British Journal of Social Psychology最新文献

The effectiveness of mutual help groups (MHGs) in promoting addiction recovery has been widely acknowledged. However, the psychological mechanisms underlying the impact of MHGs remain somewhat uncertain. Drawing on a social identity perspective, this study investigated a sequential mediation model in which social support is posited as a driving factor that enhances abstinence maintenance through group identification, recovery identity, and self-efficacy. A sample of 820 smokers, participating in a 6-month collective smoking cessation programme which included access to an online help group, completed measures of social support, group identification, smoker/ex-smoker identity, and self-efficacy at the programme's outset. Smoking abstinence was assessed 6 and 9 months later. The findings supported the proposed model, indicating that social support was positively associated with MHG identification, which, in turn, was related to a stronger recovery identity. Subsequently, recovery identity was associated with increased self-efficacy, and indirectly, with smoking abstinence at both measurement times. Additional analyses testing alternative mediation models further supported the validity of the proposed model. These findings suggest that social identity factors play significant roles in accounting for the effectiveness of MHGs for addiction recovery.

Daily need satisfaction for relatedness (social connection), autonomy (volitional self-congruent action), and competence (self-efficacy) fosters well-being, but those findings primarily reflect experiences during social interactions. A three-week daily diary study (N = 178) explored psychological need satisfaction in two key everyday contexts: solitude and social. Holding constant the benefits of need-satisfying social contexts, autonomy satisfaction during solitude was key to peaceful affect, whereas competence satisfaction during solitude contributed to lower loneliness; both psychological needs in solitude contributed to evaluating the day as more satisfying. Relatedness-deficiency in solitude did not contribute to loneliness; instead, those who were relatedness-deficient in social interactions felt lonely. Further, need satisfaction in solitude compensated for deficient needs in social contexts, reducing loneliness (autonomy and relatedness) and increasing day satisfaction (all needs) when social contexts failed to satisfy needs. Findings suggest daily solitude can shape daily well-being and further attention is needed to understand and ultimately improve everyday solitude.

This article seeks to enhance the theoretical understanding of discrimination perception, especially in contexts with relevant statistical information. Previous research has provided important insights into the perception of single, ambiguous instances of discrimination. However, the generalizability of these insights to scenarios involving multiple, repeated instances of discrimination remains unclear. The current research aims to reduce this uncertainty by investigating whether three key determinants of discrimination perception in single instances – perpetrators' prototypicality, victims' control, and system-justifying beliefs (SJB) – also influence observers' perceptions of repeated discrimination. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants perceived stronger discrimination when perpetrators were prejudiced members of the advantaged group. In Experiments 3 and 4, perceived discrimination intensified when victims had low control, a trend significantly noted in tabular presentations but not in sequential ones. In Experiments 5 and 6, a negative correlation between SJB and discrimination perception was observed. The theoretical and practical implications of these results, as well as open questions, are discussed. Overall, these studies advance our knowledge of discrimination perception in multiple instances. They highlight the intricate interplay between statistical data, moral judgements, and individual belief systems, paving the way for a more nuanced exploration of the underlying psychological processes of discrimination perception.

Shared social identity and social norms are often un(der)recognized within mass gatherings health literature, yet they can increase infectious disease transmission by motivating people to engage in risk-taking behaviours. Across three experiments (N_total = 1551), we investigated how shared social identities, perceived norms of resource-sharing, and perceived riskiness of sharing interact to shape decisions that can lead to disease transmission. In Experiment 1 (N = 528), we examined how shared social identity and perceived descriptive norms affect the likelihood of crowd members sharing resources that may contribute to disease spread. We then replicated this in Experiment 2 (N = 511) using perceived injunctive norms. In Experiment 3 (N = 512), we explored how high shared social identity, perceived norms, and perceived health risks of resource-sharing impact the likelihood of sharing that may, in turn, increase infectious disease transmission at mass gatherings. We found that high shared social identity interacts with perceived descriptive and injunctive norms, and low health risk perceptions, to increase the likelihood of accepting resources and giving resources at mass gatherings. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to build effective strategies to mitigate infectious disease transmission at mass gatherings.

Objectification, being treated as a tool to achieve someone's instrumental goals, is a common phenomenon. A workplace supervisor may view employees solely in terms of their output; likewise, friends may be seen only for their potential for personal and social advancement. We conducted five studies (N = 1209) to test whether objectification increases conspiracy beliefs through thwarted trust and whether postobjectification increases in conspiracy beliefs carry behavioural implications. While conspiracy beliefs may have evolved as a strategy for survival, they may be considered maladaptive in the modern world. Therefore, understanding the antecedents, underlying mechanisms, and implications of conspiracy beliefs is essential. We measured (Study 1) and manipulated objectification (Studies 2–5), consistently finding that objectification decreased trust, thereby increasing conspiracy beliefs (Studies 1–5). This effect remained after considering negative emotions (Study 2). Increased conspiracy beliefs following objectification positively predicted unethical tendencies, and the effect of objectification on unethical tendencies was serially mediated by trust and conspiracy beliefs (Study 4). Restoring objectified people's trust weakened their conspiracy beliefs and unethical tendencies (Study 5). We discussed the implications of our findings, proposing directions for researchers, practitioners, managers, and policymakers for theoretical advancement, healthier coping, and promotion of well-being.

In-between groups encompass individuals who simultaneously belong to social categories that are often seen as mutually exclusive in addition to maintaining their distinct group identity. The current paper sheds light on how members of in-between groups manage their relations within intergroup conflicts. Three studies were conducted among the Druze minority in Israel, a group that is ethnically Arab and shares the Arab identity with the Arab–Palestinian minority in Israel and simultaneously identifies as Israeli. In Study 1 (N = 300), we found that identification as Druze was positively associated with the identification as Arab and Israeli. In Study 2, we examined Druze's endorsement of conflict narratives compared to Jewish-Israeli and Palestinian citizens (N = 271). While the latter participants endorsed their ingroup narrative more than the outgroup narrative, Druze participants endorsed both narratives equally. In Study 3, we tested Druze's solidarity with the Palestinian minority against the 2018 Nation-State Law. We found that overall, Druze participants (N = 568) endorsed more inclusive amendments that benefited the Druze and Palestinians than exclusive amendments that benefited the Druze only. In all studies, we tested the role of identification with the rival groups. We discuss these findings and suggest possible underlying mechanisms.

Economic inequality does not encounter strong protests even though individuals are generally against it. One potential explanation of this paradox is that individuals do not perceive inequality as caused by intentional agents, which, in line with the Theory of Dyadic Morality (Schein & Gray, 2018), should prevent its assessment as immoral and consequently dampen moral outrage and collective action. Across three studies, we test and confirm this hypothesis. In Studies 1 (N = 395) and 2 (N = 337), the more participants believed that inequality is human driven and caused by intentional agents, the more they moralized inequality, felt outraged and wanted to engage in collective action. This was confirmed in Study 3 (N = 243) through an experimental design. Thus, our research shows that agent perception is crucial in the moralization of economic inequality and, more broadly, that morality can be a powerful motivator and effectively mobilize people to action.

Natural resources are limited, and people often share these limited resources in groups, which creates an intergroup resource dilemma. To understand individuals' sustainable behaviours in intergroup resource dilemmas in the context of group interactions, the present research systematically investigates the effect of outgroup conspiracy theories on sustainable behaviours and preliminarily explores the internal mechanism underlying this effect. First, a survey study (Study 1) relying on real-world intergroup relations first confirmed the negative correlation between outgroup conspiracy beliefs and sustainable intentions in intergroup resource dilemmas. Then, an online experimental study that utilized the real situation of a region in China (Study 2) tested the causal relationship between exposure to an outgroup conspiracy theory and sustainable intentions, as well as showing the mediating role of intergroup threat perception underlying this relationship. Finally, a preregistered experimental laboratory study (Study 3) further verified the causal effect of exposure to an outgroup conspiracy theory on sustainable behaviours, again confirming the mediating role of intergroup threat perception. In general, our research demonstrates that exposure to an outgroup conspiracy theory stimulates individuals' environmental neglect and reduces their sustainable behaviours by increasing their perceptions of intergroup threat when faced with intergroup resource dilemmas.

Joint action theorizing implies that any coordinated behaviour that induces co-representation with a partner should increase social identification, especially when the associated actions require a high degree of coordination and are experienced as being performed effectively. The current research provides a first test of this new theoretical prediction for complementary (rather than synchronous) joint actions. In each of two pre-registered experiments establishing a novel paradigm, participants performed a digital joystick task with a joint performance goal with three different partners. The task varied in coordination requirements across partners. In Experiment 1, results showed that when task segments were discrete between partners, they identified less as a group than when they had to coordinate their behaviour. Surprisingly, although constant coordination increased co-representation relative to intermittent coordination, it did not correspondingly increase social identification. However, performance correlated positively with identification; as performance was worse when participants had to coordinate, this may explain the results. Experiment 2 showed that performance is causally linked to identification when coordination is necessary. Taken together, our results suggest that experiencing effective coordination leads to greater social identification. In general, paradigms capable of examining the perceptual and motor aspects of collective behaviour may offer a new perspective on social identification in general and the performance-identification link in particular.

This research examined religious engagement and subsequent antibody responses to the COVID-19 vaccine. Using publicly available data from the Understanding Society survey, we employed a longitudinal design. Between January 2016 and May 2018, respondents completed measures of religious belonging, frequency of attending religious services (i.e., extrinsic religiosity), and the difference religion made to their lives (i.e., intrinsic religiosity). A COVID-19 survey wave was collected in March 2021 and measured antibody responses to the COVID-19 vaccine via blood draw. A final sample of 746 adults [462 (61.9%) females, M_age = 61.94, SD = 19.07] was achieved. Mediation analyses (PROCESS, Model 4; Hayes, Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, The Guildford Press, 2022; Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach; The Guildford Press) revealed one pathway through which religion and antibody responses to the COVID-19 vaccine are associated, namely via extrinsic factors—attendance at religious services. In contrast, intrinsic religious factors which is the difference religion can make to one's life, was not a significant mediator. Overall, this analysis provides evidence that behavioural enactment of religion matters to the effectiveness of vaccination and the management of public health crises. It also highlights the value of social resources associated with engagement in valued social groups—and in particular religious social groups—for public health.