Suchergebnisse

Abstract. Three studies investigated the influence of collective threat on the importance of agency- and communion-related traits used in ingroup perception. Study 1 ( N = 137) investigated how cues of such threat affect reaction times when individuals are asked to ascribe agentic or communal traits to their ingroup. Study 2 ( N = 96) and Study 3 ( N = 337) examined the role of social identification in response to a collective threat. The results suggest that cues of threat may lead to preferential processing of positive (but not negative) ingroup agency over ingroup communion, the effect particularly likely among highly identified individuals. Perceiving the ingroup as an agentic collective may thus act as a buffer that assists in managing threat-related emotions.

AbstractThis article analyzes the relationship between the relative position of an ethnic group, as measured by its majority/minority status at a subnational level, and attitudes of its members toward immigrants of different origins. Based on the Russian case, it addresses the question whether the effects of in-group majority status within a region on attitudes toward the general category of immigrants hold regardless of out-group origin and, if not, what may drive this variation. Using data from the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey of the Higher School of Economics and Bayesian hierarchical structural equation modeling, the study demonstrates that the relative position of an ethnic in-group is of varying importance as a predictor of attitudes toward migrant groups of European versus non-European origin in Russia. A group's majority status within a region proved to play a role in predicting attitudes toward migrants originating from the "south" (encompassing North and South Caucasus; Central Asia; and China, Vietnam, and Korea) but not toward migrants coming from the "west" (Ukraine and Moldova). We draw on arguments related to the source and the level of threat induced by the out-groups, ethnic hierarchies, and group cues to explain this pattern of results.

Exposure to derogatory language about immigrants and minority groups leads to political radicalization and deteriorates intergroup relations. This article addresses the psychological processes responsible for these effects as well as those involved in hate‐speech proliferation in contemporary societies and discusses the factors that constrain its growth. We propose that frequent exposure to hate speech has severe effects on emotional, behavioral, and normative levels. Exposure to hate speech results in empathy being replaced by intergroup contempt as a dominant response to others—it is both a motivator and a consequence of derogatory language. The increased presence of hate speech in one's environment creates a sense of a descriptive norm that allows outgroup derogation. This leads to the erosion of existing antidiscriminatory norms. Finally, through a process of desensitization, hate speech reduces people's ability to recognize the offensive character of such language. Based on empirical evidence from the fields of social psychology and psychology of emotion and aggression, we propose a model that explains the described processes, and we trace the dynamics of this model using an agent‐based modeling approach. We show that the mechanisms potentially effective in constraining hate‐speech proliferation (empathy, norms) are eroded by hate speech itself. We argue that through basic psychological dynamics, societies become more accepting of derogatory language and less accepting of immigrants, as well as religious, ethnic, and sexual minorities.

Abstract. The importance of various trait dimensions explaining positive global self-esteem has been the subject of numerous studies. While some have provided support for the importance of agency, others have highlighted the importance of communion. This discrepancy can be explained, if one takes into account that people define and value their self both in individual and in collective terms. Two studies ( N = 367 and N = 263) examined the extent to which competence (an aspect of agency), morality, and sociability (the aspects of communion) promote high self-esteem at the individual and the collective level. In both studies, competence was the strongest predictor of self-esteem at the individual level, whereas morality was the strongest predictor of self-esteem at the collective level.

The functions of the conspiracy theory surrounding the '89 Round Table in present-day political life are discussed. In the online research conducted in 2018 on a representative sample of Polish citizens, we found that attitudes towards the Round Table are an important marker of the fundamental political division in Poland. Those who supported the current rule of PiS (with a nationalistic-authoritarian orientation) agreed with the '89 Round Table conspiracy theory, whereas those who supported the liberal opposition against PiS rejected the '89 Round Table conspiracy theory. Moreover, believers in the Round Table conspiracy appeared to trust politicians and justify the system to a higher degree than those who rejected this conspiracy theory. We also found that endorsement of the conspiracy theory of the '89 Round Table was significantly associated with the stability of voting preferences. Among those who voted for PiS, conspiracy theory believers formed a stable electorate, whereas among those who voted for parties with a liberal orientation, theory believers were likely to change their voting preferences. Thus, belief in the discussed conspiracy is not only a part of some ideological landscape but also has direct behavioral consequences. The social-psychological reasons for the growing popularity of the '89 Round Table conspiracy theory are discussed. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

Two nationwide representative studies (N = 653 adolescents; N = 1007 adults) investigated the psychological correlates of the intention to penalize public expressions of prejudice in the form of support for hate‐speech prohibition. We presented participants with preselected examples of hate speech from the Internet and other mass media and assessed their willingness to support the prohibition of public expressions of such remarks. Both studies found that social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism are positively correlated with outgroup prejudice, but they have differential effects on hate‐speech prohibition. Social dominance orientation was positively related to the acceptance of hate speech, whereas right‐wing authoritarianism was positively related to hate‐speech prohibition. In discussing this counterintuitive finding, we suggest that right‐wing authoritarians are particularly vigilant toward norm violations—and this makes them more punitive toward counternormative expressions of prejudice, such as hate speech.