Search results

Excellent research exists on the conditions that generate political and social activism. Yet a central issue has remained perplexing: how does the personal need to stand out as unique and heroic interact with the concern for the positive image of the group, and the desire to protect and bolster its status, goals and shared values, in propelling collective action? Inspired by existential theory and research, this paper proposes an existential perspective on activism that identifies the human desire for a sense of meaning and significance as an important motivation underlying individuals' choice to engage in collective action. This study outlines an integrative model of collective action, combining insights from existential psychology with insights from the social identity perspective, to bridge together needs and concerns associated with both personal identity and group identity into a single model of collective action through the concept of death-anxiety buffering mechanisms. This model suggests that collective action is an effective means to satisfy existential needs through bolstering and protecting group interests and values on the one hand, and realizing the activist's heroism project on the other. Suggestions for future research are discussed.

Excellent research exists on the conditions that generate political and social activism. Yet a central issue has remained perplexing: how does the personal need to stand out as unique and heroic interact with the concern for the positive image of the group, and the desire to protect and bolster its status, goals and shared values, in propelling collective action? Inspired by existential theory and research, this paper proposes an existential perspective on activism that identifies the human desire for a sense of meaning and significance as an important motivation underlying individuals' choice to engage in collective action. This study outlines an integrative model of collective action, combining insights from existential psychology with insights from the social identity perspective, to bridge together needs and concerns associated with both personal identity and group identity into a single model of collective action through the concept of death-anxiety buffering mechanisms. This model suggests that collective action is an effective means to satisfy existential needs through bolstering and protecting group interests and values on the one hand, and realizing the activist's heroism project on the other. Suggestions for future research are discussed. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

Recent research suggests that citizens' sense of being socially marginalized, or "left behind" in society, plays an important role in triggering support for right-wing populist attitudes. Although perceived misrecognition by others is thought to be a core aspect of this sense of social marginalization, the effect of (mis)recognition on citizens' support for the populist-right, and the psychological mechanism underlying this effect, has thus far not been directly examined. Inspired by the social identity tradition, we conceptualize the establishment of subjective superiority over the elites on the one hand, and over national minorities on the other, as an identity management strategy in the face of social identity threat, triggered by perceived misrecognition by the elites. Across three studies conducted in Germany, we provide cross-sectional and experimental support for a causal model in which misrecognition, which is directed at people as "nationals" rather than as individuals, triggers contempt toward the elites and rejection of national minorities, via the perception that one's belongingness to the nation, as a valued member thereof, is threatened ("social identity threat"). Our findings suggest that support for attitudes associated with the populist right may help citizens re-establish their valued identity as full members of the nation, in the face of those who allegedly deny or disregard it.

Past research has produced convincing evidence for the association between perceived societal threat and political conservatism. Based on the view of political worldviews and threat perceptions as multifaceted constructs, the present study suggests that certain types of perceived threat are actually associated with the endorsement of more politically liberal positions. Employing a three-wave naturalistic design, we examined the unique longitudinal effects of perceived threats from real-life political events that challenge either liberal or conservative values, on conflict-related attitudes, using a nationally representative sample of Jewish-Israelis (N = 437). Consistent with our hypotheses, perceived threat from events that challenge conservative values was associated with increased militaristic attitudes and decreased willingness to compromise for peace over time, whereas perceived threat from events that challenge liberal values was related to decreased militaristic attitudes and increased willingness to compromise for peace over time. Theoretical and practical implications of these longitudinal effects are discussed.

Past research has produced convincing evidence for the association between perceived societal threat and political conservatism. Based on the view of political worldviews and threat perceptions as multifaceted constructs, the present study suggests that certain types of perceived threat are actually associated with the endorsement of more politically liberal positions. Employing a three-wave naturalistic design, we examined the unique longitudinal effects of perceived threats from real-life political events that challenge either liberal or conservative values, on conflict-related attitudes, using a nationally representative sample of Jewish-Israelis ( N = 437). Consistent with our hypotheses, perceived threat from events that challenge conservative values was associated with increased militaristic attitudes and decreased willingness to compromise for peace over time, whereas perceived threat from events that challenge liberal values was related to decreased militaristic attitudes and increased willingness to compromise for peace over time. Theoretical and practical implications of these longitudinal effects are discussed.

ObjectiveThis study examines the conditions under which exposure to internal criticism among one's rival in conflict is effective in facilitating more positive views toward the rival.MethodsIn two experiments, Jewish Israelis were exposed to a Palestinian criticizing Palestinians for violations of either "binding" or "individualizing" moral values.ResultsExposure to Palestinian internal criticism increased rightists' hope regarding the conflict and decreased their support for exclusion of Palestinians, particularly when the criticism targeted "binding" (vs. "individualizing") moral values. Exposure to both types of criticism decreased leftists' hope regarding the conflict.ConclusionsInternal criticism can facilitate positive views about one's rival in conflict when the target audience holds particularly rigid and negative views about the self‐criticizing group, and particularly when the criticism communicates adherence values that echo those of the target audience. This study critically informs the design of interventions to induce hope and improve intergroup attitudes in intractable conflict.

According to common wisdom, which is supported by extant psychological theorizing, a core feature of political conservatism (vs. liberalism) is the resistance to (vs. acceptance of) societal change. We propose that an empirical examination of the actual difference in political liberals' and conservatives' attitudes toward change across different sociopolitical issues may call into question this assumed association between political orientation and relation to change. We examined this proposition in four studies conducted in Germany. In Study 1, we assessed lay people's intuitions about liberals' and conservatives' attitudes toward change. Results of this study concur with theoretical assumptions that liberals accept and conservatives resist change. In Study 2a, Study 2b, and Study 3, self‐identified liberals and conservatives were asked whether they would resist or accept change on various sociopolitical issues. Results of these studies suggest that both conservatives and liberals resist and accept societal changes, depending on the extent to which they approve or disapprove of the status quo on a given sociopolitical issue. Overall, our findings provide no evidence for a one‐directional association between political orientation and the tendency to accept or resist change. These findings therefore challenge theoretical and lay assumptions regarding general, context‐independent psychological differences underlying political ideologies.

AbstractRadical‐right parties have gradually penetrated the political mainstream in many liberal democracies, marking a trend of 'democratic backsliding'. We propose that women's increasing visibility as representatives of radical‐right agendas makes democratic backsliders, their policies and their parties seem more legitimate, and may help explain their growing public acceptance. Our studies provide the first systematic examination of this hypothesis in three countries – Israel, Germany and the United States (N = 7203). In Studies 1a‐c, we show that voters perceive democracy‐eroding policies through a gendered lens – they attribute gender stereotypes to the parties promoting these policies and to the public supporting these policies. In Studies 2a‐c, we experimentally demonstrate the effect of politicians' gender on public acceptance of democracy‐eroding policies, politicians and parties, and demonstrate the role of gender stereotypes in mediating this effect. Finally, we show that the audiences susceptible to the mainstreaming effect of politicians' gender are precisely those that are often particularly repelled by radical‐right agendas and their perceived masculine image: Women and left‐wing voters.

AbstractPublic legitimation of legal decisionmaking can be promoted through various strategies. We examine strategies of legitimation that are premised on personalizing the public image of legal agents. A personalized public administration emphasizes individual decisionmakers and seeks legitimacy through familiarity with the character, identity, and virtues of individual agents, whereas a non‐personalized public administration projects an ethos of technocratic decisionmaking, seeking legitimacy through institutional objectivity and impartiality. We conducted an experiment to examine the efficacy of personalization strategies in the context of a politically charged legal affair: the criminal cases involving the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. We focus on people's perceived objectivity of the office of the Israeli attorney general (AG), given exposure (vs. no exposure) to different types of personal information about the AG, and while manipulating the salience of contrasting decisions concerning Netanyahu (indicting him on several counts of corruption versus exculpating him in others). We find that exposure to personal information about the AG decreased the perceived objectivity of his office, compared to no exposure to personal information, regardless of the type of information, decision salience, and respondents' political leanings. Our findings, therefore, support the legitimating potential of the non‐personalization of decisionmakers, and show that it pertains to people positioned as both "losers" and "winners" with regard the political impact of the decision. The study further reflects the capacity of nonabstract real‐world, real‐time, analyses to shed light on the drivers of public trust in legal decisionmaking in politically polarized contexts—an issue of pertinence in many contemporary democracies.

Across the globe, women are increasingly more visible as leaders and activists in radical-right parties and movements. Does women's visibility in radical-right politics, both institutionalized and non-institutionalized, affect public acceptance of radical-right agendas? The present paper proposes a 'radical-right gender mainstreaming model', arguing that women in radical-right politics are perceived by the general public through a prism of feminine gender stereotypes, which counteract radical-right parties' and movements' masculine stereotypes, thus 'softening' their image and making them more acceptable to the general public. Across four experimental studies conducted in the Israeli context, we find strong evidence that women's visibility as radical-right parliamentary representatives (Studies 1a and 1b) and as radical-right political activists (Studies 2a and 2b) increases acceptance of and support for these parties' and movements' agenda, particularly among women. We further demonstrate that these effects are mediated by the attribution of feminine stereotypes (warmth) to women versus men political actors. Implications of these findings are discussed.