Suchergebnisse

Many countries seek to specifically attract talented migrants in order to match the needs of national economies. In addition to the well‐known intergroup antagonism between natives and immigrants, such immigration policies targeting talented migrants imply differentiation within the immigrant group, using normative criteria to distinguish desirable and economically useful immigrants from undesirable ones. Based on European Social Survey data (Round 7, N = 9856) comprised of national citizens from six multinational countries, we show that national majorities support individualized, "cherry picking" immigration policies to a greater degree than historical national minorities and that this support is associated with national majorities' stronger sense of identification with the country and its individualistic norms. We thereby conceptualize a novel facet of multiculturalism based on individual justice principles that is rarely at the forefront of research on immigration and multiculturalism.

Abstract:  Based on data from a Swiss survey study (N = 769), this research investigated individual‐level determinants of trust in political authorities from a social psychological perspective. The study demonstrates that individuals with a low level of education who feel materially at risk and politically powerlessness expressed the lowest levels of political trust. This relationship was explained with differential endorsement of normative beliefs. A mediation analysis reveals that normative perceptions of Swiss society as being threatened by immorality and growing social inequalities accounted for the effect of perceived material risk on political distrust. The rejection of a duty‐based citizenship norm (voting), in turn, mediated the impact of political powerlessness on distrust. Political orientation was unrelated to political trust. These findings illustrate the cognitive underpinnings of political alienation and suggest that perceived lack of political agency and perceived risk of social declassification are key factors in understanding political distrust.

This study is the data collection across 4 waves of the LOLYS (Longitudinal Lausanne Youth Study) at the University of Lausanne. The general aim of LOLYS is to assess experiences of vulnerability (e.g., stress, discrimination) and regulation strategies (e.g., identity, social support, collective action) of young adults aged 15 to 30 years living in French-speaking Switzerland. Generally, the survey aspires to provide an account of the regulatory strategies likely to decrease or to increase vulnerability among adolescents and young adults aged 16 to 30 years.
In this study, we address the multiple mid- and long-term projects of these young adults as an indicator of their planned life course and aims in life. In addition we investigate identity self-definition strategies, as well as experiences of injustice, vulnerability, self-esteem, efficacy and well-being as well as attitudes towards social change.

This study is the data collection across 4 waves of the LOLYS (Longitudinal Lausanne Youth Study) at the University of Lausanne. The general aim of LOLYS is to assess experiences of vulnerability (e.g., stress, discrimination) and regulation strategies (e.g., identity, social support, collective action) of young adults aged 15 to 30 years living in French-speaking Switzerland. Generally, the survey aspires to provide an account of the regulatory strategies likely to decrease or to increase vulnerability among adolescents and young adults aged 16 to 30 years.
In this study, we address the multiple mid- and long-term projects of these young adults as an indicator of their planned life course and aims in life. In addition we investigate identity self-definition strategies, as well as experiences of injustice, vulnerability, self-esteem, efficacy and well-being as well as attitudes towards social change.

Extending Gabriel Mugny's work on minority influence, this paper integrates models of minority influence with categorization and social identification processes. By doing so, we aim to understand how members of a national majority become willing to actively challenge political authority by showing solidarity with the refugee minority. In an experimental study (N = 112, Swiss nationals), participants read a minority position (pro-welcoming appeal), followed by measures of support for particular policies in favor of refugees in Switzerland. A 2 × 2 + control design was used, in which the intergroup context was organised as a function of categorical differentiation of the source of minority influence (Swiss national vs. refugee) and normative differentiation of the pro-welcoming message (assimilation vs. multicultural norms of integration). Results showed a cross-categorization effect whereby categorical and normative differentiation interacted to predict solidarity: Conditions in which the Swiss source mobilized multicultural arguments and the refugee source mobilized assimilationist ones were most effective. Furthermore, influence was stronger for higher national identifiers than for lower identifiers. Our findings underline the importance of integrating dynamics of intergroup communication in minority influence studies.

This study explores discourses about involvement in violent intergroup conflict and international crimes from the perspective of perpetrators. Through a critical discourse analysis of 12 personal interviews carried out with individuals accused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for crimes committed during the Yugoslav conflicts, we uncover how their discourse reveals conceptions of lacking agency and powerlessness during the conflict, how it reconstructs power relationships within and between ethnic groups, and how it reflects identity management strategies destined to elude blame and responsibility. Our findings demonstrate how discourses are tainted by the legitimizing framework in which the conflict unfolded but also how they are shaped by the particular context of the communicative situation. Findings are discussed in terms of their significance for international criminal justice and its stated objectives.

This study explores discourses about involvement in violent intergroup conflict and international crimes from the perspective of perpetrators. Through a critical discourse analysis of 12 personal interviews carried out with individuals accused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for crimes committed during the Yugoslav conflicts, we uncover how their discourse reveals conceptions of lacking agency and powerlessness during the conflict, how it reconstructs power relationships within and between ethnic groups, and how it reflects identity management strategies destined to elude blame and responsibility. Our findings demonstrate how discourses are tainted by the legitimizing framework in which the conflict unfolded but also how they are shaped by the particular context of the communicative situation. Findings are discussed in terms of their significance for international criminal justice and its stated objectives.

Abstract
The spiral of silence theory posits that when a given political position comes to be seen as the majority opinion, perceivers holding alternative views will feel pressured to become silent, thereby contributing to the growing public decline of the minority camp. Testing the theory across 15 countries (N = 195,194) with data taken from the European Social Survey (2002–2016), we examined whether recently rising right-wing populist positions silenced supranational opinions or whether, on the contrary, they were silenced by established norms of democratic governance and social inclusiveness. The proposed modeling overcomes two limitations of prior research by using a macroscopic and dynamic approach that allows the detection of the "spiraling" normative conformity process in nationally representative samples.

This project examines the factors that determine support or rejection of welfare state measures, either based on individualised allowances (e.g. welfare or professional pension system), or on collective responsibility, which is institutionalised with egalitarian allowances (e.g. national pension system), or with granting of collective rights to groups (e.g. maternity leave). The project features a survey carried out with standardised face-to-face interviews on a representative sample (800 respondents) in four Swiss cities, Lausanne, Neuchâtel, Bern and St.Gallen. The legitimacy granted to the welfare state should namely depend on recognition of minorities (e.g. immigrants, homosexuals, unemployed), on defence of national values, on awareness of structural inequalities (e.g. between men and women), on feelings of powerlessness, and on risk evaluations. Opinion differences between cities, social classes, age and gender groups will also be analysed.

This research examines the relationship between populist thinking and global crisis‐solving motivations concerning climate change and the COVID‐19 pandemic. Using data from five European countries (Switzerland, France, Finland, Greece, and Italy), we test a model where crisis‐related science skepticism—understood as the defense of commonsense knowledge against scientific expertise—mediates the association between populist thinking and crisis‐mitigation attitudes. The results show considerable convergence across national contexts. Relative deprivation predicts endorsement of two core components of populism's thin ideology, people sovereignty and antielitism. These subdimensions of populism are linked to science skepticism, although variably across contexts. Science skepticism then leads to a lower sense of personal responsibility for climate change mitigation and to negative attitudes towards a governmental measure to contain the COVID‐19 pandemic. Findings further show that under specific conditions, the populist request for greater democratic participation may mobilize individuals to get involved in crisis mitigation. Overall, our results highlight the role of politicized common sense in motivating and justifying opposition to measures and policies based on scientific expertise. We conclude that science skepticism, rather than populism per se, explains cynical and dismissive attitudes towards global crises.