quo accounts for this phenomenon. In two studies using a sample of heterosexual men (N total = 338), we measured male participants’ endorsement of traditional masculinity beliefs and their political orientation. As a means of examining the role of threat to the gender status quo, we then manipulated whether traditional masculinity norms remained stable (stability) or changed across time (men’s feminization). Finally, we assessed participants’ evaluation of men who deviate from traditional masculinity norms (i.e., a backlash against a non-traditional man). This target was either compared to a traditional man (Study 1) or a traditional woman (Study 2). The general hypothesis was that men who are strongly motivated to maintain the gender status quo (i.e., those who endorse traditional masculinity beliefs to a higher extent or support right-wing political ideologies) should show greater backlash, particularly when the gender status quo is threatened (i.e., in the men’s feminization condition). The results of a small-scale meta-analysis supported our hypothesis. We discuss the impact of these findings on the gender literature.","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2021-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46889447","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}
People are eager to update their beliefs, such as a perceived risk, if they receive information that is better than expected but are reluctant to do so when the evidence is unfavourable. When estimating the likelihood of future outcomes, this phenomenon of asymmetrical belief update helps generate and maintain personal optimism bias. In this study, we investigated whether asymmetrical belief update also extends to estimating the future of other individuals. Specifically, we prompted respondents to assess the perceived likelihood of three social targets experiencing future positive and negative events: an in-group, a mild out-group and an extreme out-group. We then provided the respondents with feedback about the base rates of those events in the general population and prompted them to re-assess their initial estimates for all social targets. Respondents expected more positive than negative outcomes for the in-group and the mild out-group, but more negative outcomes for the extreme out-group. We also found an asymmetrical update of beliefs contingent on the valence of the future event and the social target. For negative outcomes, respondents updated more following good news than bad news, particularly for the mild out-group. For positive outcomes, respondents equally updated their beliefs following good news and bad news for the in-group and the mild out-group. However, they updated their beliefs significantly more following bad news than good news for the extreme out-group member. Our data thus reveal the strong and robust influence of social stereotypes on future expectancies for others.
{"title":"Asymmetrical update of beliefs about future outcomes is driven by outcome valence and social group membership","authors":"Mihai Dricu, S. Bührer, D. Moser, T. Aue","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/27htj","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/27htj","url":null,"abstract":"People are eager to update their beliefs, such as a perceived risk, if they receive information that is better than expected but are reluctant to do so when the evidence is unfavourable. When estimating the likelihood of future outcomes, this phenomenon of asymmetrical belief update helps generate and maintain personal optimism bias. In this study, we investigated whether asymmetrical belief update also extends to estimating the future of other individuals. Specifically, we prompted respondents to assess the perceived likelihood of three social targets experiencing future positive and negative events: an in-group, a mild out-group and an extreme out-group. We then provided the respondents with feedback about the base rates of those events in the general population and prompted them to re-assess their initial estimates for all social targets. Respondents expected more positive than negative outcomes for the in-group and the mild out-group, but more negative outcomes for the extreme out-group. We also found an asymmetrical update of beliefs contingent on the valence of the future event and the social target. For negative outcomes, respondents updated more following good news than bad news, particularly for the mild out-group. For positive outcomes, respondents equally updated their beliefs following good news and bad news for the in-group and the mild out-group. However, they updated their beliefs significantly more following bad news than good news for the extreme out-group member. Our data thus reveal the strong and robust influence of social stereotypes on future expectancies for others.","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43985177","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}
Conspiracy theories arise for virtually any public event (e.g., pandemics, assassinations, disasters). In light of positively correlated endorsements of such beliefs, many have pointed to a more general mindset behind this. Others have argued against this notion of a consistent mindset. Applying Latent Profile Analyses, we examine the evidence for either uniform or differentiated response patterns to various items in five studies (reanalyzed datasets, total N = 7877). Overall, the results speak strongly to uniform reactions that could be summarized as a general mindset, but also revealed important qualifications. First, small parts of the samples show more differentiated patterns in relation to extraterrestrial cover-up narratives (Studies 2 to 4) or contradictory theories (Study 5). Second, indicators dealing with the general suppression of relevant information in the public were among the items with the highest approval ratings across all classes. One discussed implication is that existing scales are useful tools to measure conspiracy mindsets. Another implication is that the average endorsement of any conspiracy theory is a function of both the respondents’ conspiracy mindset and the item’s psychometric difficulty, strongly suggesting interpreting item endorsement only in relative terms, but refraining from interpreting a high agreement as an absolute number.
{"title":"A Uniform Conspiracy Mindset or Differentiated Reactions to Specific Conspiracy Beliefs? Evidence From Latent Profile Analyses","authors":"M. Frenken, R. Imhoff","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/zcjur","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zcjur","url":null,"abstract":"Conspiracy theories arise for virtually any public event (e.g., pandemics, assassinations, disasters). In light of positively correlated endorsements of such beliefs, many have pointed to a more general mindset behind this. Others have argued against this notion of a consistent mindset. Applying Latent Profile Analyses, we examine the evidence for either uniform or differentiated response patterns to various items in five studies (reanalyzed datasets, total N = 7877). Overall, the results speak strongly to uniform reactions that could be summarized as a general mindset, but also revealed important qualifications. First, small parts of the samples show more differentiated patterns in relation to extraterrestrial cover-up narratives (Studies 2 to 4) or contradictory theories (Study 5). Second, indicators dealing with the general suppression of relevant information in the public were among the items with the highest approval ratings across all classes. One discussed implication is that existing scales are useful tools to measure conspiracy mindsets. Another implication is that the average endorsement of any conspiracy theory is a function of both the respondents’ conspiracy mindset and the item’s psychometric difficulty, strongly suggesting interpreting item endorsement only in relative terms, but refraining from interpreting a high agreement as an absolute number.","PeriodicalId":45461,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2021-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46530785","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：