Suchergebnisse

In this dissertation, I test a root narrative approach to conflict to understand the socio-psychological mechanism associated with support for a two state solution among Jewish and Arab Americans. According to the narrative approach to conflict, groups' stories about a conflict are structured around a more basic narrative schema. When members of groups acknowledge the outgroup root narrative, they are more likely to support a compromise solution to the conflict. Group values and norms will facilitate increased acknowledgment of the narrative of the other. A survey of 172 Arab Americans and 182 Jewish Americans indicates that acknowledging the narrative of the other (i.e., Arab Americans acknowledging that Israelis aim to live in peace but are vulnerable, and Jewish Americans acknowledging that the Palestinians are indigenous to the land but are dispossessed), was correlated with greater endorsement of a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. An experiment with an additional sample of Jewish Americans found that priming them to think about the Jewish value of "tikkun olam" (or "mending the world") or about anti-Semitism did not increase their acceptance of the Palestinian narrative on the conflict, as compared to a control group who was not primed. However, correlational analyses of this sample revealed that greater attachment to Israel, disposition toward system justification, conservative views, and concerns over anti-Semitism predicted rejection of the Palestinian narrative on the conflict. Understanding one's Jewish identity as based in values of the pursuit of social justice predicted increased acknowledgment of the Palestinian narrative on the conflict. This research makes three key contributions. First, it demonstrates the utility of root narrative as a tool in explaining the continuation of conflict. Second, it shows how narratives traditionally studied using qualitative methodology can be tested using quantitative methodology. Third, on a practical level, this research illuminates the specific narratives that need to be legitimized in order to increase support for a two-state solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

This timely volume examines the ways in which queer and trans theory are supported by recent findings from psychological science. In it, Ella Ben Hagai and Eileen Zurbriggen explore foundational ideas from queer thought and transgender theory including the instability of gender, variation in sexualities, intersectional theory, and trans writers rejection of the "born in the wrong body" narrative. These key ideas are juxtaposed with innovative empirical psychological research on the fluidity of gender, the proliferation of sexual identities, and transgender affirming medical and psychological care. This book explains the history and politics of key ideas shaping the study of the psychology of gender and sexuality today. It also describes the ways that the queer and trans* revolutions have changed how psychologists understand gender, sexuality, and transgender identities. It will be especially helpful for readers interested in interdisciplinary scholarship. Views queer theory through an empirical psychology lens More fully develops psychological thinking on gender identity Concretizes abstract concepts of queer theory.

AbstractIn a survey study of Arab and Jewish Americans, we examined which beliefs best predicted support for a two‐state solution. We compared the role of a sense of collective victimhood, dehumanization of the outgroup, a zero‐sum view, and a monolithic narrative on the conflict. In both the Arab American and the Jewish American samples, framing the conflict in terms of a monolithic narrative played the strongest role in predicting rejection of a two‐state solution. On the other hand, when Jewish Americans agreed with the Palestinian narrative, that depicts the Palestinians as indigenous to the land but as dispossessed, they were more likely to support a two‐state solution. Similarly, when Arab Americans agreed with the Israeli narrative, in which Israelis want to live in peace but need to defend themselves, they were more likely to support a two‐state solution. In a second study, we examined if group values and concerns such as commitment to tikkun olam (commitment for justice for other minority groups) and concern with anti‐Semitism mediated between identification as Jewish and acceptance of the Palestinian narrative on the conflict. We found that concern with anti‐Semitism mediated between Jewish identity and rejection of the Palestinian narrative. On the other hand, grounding Jewish identity in values of tikkun olam mediated between Jewish identity and agreement with the Palestinian narrative. This research makes applied contributions by illuminating the key belief associated with support for peace among Arab and Jewish Americans. It also contributes to psychological theory on intergroup reconciliation by operationalizing and measuring the role of acknowledgement of the narrative of the other, group threat, and inclusive victimhood consciousness, in promoting peace.

To better understand why individuals come to support economic policies that increase inequalities, we suggest a more expansive understanding of ideology. A broad understanding of ideology predicts that daily engagement with the material world will produce certain narratives about the self and the obstacles faced by people. We review studies on child‐rearing practices and social psychological studies on diverging understandings of the self that highlight the contrasting narratives of working and middle class people. We argue that these different narratives play a role in explaining why individuals come to support certain economic policies. This more expansive understanding of the concept of ideology can help researchers trace the links between material conditions, ideological narratives, and support for socialist or capitalist economic policies, heeding Lott's (2015) call for a structural analysis.

AbstractIn this study, we test a clashing narrative approach to conflict, which argues that political conflict is based on opposing narratives that negate one another. We focus on the role of two master narratives central to political schism in the United States. The first is the American dream narrative, which posits that anyone who works hard can become successful in the United States. The opposing narrative, the systemic racism narrative, argues that the United States is a racist country where minorities are systemically held back. A survey study of 189 participants demonstrated that these two master narratives predict support for the presidential candidacy of Donald Trump or Joe Biden above and beyond more traditional ideological dispositions such as right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. In a follow‐up experiment (n = 157), we examined how the Trump's administration policies of increased surveillance and policing of Latino immigrants crossing the border influenced White and Latinx participants' agreement with the narrative of the American dream and the United States as a systemically racist country. Findings suggest that when confronted with news clips of immigrant death at the border, Latinx participants, compared to White participants, increased their endorsement of the American dream narrative. Conversely, White participants, increased their endorsement of the United States as a systemically racist country compared to Latinx participants. The results of this study help us understand support for the Republican party among Latinx voters.

The central question of this Element is this: What does it mean to be transgender - in general and in specific ways? What does the designation mean for any individual and for the groups in which the individual exists? Biologically, what occurs? Psychologically, what transpires? The Element starts with the basics. The authors question some traditional assumptions, lay out some bio-medical information, and define their terms. They then move to the question of central concern, seen first in terms of the individual and then in terms of the group or society. They conclude with some implications, urging some new approaches to research and suggest some applications in the classroom and beyond.

AbstractNeoliberalism is based on the dogma that free‐market capitalism serves the public better than governmental programs (e.g., public universities). In this research, we first asked what psychological orientations and beliefs predict support for one of the fundamental tenets of neoliberalism: the belief that government interferes with the smooth functioning of public life and the free market. Second, we examined how these predictors function across economic contexts and political regimes by collecting data in the United States and Turkey. We find that in two U.S. samples, high levels of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and the belief in personal wherewithal (i.e., anybody can move ahead if they work hard enough) predicted people's support for neoliberalism. In the Turkish sample, we found that RWA and personal wherewithal significantly predicted support for neoliberalism, but unlike the US, in Turkey, higher levels of RWA were related to the rejection of neoliberalism. Our research highlights the flexible relationship authoritarianism has with neoliberalism and the importance of a belief in personal wherewithal in justifying neoliberalism. This research illuminates differences between US neoliberal logic and populist neoliberalism in Turkey.