Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy最新文献

In the current contribution, we aim to examine how the political efficacy of different actions is understood in authoritarian contexts and, in particular, whether protest and voting are viewed as an efficacious way to engage in the political process among opposition members. We used an online survey (N = 152), asked open-ended questions about (1) motivators for voting, (2) reasons for not voting/indecisiveness, opinions on (3) voting, (4) offline protests, and (5) online protests to make voices heard and analyzed the data using qualitative content analysis. Results highlighted the motivators behind voting, such as opposing the current government, hope for change, and seeing it as a civic duty, while hopelessness/lack of faith in change and lack of representative candidates were barriers to civic participation. While some saw voting as ineffective in competitive authoritarian contexts like Turkey, others perceived it as a way for people to make their voices heard. Last, the difference between offline and online protests regarding making one's voice heard was stark: Offline protests were described as necessary yet very dangerous, whereas online protests were seen as mostly effective. We discuss these different actions’ political efficacy and civic participation challenges in authoritarian contexts, especially among opposition members.

Within-group apologies restore important values and afford victims their dignity; however, the system justification motive may cause group authorities to hesitate in apologizing or to include system-justifying expressions to soothe the general public. Two studies were conducted, both on-campus (Study 1) and off-campus (Study 2), to empirically illustrate the public reception of within-group apologies (victim-focused and system-challenging) and silence. The results indicate that higher levels of system justification are associated with more favorable attitudes toward responses from authority. For the general public (Study 2), high-level justifiers supported the government's silence as much as the victim-focused apology, maintaining trust despite perceiving unfairness. Conversely, low-level justifiers, though negative overall, supported victim-focused apology more than system-challenging apology or silence. Additionally, the general public in Study 2 favored the victim-focused apology over the system-challenging one, rendering system-justifying expressions unnecessary. We propose that authorities prioritize apologies emphasizing dignity and respect for victims, instead of fearing potential negative reception influenced by the system justification motive.

One possible explanation for the lack of pro-environmental behavior among the public is that the benefits of combating climate change are long-term and distant. Temporal discounting is a pervasive tendency to prefer small immediate gains to large delayed benefits, which may lead to a lack of motivation to engage in pro-environmental behavior. However, exposure to nature can reduce this tendency and by extension may promote pro-environmental behavior. Two behavioral experiments were conducted to investigate whether exposure to natural (vs. urban) scenes would induce lower discounting and increase the tendency toward pro-environmental behavior. We demonstrated that exposure to natural (vs. urban) scenes was associated with a lower level of discounting and a greater tendency toward pro-environmental behavior, including energy-saving use of air conditioning (Experiment 1), willingness to participate in beach cleaning (Experiment 2), and choosing meals with less environmental impact (Experiment 2). Mediation analysis indicated that the discounting tendency mediated the relationship between exposure to natural scenes and pro-environmental behavior. This study provides the first experimental evidence that temporal discounting accounts for the association between exposure to natural (vs. urban) scenes and the tendency toward pro-environmental behavior. Our findings support the development of a novel strategy for promoting pro-environmental behavior.

Humanitarian crises like the Covid-19 pandemic pose significant challenges to society, prompting scientific debate on whether such situations elicit more prosocial or more selfish behavior. Despite the restrictions imposed by the pandemic, current evidence indicates a continued display of various prosocial behaviors. This research aims to enhance the understanding of what constitutes prosocial behavior from both individuals’ lay and scientific perspectives. For this purpose, we analyzed lay perspectives via an open question in a representative survey (N = 446) and qualitatively categorized the reported prosocial behaviors inductively with content analysis. The qualitative content analysis revealed three clusters of prosocial behaviors: promoting the welfare of others, health-protective measures, and supporting society. Additionally, we conducted a systematic literature review to identify the scientific perspective view (i.e., focusing on the empirical measurements) on prosocial behaviors studied during the pandemic. Although behaviors promoting the welfare of others (e.g., donations) were the most commonly studied in the literature review, participants reported more health-protective behavior, such as hand-washing, which was not traditionally considered to be prosocial before the pandemic. The comparison between individuals’ lay and scientific perspectives highlighted some prosocial behaviors that warrant future investigation (e.g., supporting the economy, home office).

The present study examined Turkish young university students’ cultural values and filial obligation norms in association with their ageism toward older people. Participants (N  =  369) completed scales measuring relatedness and autonomy values, filial obligation norms, prescriptive intergenerational-tension ageism, ambivalent ageism, warmth and competence stereotypes toward older people, and frequency of intergenerational contact. Multiple hierarchical regression analyses showed that relatedness values were negatively associated with succession prejudice; and positively associated with benevolent ageism and competence and warmth stereotypes. Relatively authoritarian filial obligation norms were further negatively associated with consumption prejudice, and positively associated with benevolent ageism and competence and warmth stereotypes. Finally, mediation analyses showed that relatively authoritarian and emotional filial obligation norms explained the indirect association between the variables, the former for benevolent ageism and competence and warmth stereotypes; the latter for warmth stereotypes and frequency of intergenerational contact. The present study suggests that young people's relatively traditional cultural values and hierarchical familial norms play a role in their positive prejudice and stereotypes whereas relationship-oriented cultural values and emotional familial norms play a role in their warmth stereotypes and frequency of intergenerational contact. The findings help us understand how different contents and components of ageism toward older people are linked with young people's cultural values and familial norms.

Acknowledgment of collective victimization is often understood as a crucial precursor to promoting victimized groups’ well-being and breaking the cycle of violence. Yet, research on acknowledgment has focused on a few forms of acknowledgment from the perpetrator group, thus limiting our understanding on what acknowledgment entails and who should engage in it. Furthermore, what is considered to be appropriate acknowledgment may be shaped by the historical and sociopolitical context. To address these issues, we conducted a qualitative online survey that explored how four historical victim groups (Armenian Americans, Black Americans, Jewish Americans, and the Palestinian diaspora, total N = 273) perceive how acknowledgment of their group's collective trauma should look like. Qualitative content analysis revealed four broad theoretical categories of what acknowledgment entails: symbolic gestures, knowledge and education, structural redress, and learning lessons and preventing violence. We also found four categories concerning who should acknowledge the ingroup's trauma: everyone, adversaries, the ingroup, and third parties. Responses varied across groups, suggesting the importance of the sociopolitical context in acknowledgment. The findings extend theoretical and empirical work on acknowledgment and have important program and policy implications.

We propose that political polarization stems in part from differing conceptions of one's nation. Four studies tested the hypothesis that national essentialism – conceiving one's nation as possessing an inherent, unchanging essence – underlies three political ideologies: right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and nationalism. Study 1 (n = 263) provides correlational evidence that essentialist thinking about the U.S. positively predicted all three ideological variables, as well as support for conservative policies regarding religion, taxes, the environment, and immigration. Converging experiments show that prompting participants to think about the U.S.’s essence increased support for RWA and nationalism, but not SDO. Study 2 (n = 164) compared an essentialist to a non-essentialist framing of the U.S., while Study 3 (n = 150) compared essentialist framings of the U.S. to an unrelated concept (music). Parallel mediation analyses show that support for RWA and nationalism mediated the relationship between primed national essentialism and support for conservative policy positions. Study 4 (n = 174) directly replicated Study 2 and went further to test mediators, showing that perceptions of intergroup threat mediated the effect of national essentialism on RWA, while national identification mediated the effect of national essentialism on nationalism. Data and materials are publicly available at: (https://osf.io/srvxk/?view_only=d803fbf4c59c4b7e912f5a345ddb09b9)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus is a destructive respiratory disease that has affected the lives of billions of people around the world. Researchers argue that a group-based approach drawing on our membership of specific social groups, rather than appealing to our individual self-interest, is necessary to combat the disease. Social groups who are perceived to be not adhering to national mitigation measures aimed at reducing the spread of the virus, are often portrayed negatively by the media. The current study examines the impact of negative media constructions of young peoples’ behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically focusing on when these constructions have been contested by young people involved. A total of 789 young people were randomly assigned to read either a positive or negative description of young people's behavior during COVID-19 restrictions. Results indicate that the type of article had no impact on behavioral outcomes or perceived stress. However, an interaction effect was noted where reading a negative article and disagreeing with the content increased individuals’ levels of perceived stress. Findings indicate that negative group-based media constructions of behavior do not increase behavioral conformity but does undermine the mental health of those involved.

In January 2022, several vaccination policies were debated to address the Omicron outbreak in Belgium. Considering variability in risk perception and vaccine uptake, this study aimed to understand differences in support and expectations for four scenarios, ranging from relaxed to restrictive vaccination policies, to inform policymakers. Using an online survey, 12,670 participants (46% female; M_age = 45.9, SD = 13.38) reported their risk perception, number of vaccination doses (0/1, 2, 3 doses) as well as their support and several anticipated psychological outcomes for each scenario. Mixed model ANCOVA showed a pattern of preferential support for the relaxed scenario and more positive anticipated outcomes (general well-being and government appraisals) compared to the restrictive policies, that were treated equivalently. An exception to this pattern was found when people were vaccinated with three doses and perceived high risk. Taken separately, risk perception and vaccination status were not sufficient to drive positive attitudes toward restrictive policies; only their interaction had an effect. Limitations include the self-selected sample and the vignette methodology. The conjunct role of risk perception and vaccination status should be considered when discussing the introduction of restrictive vaccination policies. These findings inform vaccination strategies management during pandemics.

Building upon recent calls for the integration of abolition into psychology, we develop and validate a measure of Abolitionist Ideology. In two studies with abolitionist leaning (N = 201, abolitionist-identifying n = 58) and nationally representative (N = 350) samples, we identify and confirm a three-factor, 26-item measure including subscales of Alternatives to State Violence, Revolutionary Abolitionism, and Abolitionist Identity. The Abolitionist Ideology Scale demonstrates convergent validity with measures including support for Black Lives Matter, critical consciousness, openness to experience, radical imagination, and attribution of violence to the state. The scale demonstrates divergent validity from measures including social dominance orientation (SDO) and political conservatism. Finally, the scale predicted activism tenacity above and beyond a related measure of carceral system justification. The Abolitionist Ideology Scale demonstrates initial reliability and validity and will be useful for those aiming to engage abolition in liberatory theory, research, and practice.