Suchergebnisse

This commentary examines the next step in Marino's target article – changing people's attitudes and beliefs about chickens. The scientific case seems clear: chickens are far more complex, psychologically and socially, than originally thought. Marino suggests we use this information to make people feel uncomfortable about their dietary choices in the hope of changing them. We review the psychological literature, examining how people maintain meat consumption despite the clash with their moral beliefs (the "meat paradox"). This work highlights the important gap between what science knows about animals and what people think about animals.

Political and financial crises are complex and multi-determined situations whose solutions depend on multiple factors. To understand these conflicts, we explore to what extent mutual outgroup dehumanization along with ingroup humanization between the parts involved in the conflict predict the interpretation of the different facets of the political situation (i.e. interpretation of the crisis, the perceived consequences, or the possible solutions). In this article, we focused on the dispute between Germany and Greece catalyzed by a Greek referendum in 2015. We assessed to what extent mutual (de)humanization between Germans and Greeks predicted the interpretation of the conflict. Our results showed a mutual dehumanization: Greeks mechanizing Germans and Germans animalizing Greeks. For Germans, dehumanizing the Greeks was linked to worse perceived Greek financial administration and minimizing the perception of the Greeks' suffering, whereas humanizing the ingroup was associated with more outgroup responsibility. For Greeks, dehumanizing the Germans was associated with a desire to avoid German financial control, whereas ingroup humanization was associated with better financial administration, less responsibility, and a higher perception of suffering among Greeks. In short, dehumanizing the other members of the European Union (EU) while humanizing their own nationality contributed to the neglect of the problems inside the EU, shaping the understanding of the economic conflict among both nations.

Three studies examined whether animality is a component of low-SES stereotypes. In Study 1a–c, the content of "white trash" (USA), "chav" (UK), and "bogan" (Australia) stereotypes was found to be highly consistent, and in every culture it correlated positively with the stereotype content of apes. In Studies 2a and 2b, a within-subjects approach replicated this effect and revealed that it did not rely on derogatory labels or was reducible to ingroup favoritism or system justification concerns. In Study 3, the "bogan" stereotype was associated with ape, rat, and dog stereotypes independently of established stereotype content dimensions (warmth, competence, and morality). By implication, stereotypes of low-SES people picture them as primitive, bestial, and incompletely human.

Low-socioeconomic status (SES) groups are sometimes depicted as money wasters who live on welfare. Previous research has also found that low-SES groups are also animalized. We expand previous findings (Sainz et al., 2019) by examining the consequences that animalization has on support for social welfare policies (e.g., unemployment, housing) and governmental control of low-SES groups' spending. We explored the mediating role of perceived wastefulness (i.e., the perception that low-SES people lack the ability to properly administer their budget) in the relationships between animalization and support for welfare policies and governmental control measures. In three correlation studies, 1a to 1c, we examined the relationships between these variables in three countries: The United Kingdom, the United States, and Spain. From our results, animalizing low-SES groups seem to negatively predict support for public policies and positively predict support for governmental control via the perception that low-SES people are unable to manage their finances. Finally, in two experimental studies, 2a and 2b, we directly manipulated the humanness of a low-SES group (animalized vs. humanized) and measured its effects on perceptions of the group's wastefulness, support for social welfare policies, and support for governmental control over the group's expenses. Results indicated that animalizing low-SES groups reduced support for social welfare by activating the impression that low-SES people are poor financial managers (Study 2a), but also that animalizing low-SES groups increased support for governmental control via perceived wastefulness (Studies 2a–b). We discuss the role of animalization in denying aid to those in need.

Low-socioeconomic status (SES) groups are sometimes depicted as money wasters who live on welfare. Previous research has also found that low-SES groups are also animalized. We expand previous findings (Sainz et al., 2019) by examining the consequences that animalization has on support for social welfare policies (e.g., unemployment, housing) and governmental control of low-SES groups' spending. We explored the mediating role of perceived wastefulness (i.e., the perception that low-SES people lack the ability to properly administer their budget) in the relationships between animalization and support for welfare policies and governmental control measures. In three correlation studies, 1a to 1c, we examined the relationships between these variables in three countries: The United Kingdom, the United States, and Spain. From our results, animalizing low-SES groups seem to negatively predict support for public policies and positively predict support for governmental control via the perception that low-SES people are unable to manage their finances. Finally, in two experimental studies, 2a and 2b, we directly manipulated the humanness of a low-SES group (animalized vs. humanized) and measured its effects on perceptions of the group's wastefulness, support for social welfare policies, and support for governmental control over the group's expenses. Results indicated that animalizing low-SES groups reduced support for social welfare by activating the impression that low-SES people are poor financial managers (Study 2a), but also that animalizing low-SES groups increased support for governmental control via perceived wastefulness (Studies 2a–b). We discuss the role of animalization in denying aid to those in need. ; "Programa de movilidad para jovenes doctorandos CEI-BIOTIC" (University of Granada CEI-BIOTIC)

People cooperate every day in ways that range from largescale contributions that mitigate climate change to simple actions such as leaving another individual with choice - known as social mindfulness. It is not yet clear whether and how these complex and more simple forms of cooperation relate. Prior work has found that countries with individuals who made more socially mindful choices were linked to a higher country environmental performance - a proxy for complex cooperation. Here we replicated this initial finding in 41 samples around the world, demonstrating the robustness of the association between social mindfulness and environmental performance, and substantially built on it to show this relationship extended to a wide range of complex cooperative indices, tied closely to many current societal issues. We found that greater social mindfulness expressed by an individual was related to living in countries with more social capital, more community participation and reduced prejudice towards immigrants. Our findings speak to the symbiotic relationship between simple and more complex forms of cooperation in societies.