Suchergebnisse

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.

One of humanity's most pressing problems is the inequality between people from 'developed' and 'developing' countries, which counteracts joint efforts to combat other large scale problems. Little is known about the psychological antecedents that affect the perception of and behavioral responses to global inequality. Based on, and extending, Duckitt's dual-process model, the current research examines psychological antecedents that may explain how people in an industrialized Western country respond to global inequality. In two studies (N1 = 116, N2 = 117), we analyzed the relationship between the Big Five and justice constructs, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and behavioral intentions to reduce global inequality. Two-group path analysis revealed support for the dual-process model in that RWA and SDO were important predictors of behavioral intentions and partially acted as mediators between personality and such intentions. Moreover, justice sensitivity explained variance beyond the 'classic' DPM variables. In Study 2, we additionally assessed individuals' global social identification and perceived injustice of global inequality that explained additional variance. Extending previous work on the dual-process model, these findings demonstrate that individual and group-based processes predict people's responses to global inequality and uncover potentials to promote behavior in the interest of global justice. Adapted from the source document.

One of humanity's most pressing problems is the inequality between people from "developed" and "developing" countries, which counteracts joint efforts to combat other large scale problems. Little is known about the psychological antecedents that affect the perception of and behavioral responses to global inequality. Based on, and extending, Duckitt's dual‐process model, the current research examines psychological antecedents that may explain how people in an industrialized Western country respond to global inequality. In two studies (N1 = 116, N2 = 117), we analyzed the relationship between the Big Five and justice constructs, right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and behavioral intentions to reduce global inequality. Two‐group path analysis revealed support for the dual‐process model in that RWA and SDO were important predictors of behavioral intentions and partially acted as mediators between personality and such intentions. Moreover, justice sensitivity explained variance beyond the "classic" DPM variables. In Study 2, we additionally assessed individuals' global social identification and perceived injustice of global inequality that explained additional variance. Extending previous work on the dual‐process model, these findings demonstrate that individual and group‐based processes predict people's responses to global inequality and uncover potentials to promote behavior in the interest of global justice.