Search results

In June 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Voting followed a general trend: disadvantaged areas of the United Kingdom tended to vote "leave," and more affluent areas tended to vote "remain." This project investigates the psychological variables underlying this overall trend by distinguishing four psychological motivations: the need for justice, threat reduction needs, need to belong, and the need for control. Participants were recruited from different areas across Greater Manchester (N = 158). A survey assessed voting preference, socioeconomic status, collective relative deprivation (CRD), perceptions of threat from immigration, European and British identification, sense of control in life, and relative gratification. Discriminant function analysis showed that leave voting was characterized by greater realistic threat, symbolic threat, CRD, and British identification. Remain voting was characterized by strong European identification. Findings highlight that a need for justice, threat‐reduction needs, and identity needs were key predictors of voting behavior.

"Three studies examine how people's attributions of responsibility for terrorist attacks depend on their group membership and their identification with the victim (study 1) or their identification with the victim's or perpetrator's ingroup (studies 2 and 3). The authors observe that people's group membership (perpetrator group versus victim group) determines the judgments of responsibility for recent terrorist attacks. Members of the perpetrator group hold the direct perpetrators responsible, while members of the victim group perceive the perpetrator world as a whole as relatively responsible as well. Identification with the victim (study 1) or victim group (studies 2 and 3) strengthens attributions of responsibility to the whole perpetrator group, and this relationship is partially mediated by the perceived typicality of the perpetrator for the whole group. The authors discuss possible explanations for this pattern, and indicate the implications of these results in terms of improving intergroup relations." (author's abstract)

Three studies examine how people's attributions of responsibility for terrorist attacks depend on their group membership and their identification with the victim (study 1) or their identification with the victim's or perpetrator's ingroup (studies 2 and 3). We observe that people's group membership (perpetrator group versus victim group) determines the judgments of responsibility for recent terrorist attacks. Members of the perpetrator group hold the direct perpetrators responsible, while members of the victim group perceive the perpetrator world as a whole as relatively responsible as well. Identification with the victim (study 1) or victim group (studies 2 and 3) strengthens attributions of responsibility to the whole perpetrator group, and this relationship is partially mediated by the perceived typicality of the perpetrator for the whole group. We discuss possible explanations for this pattern, and indicate the implications of these results in terms of improving intergroup relations. Adapted from the source document.

Hostile political actors can use antagonistic strategic narration as a means of marring the image of targeted states in the international arena. The current article presents a content analysis of narratives about the Netherlands that were published by Russian state-sponsored media outlet RT between 2018 and 2020, capturing a period of heightened tension between the states. The authors distil and describe six overarching narratives used to portray the Netherlands as a state of liberal chaos. They analyse them using a framework of strategies underpinning Russian state-sponsored media's narration, and interpret their strategic functions within the context of recent Dutch–Russian relations. Finally, they provide directions for future research, such as expanding on nuances within Russian media's negative portrayals of different states or exploring the possible psychological responses this narration may elicit in the Dutch domestic audience.

In two studies, we predicted that support for reparation policies would be influenced positively by feelings of group‐based guilt and negatively by dehumanization of the outgroup. We also hypothesized that a valence manipulation of the ingroup's behavior would cause differences in such support which would be mediated by guilt. In the first study, we manipulated the valence of past ingroup behavior and assessed guilt, dehumanization, and reparation support. As expected, guilt predicted positively and dehumanization negatively participants' support. In addition, guilt partially mediated the manipulation effects on policy support. Consistent with previous research, guilt and dehumanization were unrelated. In Study 2, we assessed individual differences in dehumanization before the manipulation and examined their associations with guilt and reparation support. Initial analyses replicated Study 1. In addition, guilt partially mediated the influence of dehumanization on reparation support. Results suggest that the presence of guilt motivates support for reparation policies, while the absence of guilt explains in part why individual differences in dehumanization inhibit such support.

"An examination of potential outgroup-focused predictors of group-based guilt relating to past colonial conflicts involving Portugal and the Netherlands, specifically, the role of the perceptions of the ingroup towards the victimized outgroup, as well as on outgroup identification and meta-perceptions (i.e. the ingroup's beliefs regarding the outgroup's perceptions of it). Using Structural Equation Modeling in a Portuguese sample (N=178) and a Dutch sample (N=157), we found that the experience of group-based guilt due to colonial conflicts can be positively predicted by outgroup perceptions and outgroup identification (Dutch sample only). Meta-perceptions were a negative predictor of group-based guilt (Dutch sample only). Furthermore, our results show that group-based guilt is positively associated with compensatory behavioral intentions and perceived importance of remembering past colonial conflicts. Results point to the important role of outgroup-focused variables in shaping group-based guilt experiences relating to past conflicts between groups. The findings suggest possible avenues of further research and ways to improve intergroup relations following conflict." (author's abstract)

An examination of potential outgroup-focused predictors of group-based guilt relating to past colonial conflicts involving Portugal and the Netherlands, specifically, the role of the perceptions of the ingroup towards the victimized outgroup, as well as on outgroup identification and meta-perceptions (i.e. the ingroup's beliefs regarding the outgroup's perceptions of it). Using Structural Equation Modeling in a Portuguese sample (N = 178) and a Dutch sample (N = 157), we found that the experience of group-based guilt due to colonial conflicts can be positively predicted by outgroup perceptions and outgroup identification (Dutch sample only). Meta-perceptions were a negative predictor of group-based guilt (Dutch sample only). Furthermore, our results show that group-based guilt is positively associated with compensatory behavioral intentions and perceived importance of remembering past colonial conflicts. Results point to the important role of outgroup-focused variables in shaping group-based guilt experiences relating to past conflicts between groups. The findings suggest possible avenues of further research and ways to improve intergroup relations following conflict. Adapted from the source document.