Suchergebnisse

In this introductory piece to the special issue, I seek to establish the importance of the topic under discussion: that is, the psychology of the 1989 Polish Round Table Talks. I start by underlining the unique opportunity to gain insight into this topic given that two of the main protagonists, Janusz Reykowski on the Government side and Janusz Grzelak on the Solidarity side, are social psychologists. Next, I argue for both the world-historical significance of the Round Table Talks and for the necessity of a psychological dimension to the analysis of what happened. I then address what Psychology provides for an understanding of the Round Table process and what the Round Table process contributes to an understanding of Psychology. Specifically, this turns on the need for a more complex and historical conceptualisation of intergroup relations in which the very nature of the groups in relation may be transformed. I conclude by pointing to further research opportunities on this key question of the configuration and reconfiguration of social groups. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

The task of social psychology is to explain the flexibility of human beings in creating and relating to their social worlds. Social identity and self‐categorization theories provide a thoroughgoing interactionist framework for achieving such a task. However, in order to do so, it is necessary to avoid reductionist misreadings of the theories that would explain human social action simply by reference to psychological processes, without examining how the play of process depends on the cultural and structural settings in which they occur. More specifically, to the extent that self‐categories shape social action, flexibility is achieved through the categories to which we belong, the others with whom we compare ourselves, and the dimensions along which such comparisons occur. These are not a fixed aspect of the human condition but are a focus for argument precisely because of their world‐making consequences.

AbstractMass gatherings are routinely viewed as posing risks to physical health. However, social psychological research shows mass gathering participation can also bring benefits to psychological well‐being. We describe how both sets of outcomes can be understood as arising from the distinctive forms of behavior that may be found when people—even strangers—come to define themselves and each other in terms of a shared social identity. We show that many of the risks and benefits of participation are products of group processes; that these different outcomes can have their roots in the same core processes; and that knowledge of these process provides a basis for health promotion interventions to mitigate the risks and maximize the benefits of participation. Throughout, we offer practical guidance as to how policy makers and practitioners should tailor such interventions.

Abstract
This briefing is divided into three parts. First, we outline the factors which lead to incidents of collective disorder (or riots). Secondly, we consider how the overall response to the coronavirus outbreak and the role of the police within this response will impact the probability of such disorder. Thirdly, we apply these understandings to three specific scenarios of potential disorder.

Opposition to immigration and the rejection of migrants have long been of concern to psychologists. While much is known about negative representations of migrants in politics and the media, far less is known about positive representations of migrants and immigration. In this article, we provide an examination of social representations promoting promigrant action in the context of a community campaign opposing the deportation of a woman and her young daughter. The woman, who had come to the United Kingdom from Malawi seven years prior had lost permission to remain following changes to personal circumstances and was facing deportation. Our analysis explores the ways in which the campaign's mobilization arguments respond to and engage with antimigrant representations. It identifies the importance of categorical representations concerning the nature, norms, and interests of the local community, of the two migrants under threat of deportation, and of those seeking to deport them. Contrary to antimigrant representations, the migrants at the center of the campaign were presented as ingroup members and their potential deportation as a violation of ingroup norms and ingroup interests. Finally, we also identify points of ambivalence in the campaign's mobilization strategy where arguments reject the ascription but not the nature of negative representations of migrants.

In this article, we develop a mobilization analysis of contemporary antagonism to immigrants. We argue that such antagonism does not arise spontaneously from the cognitions of ordinary people but is mobilized by political actors. This leads us to ask why politicians mobilize such antagonisms and how they do so. Our analysis, illustrated by set piece speeches on immigration by the four main U.K. party political leaders in the period prior to the 2015 elections, suggests (1) that while these speeches are ostensibly about an intergroup issue, they equally serve intragroup dynamics, notably demonstrating how the speaker serves national interests and hence qualifies to serve as a national representative; (2) the way that speakers mobilize antagonism to immigrants is through construing a variety of forms of threat: spatial threat, economic threat, security threat, and diversity threat. We focus particularly on the last of these because of the ways in which it invokes social psychological arguments and hence speaks in our name. We conclude by raising issues of accountability—both of politicians and social psychologists—regarding the way we talk about immigration.

Opposition to immigration and the rejection of migrants have long been of concern to psychologists. While much is known about negative representations of migrants in politics and the media, far less is known about positive representations of migrants and immigration. In this article, we provide an examination of social representations promoting promigrant action in the context of a community campaign opposing the deportation of a woman and her young daughter. The woman, who had come to the United Kingdom from Malawi seven years prior had lost permission to remain following changes to personal circumstances and was facing deportation. Our analysis explores the ways in which the campaign's mobilization arguments respond to and engage with antimigrant representations. It identifies the importance of categorical representations concerning the nature, norms, and interests of the local community, of the two migrants under threat of deportation, and of those seeking to deport them. Contrary to antimigrant representations, the migrants at the center of the campaign were presented as ingroup members and their potential deportation as a violation of ingroup norms and ingroup interests. Finally, we also identify points of ambivalence in the campaign's mobilization strategy where arguments reject the ascription but not the nature of negative representations of migrants.