Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy最新文献

Do partisans ever oppose their candidates during U.S. presidential elections? We explored this question across two studies (N = 1106) using U.S. Republicans and Democrats in the context of the 2024 Presidential Election. We propose that partisan identity and ideological orientations related to different criticisms of in-group and out-group leaders, which differently relates to level of candidate support. For Democrats, we focused on the ideological orientation of left-wing authoritarianism (LWA). For Republicans, we focused on the ideological belief in democracy. Study 1 measured participants criticisms of in-group and out-group candidates, while Study 2 manipulated the salience of in-group (or out-group) leadership support. Across both studies, stronger partisan identity related to lower levels of in-group criticism, higher levels of out-group criticism, and more leadership support. Importantly, the examined ideological orientation lead Democrats (but not Republicans) to oppose their in-group leader. Manipulating the salience of leadership support did not impact these relationships.

This study examines the impact of physical characteristics, specifically facial symmetry and facial width-to-height ratio, on the electoral success of political candidates (N = 167) in the 2022 Czech Senate elections. These facial metrics are used as objective indicators of facial structure, offering a novel approach in the political context. Candidate data were analyzed using Poisson regression models, revealing significant associations between facial features and electoral outcomes. Higher facial symmetry was consistently linked to better electoral performance, while the effect of fWHR varied by gender, being positive for men and negative for women. These results highlight the broader implications of physical appearance in politics, suggesting that voter biases towards attractive candidates can influence election outcomes. This study contributes to the understanding of non-political factors in electoral success.

National nostalgia is a mechanism through which intergroup hostility is catalyzed. In contrast, national prostalgia has been shown to benefit individuals due to its optimistic and motivational functions. Collective forms of future-oriented thinking, such as national prostalgia, predict increases in support for agents of change in society. Few studies, though, have investigated how future-oriented variables are linked to prejudice or support for political candidates. Thus, we investigated how national nostalgia and prostalgia may predict prejudice (Study 1, N = 177) and support for Donald Trump and Joe Biden (Study 2, N = 110). As hypothesized, national nostalgia and prostalgia respectively predicted increases and decreases in ingroup protection, outgroup derogation, and support for Donald Trump. Neither national nostalgia nor prostalgia predicted support for Joe Biden. In Study 1, there was a suppression effect, such that national prostalgia was only a significant predictor of intergroup attitudes when national nostalgia was a predictor in the models. These findings were not a result of individual optimism, political conservatism, gender, age, or associating Trump with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These results highlight that national prostalgia and nostalgia are distinct psychological phenomena associated with unique consequences.

Populism has long accompanied the development of modern democracies like a shadow, reflecting the presence of institutional faults. Given populism's discursive targeting of elites, it is particularly attractive to those who feel unfairly treated by the current state of affairs. In this paper, we explore how these populist grievances change in reaction to electoral events. Specifically, we assess perceptions of fairness and apply them to an electoral context. To accomplish this, we conducted a longitudinal study of three time-points throughout the 2024 US presidential election (n = 540), two before and one after the election. We hypothesized that changes in perceptions of electoral fairness, particularly among partisans whose candidate lost, would meaningfully affect an individual's populist attitudes post-election. Using mediation analyses, we found that decreases in both electoral fairness evaluations and democratic satisfaction mediated an increase in populist attitudes only among Democrats, while serial mediation revealed a causal link between electoral fairness and democratic satisfaction. Although democratic satisfaction may represent a broader attitude towards electoral systems, perceptions of unfairness within the electoral process also have the potential to stoke populist sentiment. We discuss the mechanics of this effect and other procedural contexts which may be of further interest.

Algorithmic decision-making systems are increasingly shaping critical social outcomes (e.g., hiring, lending, criminal justice, healthcare), yet technical approaches to bias mitigation ignore crucial psychological mechanisms that enable discriminatory use. To address this gap, I integrate motivated reasoning, system justification, and moral disengagement theories to argue that AI systems may function as “moral cover,” allowing users to perpetuate inequality while maintaining beliefs in their own objectivity. Users often demonstrate “selective adherence,” following algorithmic advice when it confirms stereotypes while dismissing counter-stereotypical outputs. System justification motives lead people to defend discriminatory algorithmic outcomes as legitimate, “data-driven” decisions. Moral disengagement mechanisms (including responsibility displacement, euphemistic labeling, and advantageous comparison) can enable discrimination while preserving moral self-regard. Finally, I argue that understanding AI bias as fundamentally psychological rather than merely technical demands interventions addressing these underlying psychological processes alongside algorithmic improvements.

This study examines the functions of collective action for people who experienced a disaster. Data were collected through ethnography and individual interviews with 22 people who participated in a silent walk, an anniversary event for the earthquake that occurred on February 6, 2023. The thematic analysis of the interviews and field reports identified the functions at three levels: First, at the individual level by contributing to people's psychological well-being positively and giving people a sense of efficacy; second, at the community level by giving people a sense of shared identity with others; third, at the policy level by giving people a space to express their discontent with various political agendas. The findings emphasize the necessity of policy-level change to ensure the sustainability of these transformations. The study highlights that collective action organized by people from the public can be a significant step toward raising awareness of the need for policy change.

Neoliberal ideology has received increasing empirical attention in recent years, although little is known about its relationship to voting behavior. Examining this question may offer insight into theoretical questions regarding social hierarchies and neoliberalism. Following from social dominance theory, we posit that social dominance orientation should predict neoliberal ideology, which should, in turn, predict voting for a Republican candidate. However, building from the ideological asymmetry hypothesis, we posit that these relationships should be stronger among high (vs. low) power groups. One study (N = 604) is designed to test these hypothesized relationships between social dominance orientation, neoliberal ideology, and voting intentions among high- and low-power groups using a series of moderated-mediation models in the context of the 2024 US Presidential election. A nationally representative sample (based on race, gender, age, and political affiliation) of registered voters was recruited from Prolific to complete a brief survey in the weeks leading up to the election.

This article examines the narrative strategies and identity constructions of two far-right groups, the League of the South (United States) and the Grey Wolves (Turkey), through a cross-cultural lens. Gathering textual data from the respective groups' websites and using reflexive thematic analysis, we identify and compare five overarching themes, revealing both shared and unique dynamics shaped by each group's socio-political context and proximity to power. The League of the South portrays out-group threats, including traditional far-right targets and mainstream Republicans, as existential, emphasizing victimhood and the struggle of an exclusive in-group to establish a neo-Confederate state. In contrast, the Grey Wolves frame their in-group identity within a broader Turkish-Islamic context, integrating national pride and moral superiority with confidence derived from their alignment with Turkey's ruling coalition. Our findings highlight the role of power in shaping narratives: while the Grey Wolves capitalize on their proximity to power to project strength and stability, the League of the South's marginal position fosters narratives of defiance and futility. Despite differences, both groups employ moralistic and historical framings to legitimize their aims. This study advances the literature on far-right movements by emphasizing the complex dynamics between identity, power, and context, offering insights into the broader dynamics of far-right populism in WEIRD and non-WEIRD settings.

Policies designed to prevent COVID-19 deaths arguably yielded trade-offs with other adverse outcomes associated with lockdowns. In a nationally representative study of Americans, we queried participants about how tolerant they were of these trade-offs, expressed as binary choices. We asked participants—by putting them in the shoes of a medical policymaker—to choose one adverse outcome (of a pair) to prevent and one to allow. Participants expressed greater desire to prevent child abuse, intimate partner violence, and deaths associated with economic downturns than COVID deaths, suggesting that the public perceived that detrimental effects of the lockdowns are more regrettable than potential additional COVID deaths.

Diversity is essential for fostering innovation and improving organizational performance. Yet, it remains undervalued in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, leading to higher rates of mental health issues, burnout, and attrition among marginalized groups. This study aimed to examine the facilitators and barriers affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) STEM students, particularly those pursuing careers with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), using an intersectionality framework. The study recruited (N = 15) LGBTQ+ undergraduate STEM students who were guided through semi-structured interviews carried out via Zoom. Thematic analysis revealed three major facilitator themes focused on supportive familial and academic relationships, institutional symbols of inclusion, and individual strengths enhancing students' sense of belonging and career aspirations. Conversely, four major barrier themes focused on unsupportive interpersonal interactions, identity management stressors, stigma related to gender and sexual identity, and structural barriers contributing to exclusion and marginalization. Policy implications emphasize the importance of reinforcing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) commitments, actively opposing discriminatory laws, and developing mentorship programs. NASA's continued commitment to DEIA is vital for creating an innovative STEM workforce.