Suchergebnisse

In four studies, we report evidence that admiration affects intergroup behaviors that regulate social hierarchy. We demonstrate that manipulating the legitimacy of status relations affects admiration for the dominant and that this emotion negatively predicts political action tendencies aimed at social change. In addition, we show that greater warmth and competence lead to greater admiration for an outgroup, which in turn positively predicts deferential behavior and intergroup learning. We also demonstrate that, for those with a disposition to feel admiration, increasing admiration for an outgroup decreases willingness to take political action against that outgroup. Finally, we show that when the object of admiration is a subversive "martyr," admiration positively predicts political action tendencies and behavior aimed at challenging the status quo. These findings provide the first evidence for the important role of admiration in regulating social hierarchy.

To date, there is little in the way of theorizing or empirical work on the imagined endpoint of political action aimed at social change – the type of "dream" those engaged in action are attempting to bring into fruition. We suggest that previous approaches have focused narrowly on one type of social change – amelioration of collective grievances. In contrast, we argue that social change is much richer and imaginative than this narrow focus suggests. In the present article we draw on key constructs in social psychology (e.g., goals, efficacy, legitimacy, identity, social system, and social value) in order to develop a typology of social change goals. In doing so, we explain why people might support one type of social change (e.g., revolution) versus others (e.g., separatism or amelioration). The typology is used to discuss future directions for research and to highlight the implications for psychological (and broader) approaches to social change. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

To date, there is little in the way of theorizing or empirical work on the imagined endpoint of political action aimed at social change – the type of "dream" those engaged in action are attempting to bring into fruition. We suggest that previous approaches have focused narrowly on one type of social change – amelioration of collective grievances. In contrast, we argue that social change is much richer and imaginative than this narrow focus suggests. In the present article we draw on key constructs in social psychology (e.g., goals, efficacy, legitimacy, identity, social system, and social value) in order to develop a typology of social change goals. In doing so, we explain why people might support one type of social change (e.g., revolution) versus others (e.g., separatism or amelioration). The typology is used to discuss future directions for research and to highlight the implications for psychological (and broader) approaches to social change.

In three surveys of adults in five nations, we investigated how shared beliefs about the political system motivate individuals' political engagement. Specifically, we tested whether individuals' beliefs that the political context is fair, noncorrupt, and their belief that they could influence politics motivates political engagement to a higher extent for higher‐ compared to lower‐status group members. In a novel use of social dominance theory, we theoretically conceived of these political beliefs as legitimizing ideologies, so that we predicted that people with higher social dominance orientation endorse these beliefs, which in turn enhance the motivation to engage in politics to support current social hierarchical systems. Moreover, we expected that these relationships would be stronger for higher‐ compared to lower‐status groups. These hypotheses were tested considering different levels of group status: wealth status within a country (Study 1), political‐regional differences within a country (Study 2), and international status (i.e., between countries; Study 3), and they were largely supported.

We find evidence that explicit (but not implicit) measures of general attitude towards protest uniquely predict normative and nonnormative political action tendencies, and behavior, over and above extant models of political action. Protest attitude uniquely predicts both the political action tendencies of members of disadvantaged groups and willingness to engage in solidarity-based action on behalf of such groups. Furthermore, we find some evidence that protest attitude is able to account for the effects of mobilization messages over a political issue; these messages increase political action tendencies by making attitude towards protest more positive. The results indicate that overall attitude toward protest reflects a wide array of affective, cognitive, and behavioral factors associated with protest that more specific, established predictors of collective political action do not tap. As such, general protest attitude offers an important addition to extant models of collective political action and efforts to examine the psychological processes underpinning political cognition and action.