Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy最新文献

The distinction between collective narcissism and secure identity reflects differences in the nature of social identity. While collective narcissism is a belief that one's in-group is great but under-recognized, secure identity is a modest positive evaluation of the in-group that is not dependent on external validation. In this study, I operationalized these two identities in the context of a disadvantaged group (i.e., women) and examined how each related to intentions for political solidarity with another disadvantaged group (i.e., LGBTQ+) through inclusive victimhood beliefs. I hypothesized that gender narcissism would predict lower intentions for political solidarity, whereas a secure gender identity would predict higher solidarity intentions, with inclusive victimhood mediating both relationships. I tested these hypotheses in one correlational study (N = 737) among women in Turkey. The results revealed that secure gender identity positively predicted political solidarity through inclusive victimhood. In contrast, gender narcissism did not predict political solidarity intentions or inclusive victimhood. These findings suggest that gender narcissism may act as a barrier to solidarity between disadvantaged groups, while a secure gender identity could foster it.

Public Significance Statement: This study highlights the importance of identity in shaping political solidarity among disadvantaged groups. The findings indicate that while gender narcissism may hinder solidarity, secure gender identity promotes greater inclusiveness and support for marginalized communities, like LGBTQ+ individuals. These results suggest that fostering secure identities can help build stronger coalitions between disadvantaged groups, which may inform policies aimed at increasing cross-group solidarity and collective action for social change.

Recent times are characterized by increased participation in collective action that either supports or opposes greater equality for LGBTQ+ individuals. In this research, we focus on the Italian context, where both forms of collective action are highly present, and examine the role of LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs (i.e., beliefs that a powerful LGBTQ+ lobby exist that operates secretly to pursue its plans against cis-heterosexual people and spread homosexuality in society) in (de)motivating heterosexual cisgender individuals’ mobilization. We conducted two correlational studies (N = 1266) and tested whether participants who endorse LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs would be less motivated to mobilize in support of LGBTQ+ rights, through decreased identification with LGBTQ+ people, lower anger for LGBTQ+ inequality, and lower group efficacy to achieve LGBTQ+ equality (Studies 1 and 2). In addition, we tested whether participants who endorse LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs would be more motivated to mobilize against LGBTQ+ rights, through increased identification with heterosexual people, higher anger for LGBTQ+ equality, and higher group efficacy to contrast LGBTQ+ equality (Study 2). Results of mediation analyses supported these predictions, indicating conspiracy beliefs about the LGBTQ+ community as a social-cognitive obstacle to the achievement of LGBTQ+ equality. Implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

Nostalgia has many benefits for individuals; it can increase meaning, well-being, and belongingness. In contrast, we show in six studies the harmful policy implications of nostalgia. We propose that nostalgia can lead people to appreciate negative aspects of the past and oppose modern measures to reduce them, with negative implications for health, safety, and well-being. Four correlational studies (N_total = 3081) show that nostalgia proneness correlates with opposition to smoke-free laws, discounting of car-safety, opposition to gender equality, and enjoyment of politically incorrect humor. Two experimental studies (N_total = 1004) causally link nostalgia to these beliefs. Speaking to their irrational nature, these effects occurred even among people who are aware of the negative consequences of these aspects of the past for health, safety, and well-being. For example, even nostalgic non-smokers longed back to the smoke-filled bars of the past. Given the noted rise in nostalgia in Western society in response to societal change, these findings have important policy implications.

Public Significance Statement: We show that people who are more likely to experience nostalgia tend to redefine negative elements of the past as positive. For example, they oppose smoke-free laws or discount car-safety. Given that nostalgia is commonly experienced when people feel lost in a fast-changing world, these findings suggest a need to provide consistency and meaning, especially during times of rapid societal change.

It is essential to understand the psychological mechanisms that help explain how people perceive, and why they participate in, social movements. Two psychological theories relevant to this endeavor are founder ownership and system justification beliefs. The current work examined how founder ownership and system-justifying beliefs related to people's attitudes toward the Black Lives Matter movement (Studies 1 and 2) and other social movements (Study 2), as well as people's willingness to participate in collective action for these movements (Study 2). Across two studies, participants (total N = 1064) completed measures of founder ownership beliefs, system justifying beliefs, general political orientation, and attitudes and participation intentions toward different social movements. We found that, even after controlling for demographics, people higher in founder ownership and system justifying beliefs still held more negative attitudes toward social movements that challenged the status quo and were less willing to engage in collective action that supported these movements. The present findings highlight some important psychological processes that help explain why some people are more or less likely to support and engage in social change.

Epistemic exclusion is a form of scholarly devaluation based on disciplinary and identity-based biases within systems of evaluation. In two studies, we draw upon the theory of epistemic exclusion to explore potential biases shaping journal review and publication processes in Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP). In Study 1, we coded 1293 manuscripts submitted to ASAP between 2016 and 2021 to determine if there were disparities in the review and publication of manuscripts centered on race/racism, gender/sexism, intersectionality, or other marginalized social identities/systems of oppression (focal manuscripts) compared to manuscripts not focused on these topics (non-focal manuscripts). Results indicated both types of manuscripts were submitted to similar levels of scrutiny, and focal manuscripts were 1.85 times more likely to be published. In Study 2, we surveyed 106 authors who had submitted to ASAP to explore differences in experiences of epistemic exclusion across types of research and social identities (race and gender) and investigate whether epistemic exclusion was related to authors being published. Results indicated that researchers conducting marginalized research experienced less epistemic exclusion than their counterparts. Women experienced more epistemic exclusion than men, though Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander, underrepresented minority, and White scholars experienced similar levels of exclusion. Experiences of epistemic exclusion were negatively associated with being published. Implications and future directions are discussed.

In the examination of sentencing disparities, hypotheses related to social class have been relatively overlooked compared to explanations centered on offenders' ethnicity. This oversight is regrettable as both factors often intertwine. In this study, we investigate the mediating and moderating effects between offenders' residential area deprivation and their ethnic background using administrative data encompassing all offences processed through the England and Wales Crown Court. Our findings reveal the following: (i) substantial ethnic disparities among drug offenders, but mostly non-existent across other offence categories; (ii) area deprivation does not explain away the observed ethnic disparities, but pronounced area disparities are found for breach and assault offenses, wherein offenders living in deprived areas are penalized compared to their more affluent counterparts; and (iii) ethnicity and area deprivation interact, but only for breach offenses.

Women have been enrolling in and graduating from postsecondary institutions at higher rates than men for decades. The current study advances previous work by taking an intersectional approach to researching the relationships between gender, family income, and prior family postsecondary experiences. We conducted an archival, longitudinal study using institutional data of four successive entering first year cohorts of about 5000–5300 students each between 2011 and 2014 at a large Midwestern Research 1 University, following each cohort over 4 to 6 years. Specifically, we found that, for men, Pell eligibility and first-generation status had less positive enrollment, dropout, and graduation outcomes. Men had a higher probability of dropping out across years, while women had a higher probability of graduating across years (especially in years 4 and 5). These findings suggest challenges in meeting the essential mission for postsecondary institutions of ensuring that all students, especially those from underrepresented backgrounds, have the opportunities and support necessary to be successful.

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) are more likely to be diagnosed with HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared with the general population. Although newcomers generally experience a health advantage in Canada compared with non-immigrants and more established immigrants (i.e., healthy immigrant effect), they also experience disparities in access to healthcare services. These disparities, in turn, may lead to unique vulnerabilities for the sexual health of GBM immigrants. We examined disparities in healthcare access, STI testing, and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use among immigrant and non-immigrant GBM. Using baseline data (collected between February 2017 and August 2019) from a multisite cohort study of GBM in Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal (n = 2449), we found that newcomer GBM (migrated ≤ 5 years prior) were less likely to report having a primary healthcare provider than non-immigrants. This had a weak indirect effect in mediating both access to STI testing and the use of HIV PrEP. These disparities dissipated after controlling for migration precarity (e.g., refugees and those without permanent residency), suggesting that disparities in newcomer GBM healthcare access may, in part, be driven by the large number of newcomers with precarious migration statuses.

Public Significance Statement: New immigrants tend to be less likely to have a primary healthcare provider or use other sexual health clinics, which can have adverse consequences for sexual health. This disparity appears to be largely concentrated among temporary foreign workers, international students, and refugees. Interventions should target policies that increase the number of primary healthcare providers, and address immigration policies that lead to fear of deportation due to one's health.

Rates of parental incarceration and family homelessness continue to rise in the United States, and many families experience both of these risks concurrently. Both parental incarceration and homelessness independently relate to negative outcomes for children and families, with numerous studies documenting families’ experiences of each risk independently. Despite families’ increased risk for experiencing co-occurring parental incarceration and housing instability, little is known about families’ experiences within this complex context of risk. This qualitative study explores currently incarcerated parents’ and their children's at-home caregivers’ perceptions of their experiences of homelessness and housing instability during the year prior to the parent's current incarceration. Through semi-structured interviews with 16 jailed parents and caregivers, families describe their perception of their experience for themselves and for their children and identify challenges and support they encountered. Using multiperspectival interpretative phenomenological analysis, emerging group experiential themes clustered within four overarching constructs: jailed parent/caregiver-focused, child-focused, family-level, and exosystem-level experiences. Overall, families’ descriptions capture the complexity of their cascading risk experiences, with impacts permeating through the family system. Implications for programming and policies addressing parental incarceration and homelessness are addressed.

State-level hate crime laws are a proposed solution for pernicious effects endured by transgender and gender diverse (e.g., no-binary, queer) (TGD) communities. The present study investigated the following correlates of psychological distress, suicidal behavior, and discrimination experiences among TGD adults: State-level hate crime law statutes (e.g., gender identity protection), state-level attitudes (e.g., conservative ideology), and individual-level marginalized identities (e.g., sexual minority status). Participants were all TGD adults in the 2015 United States Transgender Survey (USTS). We merged three data sources: the USTS, Cooperative Congressional Election Study, and the Anti-Defamation League's Hate Crime Map. We employed bivariate and logistic regression analyses. Prominent findings spanning the whole sample included: (a) worse psychological distress was associated with living in a state with greater anti-TGD attitudes and an absence of gender identity protections; (b) worse 12-month suicidal behavior was associated with living in a state with an absence of gender identity and police data collection statutes; and (c) holding multiple marginalized identities, particularly having a disability, was the strongest risk factor for experiencing negative outcomes. Findings are contextualized by debates about hate crime laws. We offer recommendations for mental health promotion and suicide prevention, hate crimes training, and future research.