European Journal of Social Psychology最新文献

Prosocial risky behaviour (PRB) combines risk and prosociality, defined as risk-taking for the benefit of others or society. Its differences across subjective social classes and underlying mechanisms are unclear. Study 1 (n = 590) used a questionnaire to explore the relationship between subjective social class and PRB. Study 2 (n = 120) manipulated subjective social class and set risk levels in prosocial risky dilemmas to examine causal relationships and boundary conditions. Study 3 (n = 120) used cognitive computational modelling to clarify effects and explore cognitive mechanisms. Results showed the following: (1) subjective social class negatively predicts PRB, especially in the 30%–50% risk range; (2) low social class individuals have lower loss aversion, higher guilt aversion and value PRB more; (3) two decision preferences parallel mediate the relationship between subjective social class and PRB. These findings offer insights for mitigating social class differences’ negative impacts and enhancing prosocial levels in risky situations.

The association between social identification and system justification, especially amongst low-status groups, is a highly contested issue in the social and political psychology literatures. While some researchers propose that this association should be largely negative, others assume that it should be largely positive. Here, we synthesised the accumulated evidence on this relationship using a 4-level meta-analysis of 84 papers supplying 248 different samples and 359 effect sizes (N_total = 395,855). Overall the association between identification and system justification was positive, although weak (Z_r = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.06, 0.17) and was stronger for high- and intermediate-status groups (Z_r = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.13, 0.25 and Z_r = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.04, 0.20 respectively) but null for low-status groups (Z_r = 0.01, 95% CI = −0.04, 0.06). When theoretically relevant moderators were taken into account, the results further revealed that, for low-status groups, subgroup identification was positively correlated with system justification, but only when status differences were stable and/or legitimate.

Conspiracy beliefs have been linked to perceptions of collective victimhood. We adopt an individual perspective on victimhood by investigating the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and the individual disposition to perceive and react to injustice as a victim, i.e., victim justice sensitivity (VJS). Data from two German samples (Ns = 370, 373) indicated a positive association between VJS and conspiracy mentality beyond conceptually related covariates (e.g., mistrust). In a multinational sample from 15 countries (N = 14,978), VJS was positively associated with both general and specific conspiracy beliefs (about vaccines and climate change) within countries, though these associations varied across countries. However, economic, sociopolitical and cultural country-level factors that might explain the cross-country variability (e.g., GDP, Human Freedom Index, individualism–collectivism), including indices of collective exposure to direct violence, did not moderate the studied associations. Future research should investigate the relationship between victimhood and conspiracy beliefs, considering both intraindividual and intergroup perspectives.

Values have become central to the study of social and psychological processes across cultures and across time. To date, there has been no conclusive analysis of the cross-cultural and cross-temporal comparability of values in Europe. We conduct invariance tests of the Portrait Values Questionnaire collected as part of the European Social Survey (ESS, k = 261 samples, N = 374,565) from 2002 to 2024. Using confirmatory factor analysis, we found that the theoretical value model fits the overall data. Ignoring temporal information, covariances and mean value patterns can be compared across countries. Testing separate country samples collected in specific rounds, we found evidence that sample-specific results may not be comparable. Considering cross-temporal invariance, only 17 out of 35 countries with multiple participation in the ESS showed metric invariance. We observed patterns of deteriorating model fit and changes in the basic value structure over time.

Critiques of mindfulness as a tool embedded in neoliberal ideology have emerged since the mid-2010s, though they remain largely theoretical. Although they suggest that mindfulness shapes a neoliberal selfhood through self-regulation and disidentification, potentially fostering acceptance of the system and political disengagement, our research empirically examined these assumptions. Study 1 (N = 213) indicated that trait mindfulness was associated with less system justification through lower competitiveness, whereas mindfulness practice had an indirect positive association with economic system justification (ESJ) via self-regulation. On the basis of the social identity model of collective action, Study 2 (N = 252) revealed that trait mindfulness was linked to less group-based anger through greater emotion regulation (i.e., acceptance), which, in turn, was associated with lower collective action intentions, but mindfulness was not related with social identification. Both studies point to nuanced relationships between mindfulness and the maintenance of the status quo, of which practical and social implications are discussed.

Although many negotiations affect external parties, prior research has often overlooked how negotiated agreements shape the outcomes of those who are dependent on–but absent from–the bargaining table. Across one scenario and three interactive, face-to-face negotiation experiments (N = 458), we investigated how, when and why negotiators consider the outcomes of external parties. Using a novel experimental paradigm, we introduced the proximity effect–the tendency for negotiators to achieve higher joint outcomes with their direct counterparts than for affected external parties. Experiments 1 and 2 provided consistent evidence for this effect, even though improving outcomes for external parties did not come at a cost to negotiators’ own joint gains. Experiment 3 showed that the proximity effect was moderated by the interdependence structure: It disappeared under positive interdependence but persisted under negative interdependence. In Experiment 4, prompting an interdependence mindset reduced the proximity effect and improved outcomes for all involved parties. An internal meta-analysis confirmed the robustness of these findings, offering theoretical and practical insights for future research on negotiations affecting external parties.

Recently, two independently published papers put forward separate frameworks to explain several different biases. Although the two frameworks do not contradict each other, their mere co-existence is an unsatisfactory state as psychological theory is not advanced. In the present outlook paper, we make a first attempt in bringing the two frameworks together – and with it, the largely unconnected research strands they come from. Specifically, we focus on the (bi-)directionality of a coherence generating process underlying the core of the one framework – coherence-based reasoning (CBR) – and argue that one direction is largely consistent with the core process of the other framework: belief-consistent information processing (BCIP). We elaborate on the circumstances under which coherence will be more likely obtained via BCIP. In doing so, we derive some predictions that future research could test. Furthermore, we point to relevant open questions and outline several recommendations for future research.