The incorporation of intersectionality within social psychology is becoming an increasingly common practice. From the hypotheses we generate to the methods we employ, as well as the analyses we run and the theories we use, researchers are moving away from studying social identities in isolation. By studying the interactional and emergent properties of multiple identities that go beyond the sum of identities, as well as understanding the complex nature of power and privilege, social psychologists can better understand processes such as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. Yet it can be difficult for researchers to know exactly where to begin. This review serves as a primer for conducting intersectionally-informed research within social psychology, using the intersection of race and gender within the United States as a case study. We first describe the history of intersectional research in psychology, noting its barriers to implementation. Next, we review three classes of intersectionally-informed models — intersectional perception, experience, and treatment — and offer suggestions for future research as well as ways researchers can incorporate the model within their work.
{"title":"Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination at the intersection of race and gender: An intersectional theory primer","authors":"Sa-kiera Tiarra Jolynn Hudson, Annalisa Myer, Elyssa Christine Berney","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12939","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12939","url":null,"abstract":"The incorporation of intersectionality within social psychology is becoming an increasingly common practice. From the hypotheses we generate to the methods we employ, as well as the analyses we run and the theories we use, researchers are moving away from studying social identities in isolation. By studying the interactional and emergent properties of multiple identities that go beyond the sum of identities, as well as understanding the complex nature of power and privilege, social psychologists can better understand processes such as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. Yet it can be difficult for researchers to know exactly where to begin. This review serves as a primer for conducting intersectionally-informed research within social psychology, using the intersection of race and gender within the United States as a case study. We first describe the history of intersectional research in psychology, noting its barriers to implementation. Next, we review three classes of intersectionally-informed models — intersectional perception, experience, and treatment — and offer suggestions for future research as well as ways researchers can incorporate the model within their work.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139583000","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite the sustained flourishing—both in terms of quantity and quality—of qualitative research in psychology, psychology's establishment ‘gatekeepers’ seem to still be wedded to the dogma that only experimental research and quantitative data are sufficiently robust to be taken seriously. In this paper we make the case against this contempt and call for qualitative research and data to be recognized as valid and epistemologically sound in its own right. Given that its ontology is based upon constructionist assumptions about the nature of the social world, its power to provide nuanced insight into the complexity of humankind is not a problem, but its greatest strength. Our paper therefore starts with a brief review of the ontological and epistemological differences between the two approaches to demonstrate that they are complementary rather than competition. We then make our case, based on two key strategies: first by shedding light on the fact that many (perhaps even most) of psychology's classic experimental studies actually collected qualitative data (in the form of debriefing interviews and the like) and used it to understand what was going on; and then by recent studies that have expressly sought feedback about the hypothesis being purportedly tested. We then recognize the extent to which contemporary researchers are expressing their frustration at the way that they are being forced into a methodological straight jacket, by carrying out their research in ways they view as inauthentic. We end with a call to kerb the methodological dogma that has taken hold of psychology, and to move to a more inclusive approach.
{"title":"The time has come for psychology to stop treating qualitative data as an embarrassing secret","authors":"Radomír Masaryk, Wendy Stainton Rogers","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12938","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12938","url":null,"abstract":"Despite the sustained flourishing—both in terms of quantity and quality—of qualitative research in psychology, psychology's establishment ‘gatekeepers’ seem to still be wedded to the dogma that only experimental research and quantitative data are sufficiently robust to be taken seriously. In this paper we make the case against this contempt and call for qualitative research and data to be recognized as valid and epistemologically sound in its own right. Given that its ontology is based upon constructionist assumptions about the nature of the social world, its power to provide nuanced insight into the complexity of humankind is not a problem, but its greatest strength. Our paper therefore starts with a brief review of the ontological and epistemological differences between the two approaches to demonstrate that they are complementary rather than competition. We then make our case, based on two key strategies: first by shedding light on the fact that many (perhaps even most) of psychology's classic experimental studies actually collected qualitative data (in the form of debriefing interviews and the like) and used it to understand what was going on; and then by recent studies that have expressly sought feedback about the hypothesis being purportedly tested. We then recognize the extent to which contemporary researchers are expressing their frustration at the way that they are being forced into a methodological straight jacket, by carrying out their research in ways they view as inauthentic. We end with a call to kerb the methodological dogma that has taken hold of psychology, and to move to a more inclusive approach.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139560356","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kentaro Fujita, Phuong Q. Le, Abigail A. Scholer, David B. Miele
Researchers across theoretical traditions have long recognized the need for people to monitor and modulate certain aspects of their subjective experiences (such as their thoughts and feelings) in response to situational challenges that interfere with the attainment of important goals. Comparatively less attention has been devoted to understanding the beliefs and mechanisms necessary to regulate motivational states—i.e., metamotivation, even though motivational states are often integral to people's subjective experiences of events. As particular types of motivational states are more adaptive in some contexts than in others, flexibly instantiating the right motivational state at the right time may be key to achieving one's goals. The current paper reviews the principles of the metamotivational approach to studying motivation regulation and briefly reviews supporting research. In addition, we highlight metamotivation research conducted in the context of self-affirmation theory to demonstrate the generative potential of this approach for researching phenomena that have traditionally been treated as separate from self-regulation. We conclude by discussing some of the novel questions that the metamotivational approach has prompted, both in and outside of the self-regulatory domain.
{"title":"The metamotivation approach: Insights into the regulation of motivation and beyond","authors":"Kentaro Fujita, Phuong Q. Le, Abigail A. Scholer, David B. Miele","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12937","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12937","url":null,"abstract":"Researchers across theoretical traditions have long recognized the need for people to monitor and modulate certain aspects of their subjective experiences (such as their thoughts and feelings) in response to situational challenges that interfere with the attainment of important goals. Comparatively less attention has been devoted to understanding the beliefs and mechanisms necessary to regulate motivational states—i.e., metamotivation, even though motivational states are often integral to people's subjective experiences of events. As particular types of motivational states are more adaptive in some contexts than in others, flexibly instantiating the right motivational state at the right time may be key to achieving one's goals. The current paper reviews the principles of the metamotivational approach to studying motivation regulation and briefly reviews supporting research. In addition, we highlight metamotivation research conducted in the context of self-affirmation theory to demonstrate the generative potential of this approach for researching phenomena that have traditionally been treated as separate from self-regulation. We conclude by discussing some of the novel questions that the metamotivational approach has prompted, both in and outside of the self-regulatory domain.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139560351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Philippine Chachignon, Emmanuelle Le Barbenchon, Lionel Dany
This narrative and critical review outlines the implications of scientific production on Mindfulness and the widespread diffusion of the practice under neoliberal capitalism. This scientific, therapeutic and economic high-value object is a fruitful research field in medical and social sciences. Since exiting the confines of mental and somatic health it has also flourished as a self-care and self-improvement technique. Drawing on a psychosocial perspective where Mindfulness is considered both a psychological and a social phenomenon, we explore the reasons why institutions and corporations have regularly considered Mindfulness as the universal panacea to address mental health, social and environmental problems, and how this contributed to transferring the consequences of structural and systemic issues from the State to the realms of individual management and responsibilization, and fostering social inequalities. We expose the role of Buddhist Modernism, psychology and social psychology into the consolidation of Mindfulness as a product of knowledge and a form of governmentality. The effects on Mindfulness users and researchers of a mainstream neoliberal psychological science, including social psychology, are discussed. Avenues for mindful resistance, such as theoretical and methodological perspectives for a critical social psychology of Mindfulness, are developed.
{"title":"Mindfulness research and applications in the context of neoliberalism: A narrative and critical review","authors":"Philippine Chachignon, Emmanuelle Le Barbenchon, Lionel Dany","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12936","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12936","url":null,"abstract":"This narrative and critical review outlines the implications of scientific production on Mindfulness and the widespread diffusion of the practice under neoliberal capitalism. This scientific, therapeutic and economic high-value object is a fruitful research field in medical and social sciences. Since exiting the confines of mental and somatic health it has also flourished as a self-care and self-improvement technique. Drawing on a psychosocial perspective where Mindfulness is considered both a psychological and a social phenomenon, we explore the reasons why institutions and corporations have regularly considered Mindfulness as the universal panacea to address mental health, social and environmental problems, and how this contributed to transferring the consequences of structural and systemic issues from the State to the realms of individual management and responsibilization, and fostering social inequalities. We expose the role of Buddhist Modernism, psychology and social psychology into the consolidation of Mindfulness as a product of knowledge and a form of governmentality. The effects on Mindfulness users and researchers of a mainstream neoliberal psychological science, including social psychology, are discussed. Avenues for mindful resistance, such as theoretical and methodological perspectives for a critical social psychology of Mindfulness, are developed.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139515451","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Racial disparities in American policing are profound and accompanied by equally persistent gaps in trust. Similar disparities are found across a wide swath of institutional settings. How can we understand and intervene on these disparities? Answers to this question are often bifurcated between institutional and individual levels of analysis. However, the everyday contacts between the public and doctors, teachers, or police officers—institutional interactions—can bridge these levels. Organizations direct and coordinate these agents' individual discretion; at the same time, individual agents relate to the public in ways institutions themselves cannot. The dual nature of these encounters links individual and dyadic processes to organizational and institutional ones. Using police stops as a paradigmatic example, I illustrate how institutional interactions contribute to racial gaps in police-community trust, how they can be used as a platform for changing the relationship between law enforcement and the public, and how they can inform research on racial inequality in a range of institutional contexts, including health and education. Capturing these points where institutions and individuals meet is essential to understand systemic racism, and critical for counteracting it.
{"title":"Teaching & Learning Guide for: Institutional interactions and racial inequality in policing: How everyday encounters bridge individuals, organizations, and institutions","authors":"Nicholas P. Camp","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12934","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12934","url":null,"abstract":"<h2>1 AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION</h2>\u0000<p>Racial disparities in American policing are profound and accompanied by equally persistent gaps in trust. Similar disparities are found across a wide swath of institutional settings. How can we understand and intervene on these disparities? Answers to this question are often bifurcated between institutional and individual levels of analysis. However, the everyday contacts between the public and doctors, teachers, or police officers—institutional interactions—can bridge these levels. Organizations direct and coordinate these agents' individual discretion; at the same time, individual agents relate to the public in ways institutions themselves cannot. The dual nature of these encounters links individual and dyadic processes to organizational and institutional ones. Using police stops as a paradigmatic example, I illustrate how institutional interactions contribute to racial gaps in police-community trust, how they can be used as a platform for changing the relationship between law enforcement and the public, and how they can inform research on racial inequality in a range of institutional contexts, including health and education. Capturing these points where institutions and individuals meet is essential to understand systemic racism, and critical for counteracting it.</p>","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139496820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Saida Heshmati, Chelsea Muth, Robert W. Roeser, Joshua Smyth, Hamidreza Jamalabadi, Zita Oravecz
We introduce a theoretical framework for conceptualizing Psychological Well-Being (PWB) as a process that unfolds over short and longer time-scales. We argue that this framework can be especially useful for studying the change mechanisms in PWB within the context of mobile Health (mHealth) interventions. Four lines of research are considered within this framework to inform the scientific exploration of PWB in the context of mHealth interventions. First, we explore key dynamic characteristics of change in PWB functioning. Second, we discuss PWB intervention response as a learning process (i.e., meaningful and transformational changes in state), reflected as change in key dynamic characteristics of PWB. Third, we explain mechanisms of change in PWB intervention practices through an underlying process of skill development. Fourth, we discuss intervention response heterogeneity within this framework. The approach we outline is intended to articulate currently unanswered, process-oriented research questions about PWB interventions, how they work, and a methodological path forward for exploring them.
{"title":"Conceptualizing psychological well-being as a dynamic process: Implications for research on mobile health interventions","authors":"Saida Heshmati, Chelsea Muth, Robert W. Roeser, Joshua Smyth, Hamidreza Jamalabadi, Zita Oravecz","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12933","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12933","url":null,"abstract":"We introduce a theoretical framework for conceptualizing Psychological Well-Being (PWB) as a process that unfolds over short and longer time-scales. We argue that this framework can be especially useful for studying the change mechanisms in PWB within the context of mobile Health (mHealth) interventions. Four lines of research are considered within this framework to inform the scientific exploration of PWB in the context of mHealth interventions. First, we explore key dynamic characteristics of change in PWB functioning. Second, we discuss PWB intervention response as a learning process (i.e., meaningful and transformational changes in state), reflected as change in key dynamic characteristics of PWB. Third, we explain mechanisms of change in PWB intervention practices through an underlying process of skill development. Fourth, we discuss intervention response heterogeneity within this framework. The approach we outline is intended to articulate currently unanswered, process-oriented research questions about PWB interventions, how they work, and a methodological path forward for exploring them.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139078749","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
People's personalities are expressed and develop amidst a range of social structures, such as laws, social networks, cultural practices, and institutions, which produce and maintain hierarchies in society. In turn, the purpose and form of social structures are impacted by people's personalities. Yet, research on how personality and social structure interact is still rare. Here, I introduce theoretical framework that can help guide research on this topic. I first define personality and social structure and then use concepts from theoretical work on person–environment transactions to describe how personality and social structure interact. I highlight selection, manipulation, evocation, and socialization as transactions between personality and social structure through which hierarchies are enhanced or attenuated. Supported by this conceptual work, I describe two examples of dynamics in which personality and social structure reinforce each other in the U.S.: Conscientiousness and voting, and Openness and protest. Finally, to motivate future research, I propose novel questions that psychologists can ask about how personality and social structure interact, and I address possible limitations of the framework.
{"title":"Studying personality and social structure","authors":"Stephen Antonoplis","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12932","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12932","url":null,"abstract":"People's personalities are expressed and develop amidst a range of social structures, such as laws, social networks, cultural practices, and institutions, which produce and maintain hierarchies in society. In turn, the purpose and form of social structures are impacted by people's personalities. Yet, research on how personality and social structure interact is still rare. Here, I introduce theoretical framework that can help guide research on this topic. I first define personality and social structure and then use concepts from theoretical work on person–environment transactions to describe how personality and social structure interact. I highlight selection, manipulation, evocation, and socialization as transactions between personality and social structure through which hierarchies are enhanced or attenuated. Supported by this conceptual work, I describe two examples of dynamics in which personality and social structure reinforce each other in the U.S.: Conscientiousness and voting, and Openness and protest. Finally, to motivate future research, I propose novel questions that psychologists can ask about how personality and social structure interact, and I address possible limitations of the framework.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139393899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Providing people with feedback about their intergroup biases is a central part of many diversity training and other bias‐education efforts. Although this practice may increase self‐awareness, people sometimes respond negatively to learning about their own biases. In the present review, we provide a framework for understanding when feedback about intergroup bias should lead to behavior change intentions, and when it can work against that goal. Specifically, we suggest that feedback about performance on measures of bias (e.g., the Implicit Association Test) will cause psychological discomfort to the extent that feedback about intergroup bias is: (1) discrepant from self‐reported attitudes, and (2) more personally or socially unacceptable than self‐reported attitudes. We then suggest two possible routes stemming from that psychological discomfort: If people accept personal responsibility for feedback, they will respond to psychological discomfort with compunction and direct efforts toward behavior and attitude change. By contrast, if people reject personal responsibility for feedback, they will respond defensively, derogating the feedback and trying to prove that the results are inaccurate. We use responses to feedback about implicit bias as a test case to demonstrate our model and discuss the current state of the literature on responding to IAT feedback. We also discuss interventions that can move people from defensiveness to compunction and open our metaphorical “file drawer” to discuss lessons learned.
{"title":"Responding to feedback about implicit bias","authors":"Jennifer L. Howell, N. Lofaro, Kate A. Ratliff","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12926","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12926","url":null,"abstract":"Providing people with feedback about their intergroup biases is a central part of many diversity training and other bias‐education efforts. Although this practice may increase self‐awareness, people sometimes respond negatively to learning about their own biases. In the present review, we provide a framework for understanding when feedback about intergroup bias should lead to behavior change intentions, and when it can work against that goal. Specifically, we suggest that feedback about performance on measures of bias (e.g., the Implicit Association Test) will cause psychological discomfort to the extent that feedback about intergroup bias is: (1) discrepant from self‐reported attitudes, and (2) more personally or socially unacceptable than self‐reported attitudes. We then suggest two possible routes stemming from that psychological discomfort: If people accept personal responsibility for feedback, they will respond to psychological discomfort with compunction and direct efforts toward behavior and attitude change. By contrast, if people reject personal responsibility for feedback, they will respond defensively, derogating the feedback and trying to prove that the results are inaccurate. We use responses to feedback about implicit bias as a test case to demonstrate our model and discuss the current state of the literature on responding to IAT feedback. We also discuss interventions that can move people from defensiveness to compunction and open our metaphorical “file drawer” to discuss lessons learned.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139395261","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A growing body of research suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic did not cause the severe and extensive mental health crisis predicted by some experts. However, this does not mean that everyone was resilient. The purpose of this study was to try to identify subgroups of people that may have experienced more severe and negative trajectories of symptoms during this time. To this end, we examined a host of individual difference factors (e.g., age, gender, race, country, parental status, medical conditions, lost wages, perceived support, initial symptom levels, and cognitive vulnerability) using a 1-year longitudinal design with 8 time points and participants (n = 233) from over 20 countries. We were unable to identify a single moderator associated with a robust and increasingly negative trajectory of depressive and anxious symptoms throughout the COVID interval. These results underscore the need for better theories of mental illness, stronger research designs that do not rely on simple cross-sectional between-group comparisons, and more caution when predicting mental health crises.
{"title":"Tracking depressive and anxious symptoms during the first year of COVID-19: The search for moderators","authors":"Gerald J. Haeffel","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12931","url":null,"abstract":"A growing body of research suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic did not cause the severe and extensive mental health crisis predicted by some experts. However, this does not mean that everyone was resilient. The purpose of this study was to try to identify subgroups of people that may have experienced more severe and negative trajectories of symptoms during this time. To this end, we examined a host of individual difference factors (e.g., age, gender, race, country, parental status, medical conditions, lost wages, perceived support, initial symptom levels, and cognitive vulnerability) using a 1-year longitudinal design with 8 time points and participants (<i>n</i> = 233) from over 20 countries. We were unable to identify a single moderator associated with a robust and increasingly negative trajectory of depressive and anxious symptoms throughout the COVID interval. These results underscore the need for better theories of mental illness, stronger research designs that do not rely on simple cross-sectional between-group comparisons, and more caution when predicting mental health crises.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139071617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Lyndsey Wallace, Anna Mikkelborg, Rubi Gonzales, Kyneshawau Hurd, Celina A. Romano, Victoria Plaut
This study explored how racial group, racial identity centrality, and political ideology inform perceptions of responsibility, blame, and racial disparities in COVID‐19 outcomes. The findings revealed that highly identified members of non‐dominant racial groups were less likely to endorse items indicating individual blame, while being more inclined to attribute racial disparities to structural inequalities. Furthermore, conservative ideology was consistently linked to individual blame and responsibility, with those endorsing conservative ideology agreeing less with explanations of racial disparities based on structural inequalities and agreeing more with explanations for racial disparities based on personal blame and responsibility. Understanding perceptions of blame and responsibility for COVID‐19 may influence political discourse and subsequent health inequities, highlighting the importance of exploring how race, identity, and political ideology shape such perceptions.
{"title":"COVID‐19 responsibility and blame: How group identity and political ideology inform perceptions of responsibility, blame, and racial disparities","authors":"Lyndsey Wallace, Anna Mikkelborg, Rubi Gonzales, Kyneshawau Hurd, Celina A. Romano, Victoria Plaut","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12927","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12927","url":null,"abstract":"This study explored how racial group, racial identity centrality, and political ideology inform perceptions of responsibility, blame, and racial disparities in COVID‐19 outcomes. The findings revealed that highly identified members of non‐dominant racial groups were less likely to endorse items indicating individual blame, while being more inclined to attribute racial disparities to structural inequalities. Furthermore, conservative ideology was consistently linked to individual blame and responsibility, with those endorsing conservative ideology agreeing less with explanations of racial disparities based on structural inequalities and agreeing more with explanations for racial disparities based on personal blame and responsibility. Understanding perceptions of blame and responsibility for COVID‐19 may influence political discourse and subsequent health inequities, highlighting the importance of exploring how race, identity, and political ideology shape such perceptions.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138945375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：