Suchergebnisse

AbstractThis paper reports the validation and psychometric properties of the Positive and Negative Perception of Immigrants Scale (PANPIS)—a new measure to assess positive and negative attitude towards immigrants. Across two studies (
N
= 956), the psychometric evidence of the PANPIS is presented. As expected, exploratory factor analysis suggested a two factors and 14‐item structure, which was ratified using a confirmatory factor analysis. Corroboration of the measure's robustness was provided by a multigroup‐CFA, which yielded evidence for the gender invariance of the measure (Study 1). Study 2 showed measurement invariance of the online version with respect to the paper‐and‐pencil version. Reliability, discriminant, and criterion validities were examined across Studies 1 and 2 showing satisfactory results for both paper‐and‐pencil and online versions, respectively. These results suggest that the PANPIS is a psychometrically sound measure having the distinctive characteristic to simultaneously investigate prejudice by capturing both positive and negative attitudes towards immigrants.

AbstractThe present work proposes that the relation of employment conditions (i.e., unemployment and precarious work vs. permanent employment) with participation in collective action and satisfaction with life depends on the extent to which acceptance of inequality is high or low, and that collective action mediates the association between employment conditions and satisfaction with life. We analyzed data from the European Social Survey (Round 8, 2016) and found that (1) when acceptance of inequality is low (vs. high), employment disadvantage is positively related to engagement in collective action and, in turn, satisfaction with life; (2) employment disadvantage is negatively related to satisfaction with life, and this relation increases when acceptance of inequality is low (vs. high). This study generates findings of interest to inequality researchers by showing the relevance of acceptance of inequality for collective action and life satisfaction in the context of employment.

Grounded in the theoretical framework of the dual-process motivational model of ideology and politics, we investigated the mediational role of RWA and SDO on the relationship between voting for populist parties and conspiracy beliefs; the moderation of political interest was also explored. Collapsing different convenience samples gathered after the European election (2014/2015) and the General National Election (2018/2019) allowed us to analyse two datasets (Study 1, n = 4141; Study 2, n = 2301). We hypothesised that populist voters would report higher conspiracy beliefs, RWA, and SDO, compared to non-populist voters and abstainers, and that populist voters would report more conspiracy beliefs through indirect pathways running through RWA and SDO. Furthermore, we hypothesised that such direct and indirect associations would be stronger for individuals with high rather than low political interest. Analyses of variance and moderated mediation models mostly confirmed our expectations, although RWA, and not SDO, mediated the relationships in the expected directions.

PurposeTo avoid (costly) conflict, it is imperative to uncover when negotiators cooperate. The previous study has shown that negotiators' cooperative or competitive behavior is oftentimes guided by cues about their counterpart; information about his/her traits or behavior. Using regulatory focus theory, this paper aims to investigate when this is likely to happen. The authors hypothesize and test that because prevention focus (rather than promotion focus) is associated with concerns for safety and concrete surroundings, it strengthens the impact of counterpart cues.Design/methodology/approachThe authors used two scenario studies and one behavioral negotiation study to test the general hypothesis. The authors measured or manipulated participants' regulatory focus, manipulated counterpart cues by varying the information negotiators received about their counterpart's traits and behavior, and measured participants' cooperative or competitive concession making behavior.FindingsResults from the studies confirmed that under prevention focus, negotiators' cooperative behavior depended on whether they received cooperative versus competitive counterpart cues more than under promotion focus. Furthermore, results also showed that under prevention focus, negotiators' behavior was relatively unaffected by their own social motivation – i.e. their personal goal to obtain favorable outcomes for oneself or for both negotiation parties.Originality/valueBy showing that regulatory focus determines when counterpart cues affect negotiation behavior, this paper furthers the understanding of when contextual factors affect negotiators' behavior. In addition, it contributes to the understanding of the complex effects of prevention focus in interpersonal behavior.

AbstractThe overarching aim of the present research is to investigate whether and how HEXACO personality traits relate to climate change action, pro‐environmental behavior, and moral anger. A sample of 268 community participants provided responses for measures of the HEXACO model, moral anger, intention to engage in climate change action, and pro‐environmental behavior. Hierarchical tests indicated that (1) Openness to Experience outperformed the other HEXACO personality traits in predicting climate change action, whereas (2) both Openness to Experience and Honesty–Humility outperformed the other HEXACO personality traits in predicting pro‐environmental behavior, controlling for participants' gender, age, education, and employment status. Specifically, mediation analyses showed that (3) Openness to Experience was related to climate change action both directly and indirectly via moral anger. Furthermore, (4) Openness to Experience and Honesty–Humility were independently related to pro‐environmental behavior both directly and indirectly via moral anger.

Why are people (de)motivated to mobilize in favor of immigrants? Addressing this question, we investigated the role of individuals' epistemic motivation (i.e., need for closure) in influencing the process of becoming motivated to participate in collective action in favor of immigrants in Italy. Specifically, the mediational role of binding moral foundations and political conservatism in explaining the relationship between need for closure and collective action in favor of immigrants was examined in three studies. It was hypothesized that a heightened need for closure would be indirectly and negatively associated with collective action in favor of immigrants, sequentially mediated first through binding moral foundations and then political conservatism. We found support for this prediction when either dispositional measure (Study 1 and Study 2) or an experimental induction (Study 3) of need for closure were used, and when both collective action intentions (Study 1 and Study 3) and behavior (Study 2) were assessed. The results suggest that need for closure constitutes a powerful motivational force that leads individuals to engage in uncertainty-reducing evaluations and actions. We discuss these results regarding how they are related with previous work and their implications for research and practice.

Abstract. This preregistered study examined whether positive and negative intergroup contact with migrants relates to collective action supporting and opposing migrants as well as to interpersonal exclusion toward them via the key processes identified in the Social Identity Model of Collective Action. Structural equation models conducted on cross-sectional data from 506 Italian and English participants showed that positive (negative) contact related to higher (lower) collective inclusion and lower (higher) collective and interpersonal exclusion of migrants via group anger, identification, and efficacy. Considering positive and negative contact, collective action pro and against migrants and interpersonal behaviors simultaneously, this study provided a nuanced picture of the antecedents and processes underlying the advantaged group members' behaviors toward migrants.