British Journal of Social Psychology最新文献

In two cross-sectional and two experimental studies across both advantaged and disadvantaged group members (N_total = 1980 from two national contexts, UK and Italy), we explored if perceptions of group relative prototypicality may explain the association of positive and negative contact with collective action. Specifically, across studies, we investigated subgroup relative prototypicality with respect to four different common identities (national, supranational, based on humanity, humanity values). In Studies 1–2, among advantaged group members, positive contact was positively associated with collective action intentions via greater relative prototypicality of disadvantaged groups; in Study 2, we also found that negative contact was negatively associated with collective action intentions via decreased relative prototypicality of disadvantaged groups. By contrast, among disadvantaged group members, relative prototypicality did not exert any mediation effects. Experimental Studies 3–4 using advantaged group member participants generally provided causal evidence that positive (imagined) contact increases relative prototypicality of the disadvantaged group (Study 3), and that relative prototypicality increases collective action (Study 4).

From the playground to the boardroom, social power profoundly shapes the way people think and behave. Social psychological research has offered a nuanced understanding of the diverse psychological and behavioural tendencies of powerholders. We add to this literature by proposing that powerholders also differ in how they construe the origin of their power. Specifically, we differentiate between perceiving one's power as being based on personal merit and achievement (i.e. achieved power construal) and perceiving one's power as being granted by others (i.e. entrusted power construal). We hypothesised that entrusted power construal, more than achieved power construal, would increase powerholders' psychological other-orientation—the tendency to take another's perspective and to feel what they feel—and their altruistic behavioural tendencies. Using a multi-method approach, we tested this prediction across three studies (N = 926). Our findings revealed that powerholders who adopted an entrusted power construal, compared to those who adopted an achieved power construal, exhibited greater psychological other-orientation and more altruistic behavioural tendencies. We discuss the practical implications of these findings, including how they inform the training of future powerholders to educate them about the reciprocal nature of power.

The impacts of extreme events can intersect with pre-disaster systemic inequalities and deficiencies, exacerbating distress. This paper contributes to the existing literature by exploring the psychosocial processes through which stressors become traumatic during an extreme event. It does so by focusing on how mothers of children and/or adolescents in the United Kingdom experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. First, qualitative interviews (N = 15) showed that participants experienced a cluster of stressors stemming from their workplaces, partners, children's behaviours and homeschooling, which caused a sense of overload and captivity, reducing their quality of life. However, individual, interpersonal and collective forms of coping were reported. Second, quantitative survey data (N = 621) showed that the relationship between stressors and perceived stress was mediated by feelings of overload due to excessive identity-related tasks and caregiving responsibilities. Moreover, community identification was associated with reduced overload and perceived stress. Overall, during extreme events, people can experience distress due to being overloaded by and trapped in particular identities and identity-related tasks, unable to perform other aspects of their social selves. We argue that social psychological analyses can be useful in tracing the complex impacts of extreme events across a range of systems and levels of analysis.

This paper sheds light on how spaces become contested sites for identity construction and negotiation to take place. Applying the Social Representations Approach, a qualitative study of 10 focus group discussions (n = 39), was conducted in Singapore, Malaysia and the UK to explore how, and why racialised identity construction changed in each socio-political context. The study challenged two underlying assumptions in social psychology: (1) that the meaning of the racialised category holds constant across time and space, and (2) there exists a pan-racial identification among Asian identities, for example, which at times allows for racialised categories to be manipulated as variables. We argue that the distinction between the country that the racialised identity originates from, country of birth (or citizenship) for the individual and country that the individual manages the identity in, is important in understanding the changes in the psychology of racialised identities. By taking into consideration the interplay of temporality, space, social relations and social systems, this paper presents a contribution in the form of the concept “politicized psycho-geographies”.

We examined the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and endorsement of honour. We studied the SES-honour link in 5 studies (N = 13,635) with participants recruited in different world regions (the Mediterranean and MENA, East Asian, South-East Asian, and Anglo-Western regions) using measures that tap into various different facets of honour. Findings from these studies revealed that individuals who subjectively perceived themselves as belonging to a higher (vs. lower) SES endorsed various facets of honour more strongly (i.e. defence of family honour values and concerns, self-promotion and retaliation values, masculine honour beliefs, emphasis on personal and family social image, the so-called street code). We discuss implications of these findings for the cultural dynamics linked to SES.

Critical voices within social psychology have, for some time, emphasized that context matters for understanding psychological phenomena and processes. This special issue examines what a social psychology of context, and in context, can contribute to understanding contemporary geopolitics. We argue that, in examining the interplay between social psychology and contemporary geopolitics, we can understand how geopolitical contexts shape psychological processes and how psychology, in turn, informs our understanding of geopolitical phenomena. There are two thematic strands of the special issue; first, how psychological mechanisms influence perceptions and actions within geopolitical contexts, and second, how geopolitics shapes psychology as a discipline, including its theoretical frameworks and power dynamics. Papers examine three dimensions within which psychology and geopolitics meet—the temporal, spatial and embodied—representing history, geography and social relations, while emphasizing their interconnectedness. Drawing on critical geopolitics and social psychology, this introduction underscores the constructed, contested and political nature of time and space. By interlinking historical and social meaning with spatialization, this issue offers a deeper understanding of how individuals, groups and nations create and contest the psychological and geopolitical landscapes that shape contemporary life. The contributions highlight both the opportunities and challenges for social psychology in engaging with these critical intersections.

We propose a new motivational model that integrates self-determination theory (with a focus on basic needs) with social-psychological research on allyship and solidarity to better understand when and why allies may engage in different actions to address social injustice. We theorize that normative (e.g., donations and protesting) and non-normative (e.g., blocking highways and disrupting events) solidarity-based actions are motivated by allies' basic needs (measured at the individual and group levels) as well as their perception of disadvantaged groups' basic needs (measured at the individual and group levels). We tested the model in two cross-sectional studies using two different contexts: English citizens' solidarity (i.e., allies from a high-status group) with Ukrainian refugees and students' solidarity (i.e., allies from a low-status group) with the striking university employees in the United Kingdom (N_total = 1232). In both studies, we found that the more allies' needs were satisfied, the more likely they were to engage in normative solidarity actions. In contrast, intentions to engage in non-normative solidarity actions were predicted by frustration of allies' needs. Perceptions of disadvantaged group's needs predicted engagement in both normative and non-normative actions. Notably, high-status allies' solidarity was driven by both individual and group-level needs, whilst low-status allies were only motivated by group-level needs.

In three studies (total N = 622), the effects of threat to control on subsequent moral judgement were examined. After recalling a lack-of-control experience, participants evaluated the morality of a protagonist's decisions in a series of incongruent moral dilemmas. We found that a control-threatening reminder made moral judgements more utilitarian on the deontological–utilitarian dimension, which is consistent with the control motivation theory. However, this effect depended on the type of judgement and the duration of control deprivation. It emerged only when evaluating moral legitimacy, not overall moral acceptability, and only under brief control-threatening situations, not long ones. Thus, control threat made moral reasoning more utilitarian only when factors promoting more careful, exhaustive story processing were at play. Presumably, under these conditions, the non-specific motivation to regain control—by prompting effortful processing—allowed participants to weigh the moral pros and cons before reaching a final judgement.

This article reports the development and validation of the Episodic Empowerment Scale (EES): A manipulation check designed to measure a momentary psychological state. In Study 1, participants (n = 125) completed a selection of candidate items after being exposed to a low- or high-power manipulation. Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the number of items to a brief five-item measure. We then examined the validity, reliability, and stability of the EES. Study 2 (n = 143) compared the target sensitivity of the EES to a widely used measure of power. In Study 3 (n = 129), we investigated the discriminant content validity of the EES by testing its sensitivity to a non-target manipulation: positive and negative affect. Finally, in a large-scale replication, Study 4 (n = 479) established the measurement invariance of the EES across experimental conditions and the interaction between conditions and gender as well as replicating the findings from Study 1. Our results indicate that the EES is a brief, valid, and sensitive manipulation check. Findings are discussed within the broader context of validating self-report manipulation checks and the importance of employing robust psychometric techniques in experimental social psychology.

This paper examines the geopolitical implications of knowledge production in psychology through two studies that respond to the growing body of work on the ‘Decolonisation of Knowledge’ and the ‘Decolonisation of Psychology’ over the past two decades. By adopting a constructivist approach, particularly through the lens of Social Representation Theory (SRT), these studies explore the ways in which geopolitical contexts shape decolonial activism within psychological and scientific discourse. The first study sheds light on the lexical divergences in the construction of knowledge within the domains of psychology. We reviewed 300 article abstracts related to decolonial studies using lexicometric analysis based on the Reinhart method (IraMuTeq). Four clusters were identified: Educational Reform, Historical Temporalities, Social Actors, and Epistemological Discourse. These clusters suggest differences in knowledge production within different geopolitical localities. The second study explores these variations by immersing itself in the perspectives and representations articulated by decolonial scholars. The second study is conducted using 12 semi-structured interviews with academics actively engaged in decolonial efforts. The aim of the two studies is to demonstrate regional variations in decolonial discourse and highlight the ongoing influence of geopolitical factors on scientific inquiry.