Suchergebnisse

Why People Radicalize provides an in-depth analysis of how perceptions of unfairness can lead individuals and groups to develop radical convictions and sympathy for extremism and terrorism. Accessible for scientists, professionals, and practitioners, the book explains how uncertainty and insufficient self-corrections influence this process.

This article reviews the relationship between people's perceptions of unfairness and their tendencies to think, feel, and act in radicalizing ways. Various theories of radicalization processes are reviewed that examine key aspects of the psychology of perceived unfairness. The review shows that experienced group deprivation and perceived immorality are among the core judgments that can drive Muslim radicalization, right-wing radicalization, and leftwing radicalization. Symbols of injustice, the legitimization of revolutionary thought, and the experience of unfair treatment can also increase radicalization. The review also examines core moderators (e.g., uncertainty and insufficient self-correction) and mediators (e.g., externally oriented emotions) of the linkage between perceived unfairness and core components of radicalization (e.g., rigidity of thoughts, hot-cognitive defense of cultural worldviews, and violent rejection of democratic principles and the rule of law). The review discusses how the study of unfairness and radicalization contributes to a robust and meaningful science of psychology.

Reactions toward innocent victims can range from harsh derogatory reactions to great effort to alleviate the victims' ill fates. Using insights from research on just-world theory and perspective taking, the current paper investigates both negative and positive reactions toward innocent victims. Specifically, we propose that self-focused versus other-focused motives can evoke derogatory versus more benevolent reactions, respectively, toward innocent victims. By manipulating self-focus versus other-focus, we indeed show in two studies that a self-focus enhanced indirect victim blaming and derogation and decreased helping of innocent victims. Furthermore, when participants were focused on another person these effects attenuated. Taken together, these findings extend previous studies on just-world theory and show that both blaming and helping can be viable strategies to deal with unjust situations.

Acting on one's moral principles is not always easy. Upholding one's moral beliefs may run counter to one's social environment or situational demands. It may often cause people to remain silent on their convictions, while at the same time some may show the moral courage to speak out. How do people evaluate those who do stand up, and how does it affect their self-evaluations? In two experimental studies (Ns = 207 and 204), we investigated both types of evaluations. The studies demonstrate that people who failed to uphold their moral beliefs still had positive evaluations of others who showed moral courage. More specifically, pro-gay participants who went along with writing an anti-gay essay denouncing equal rights for sexual minorities had positive evaluations of another person who spoke up and refused this task. The failure to display moral courage had negative consequences for participants' self-concepts. In Experiment 1, we show that pro-gay participants' positive self-concepts were lowered after writing an anti-gay essay (vs. a pro-gay essay). In Experiment 2, we reveal that participants' positive self-concepts were lowered only when they were confronted with morally courageous behavior and their own failure to uphold their moral beliefs was visible to the experimenter.

Radicalization and violent extremism leading to violent protests, repression, and terrorist attacks constitute important issues in our world. Social psychological group processes and intergroup dynamics play a key role in creating resilience against or facilitating the path towards violent extremism. The present body of work brings together and furthers our understanding of these factors by integrating insights from other fields, most centrally political science. In this introductory article, we summarize the state of the literature and suggest a social psychological research agenda for studying radicalization and violent extremism. This agenda (a) focuses on how the radicalization process commences and festers in ordinary people; (b) is ambitious in bringing research into the real world with protesters, the repressed, and groups engaged in conflict; (c) is pragmatic in measuring outcomes of interest; and (d) applies field experimental methodology, among other methodologies. With this perspective, we argue, social psychology is ideally positioned for a new decade of impactful research into radicalization and violent extremism.

Abstract Evidence of gender differences in reactions to experienced fair and unfair treatment in relationship conflict was examined in 4 studies among dating, cohabiting, and married participants in The Netherlands. Using a critical incidents method and a scenario, this research provided convergent results suggesting that the relationship between fairness of treatment and affective feelings or relationship satisfaction is stronger for women than for men. This gender difference disappeared under conditions of high relationship commitment. Furthermore, men who identified strongly with their relationship showed stronger reactions to fair treatment than men who identified weakly with their relationships. Finally, the manipulation of relationship salience led to heightened sensitivity to fairness of treatment among men, but not among women.

This paper examines several hundred cases in which citizens were contacted in an 'informal' way by public officials as part of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' Fair Tracks project. In Fair Tracks, public officials engage in direct and interpersonal conversations with citizens when the officials are about to make a negative decision or upon receiving citizens' complaints or objections against government decisions. Public officials typically do so by phone and the purpose of the open communication that follows is to discuss together what the problem is and how the citizen's problem can best be handled. The current paper presents empirical evidence suggesting that why Fair Tracks works is because it activates perceived procedural justice. For example, when citizens felt they had been treated respectfully and politely by public officials and when they could voice their opinions to the public officials this led to a reliable perception of procedural justice. Furthermore, higher levels of perceived procedural justice were associated with more satisfaction about the outcome reached during the conversation with the public officials, more trust in mutual compliance with the outcome, more trust in government, and higher levels of conflict resolution. Implications and limitations are discussed.

This paper examines several hundred cases in which citizens were contacted in an 'informal' way by public officials as part of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' Fair Tracks project. In Fair Tracks, public officials engage in direct and interpersonal conversations with citizens when the officials are about to make a negative decision or upon receiving citizens' complaints or objections against government decisions. Public officials typically do so by phone and the purpose of the open communication that follows is to discuss together what the problem is and how the citizen's problem can best be handled. The current paper presents empirical evidence suggesting that why Fair Tracks works is because it activates perceived procedural justice. For example, when citizens felt they had been treated respectfully and politely by public officials and when they could voice their opinions to the public officials this led to a reliable perception of procedural justice. Furthermore, higher levels of perceived procedural justice were associated with more satisfaction about the outcome reached during the conversation with the public officials, more trust in mutual compliance with the outcome, more trust in government, and higher levels of conflict resolution. Implications and limitations are discussed.

This paper examines several hundred cases in which citizens were contacted in an 'informal' way by public officials as part of the Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations' Fair Tracks project. In Fair Tracks, public officials engage in direct and interpersonal conversations with citizens when the officials are about to make a negative decision or upon receiving citizens' complaints or objections against government decisions. Public officials typically do so by phone and the purpose of the open communication that follows is to discuss together what the problem is and how the citizen's problem can best be handled. The current paper presents empirical evidence suggesting that why Fair Tracks works is because it activates perceived procedural justice. For example, when citizens felt they had been treated respectfully and politely by public officials and when they could voice their opinions to the public officials this led to a reliable perception of procedural justice. Furthermore, higher levels of perceived procedural justice were associated with more satisfaction about the outcome reached during the conversation with the public officials, more trust in mutual compliance with the outcome, more trust in government, and higher levels of conflict resolution. Implications and limitations are discussed.