Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy最新文献

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, citizens of many countries have been faced with health-related fear, as well as anti-establishment and anti-governmental anger. This emotional landscape colored the ongoing efforts by the authorities to convince citizens to accept various public policy proposals. In two studies (total N = 528, one preregistered) conducted in Poland in two different situations, we focused on the role of the simultaneously evoked pandemic fear and anti-government anger in shaping attitudes toward the pandemic regulations. For negatively evaluated proposals, both of these emotions worked in opposite directions: fear was associated with increasing support, while anger was associated with increasing rejection. However, for positively evaluated policy proposals, fear and anger worked in consonance, and both were associated with increasing acceptance of the proposed regulations. Thus, while fear seems to motivate the acceptance of even negatively evaluated proposals that are seen as protective ones, anger works to amplify or polarize the proposals’ basic evaluations. Our findings could help plan the implementation of public policies in societies in times of turbulent emotional landscapes.

During the 2019 Indonesian presidential election, two supporter groups of presidential candidates exhibited negative attitudes toward each other. This study aimed to explain the mediating effect of collective narcissism on the relationship between three predictors (religiosity, group-based anger, and shared reality) and attitudes toward opposing groups. We conducted two surveys before and during the official campaign period (Study 1, n = 300) and after the official campaign period until one day after the election (Study 2, n = 158). The results of Study 1 showed that group-based anger and shared reality had a significant relationship with negative attitudes toward the opposing group. In Study 2, collective narcissism was found to significantly predict negative attitudes toward the opposing group and mediate the relationship between shared reality and negative attitudes. We also found a mediating effect of collective narcissism on the relationship between group-based anger and negative attitudes. These findings indicate that the strength of collective narcissism in the ingroup can predict negative attitudes toward the opposing group.

Diversity education in the K-12 years is a contentious issue in the contemporary US context. Given evidence that parental identity influences beliefs about and support for diversity education, we qualitatively explored cisgender-heterosexual and LGBTQ+ parents’ (N = 609) beliefs about the appropriateness of inclusive educational policies in K-12 classrooms. We collected qualitative data on parental perceptions of inclusive signals in classrooms (e.g., displaying a rainbow flag) and on perceptions of inclusive curriculum (whether children should learn about diversity at school/from teachers or at home/from parents). Parents’ responses reflected variability in support for inclusive signals. Cisgender-heterosexual parents were more likely to endorse that cues should not be allowed and were less likely to indicate holistic support of cues compared to LGBTQ+ parents. For inclusive curriculum, cisgender-heterosexual parents were more likely than LGBTQ+ parents to endorse that diversity information should be discussed only at home with parents. We contextualize parents’ responses within contemporary political rhetoric (e.g., discussions of Parents’ Bills of Rights) and highlight implications for educators and policymakers.

For many people, the coronavirus pandemic meant an enormous and existential loss of control. At the same time, an increase in right-wing extremist attitudes like xenophobia could be observed in Germany. In this study, we hypothesize that the loss of control caused by the pandemic has contributed to the rise in xenophobic and anti-Semitic attitudes in Germany. We propose that this occurs through an attempt to restore control via elements of a revised authoritarian syndrome understood as both the classic authoritarian dynamic of aggression, submission and conventionalism on the one hand, and a general belief in conspiracy theories on the other. In a representative, probability-based study, N = 2522 participants were surveyed on locus of control, right-wing authoritarianism, conspiracy mentality, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism. It was found that right-wing authoritarianism and conspiracy mentality mediated the relationship between external locus of control and xenophobia (partial mediation) and anti-Semitism (full mediation). Surprisingly, internal control beliefs had a direct effect on right-wing authoritarianism—an effect that also leads to increased resentment. We conclude that social crises make people particularly vulnerable to regaining control via conspiracy theories and authoritarianism, which harbors dangers such as right-wing extremism as a consequence. Limitations are discussed.

Political language can serve as a powerful tool for mobilizing and uniting voters. The present work examines partisan differences in the use of interdependent language—language that emphasizes connection, collective goals, and cooperation—in US Congressional campaign emails during the 2024 general election. Using computerized text analysis (LIWC), we analyze over 15,000 emails from 378 Senate and House candidates to assess the prevalence of interdependent language, as measured by first-person plural pronouns, references to affiliation, and social language. Our findings suggest that, on average, Democratic candidates employ significantly more interdependent language than their Republican counterparts. However, we observe pronounced shifts in this pattern over time, with Republicans' use of interdependent language increasing to match Democrats as Election Day approaches. Given prior evidence that framing issues in interdependent terms can foster cooperation and collective action, understanding how political candidates engage with the language of interdependence can provide insight into the rhetorical tools used to rally support and motivate political engagement.

A compelled disclosure mandatory reporting policy approach requires all or nearly all university employees to report any sexual assault they learn about to university officials, regardless of the victim/survivor's wishes. Although rare, some universities have implemented policies that require the victim/survivor's consent to the report (i.e., consented disclosure). This mixed method study examined support for a compelled disclosure versus consented disclosure policy approach in a sample of college students (n = 640) and non-student adults (n = 405). Quantitative data examined whether sexual victimization and trust in university response to sexual assault reports were associated with policy preference. Qualitative data examined participants’ explanations for their policy preference. Most participants preferred consented over compelled disclosure, and college students and those with less trust in university response to reports were especially likely to support consented disclosure. Reasons for supporting consented disclosure predominantly centered on survivors, focusing on the importance of survivor choice and wellbeing. Those who supported compelled disclosure predominantly focused on individuals other than the survivor (e.g., the perpetrator, other students), personal beliefs about crime and punishment, and assumptions about the benefits of compelled disclosure. Findings highlight the importance of including a greater diversity of perspectives in mandatory reporting policy development.

Debate over abortion care in the US has intensified since the June 2022 Supreme Court decision that curtailed abortion rights. Concurrently, Americans are divided over the legitimacy of gender identities other than woman and man. These two issues have coincided in calls for gender-inclusive language such as “pregnant person” when discussing reproductive issues. I examined whether abortion attitudes are affected by such gender-inclusive language. US respondents (N = 996) reported their support for abortion on items referring to pregnant women, pregnant persons, or mothers, completed measures of sexism, and wrote about what they believed “pregnant person” means. Lower support for abortion was associated with greater endorsement of sexism, with minor variation in the strength of this association across the three item wording conditions. Participants who interpreted “pregnant person” to represent efforts to be inclusive of diverse genders endorsed higher support for abortion and lower sexism, whereas participants who believed “pregnant person” represents ideologically biased “woke” language endorsed lower support for abortion and greater sexism. These findings suggest that institutions that have adopted gender-inclusive language such as “pregnant person” should understand that some audiences may interpret it negatively, with potential ramifications for health policy attitudes.

While much research on churches and the LGBTQ+ communities has been done in North America, little research has focused on this topic in Europe. Since 71% of European LGBTQ+ respondents agreed that better acceptance by religious leaders would allow them to live more comfortably as LGBTQ+ people, we investigated the types of messages and imagery that help and hinder Swiss LGBTQ+ Christians’ feelings of acceptance within churches. We also investigated the impact this content had on the feelings of acceptance of Swiss straight Christians. We found that when LGBTQ+ Christians were presented with affirming church messages and imagery, they felt significantly more accepted. Conversely, LGBTQ+ Christians who were presented with non-affirming church messages and imagery felt significantly less accepted. Straight Christians did not evidence significantly more or less feelings of acceptance in either condition, demonstrating affirming church messages and imagery serve as identity safety cues that help LGBTQ+ Christians the most without excluding straight Christians. In a context like Switzerland, where certain churches can be public institutions, institutional churches should consider the impact their messages and imagery have on LGBTQ+ Christians, and the broader LGBTQ+ communities, to cultivate a space of belonging for all.

Fat activism is a movement that seeks to acknowledge and eliminate the oppression of fat people. The movement and those who participate face significant backlash, yet fat activism is understudied. We sought to understand lay theories about fat activism; that is, how everyday people think about the goals and motivations of fat activism, and people who engage in fat activism, to understand how these perceptions shape support for and backlash toward fat activism. In Study 1 (N = 294), we qualitatively elucidated lay theories of fat activism in a US nationally representative sample. We identified lay theories that both represented neutral or positive perceptions of fat activism (e.g., oriented around increasing rights for fat people) and lay theories that captured more hostile perceptions of and backlash toward fat activism (e.g., enabling unhealthiness). Building on Study 1 findings indicating fat women are characterized as most likely to engage in fat activism, Study 2 (N = 349) manipulated gender (woman, man) and body size (fat, thin) of hypothetical fat activists. Relative to thin people, fat people engaging in fat activism were perceived to have more hostile goals and more experiential and negative motives, and their fat activism was perceived more negatively overall.

Discrimination against LGBTQ+ people is pervasive, which puts them at higher risk for mental health problems and lower well-being. To better understand the impact of perceived discrimination on lesbians' well-being and collective action, this study extended the rejection-identification model (RIM) with a multiple-identity approach. Using a sample of lesbians from the United States (N = 258), we conducted a preregistered correlational study where we aimed to test four possible identities of lesbians (i.e., lesbian, LGBTQ+, women, feminist identity) as potential mediators for the links between perceived discrimination, well-being, and collective action. We found support for the simple RIM such that perceived discrimination was related to higher lesbian identification, and in turn lesbian identification was related to higher well-being. Moreover, both lesbian and feminist identification were related to higher collective action. Overall, we recognize the importance of multiple identities for stigmatized groups to protect their well-being and to encourage collective action to better cope with discrimination.