Suchergebnisse

This research was aimed at examining just-world beliefs, system justification, authoritarianism, and cognitive style in a nationally representative sample (N = 1000) in Hungary, and at relating these phenomena to various demographic and political variables to find out whether the findings in Hungary would differ from its Western counterparts. According to system justification theory, there is a psychological motive to defend and justify the status quo. This theory has been tested several times in North American and Western European samples. The core finding of our study was that Hungarian people, unlike people in Western democracies, did not justify the existing establishment. There was strong pessimism with regard to the idea that the system serves the interests of the people. Members of disadvantaged groups (people with low economic income and/or far right political preference) strongly rejected the system. System justification beliefs were moderately related to just world beliefs, and there was a significant relationship between some aspects of need for closure (need for order, discomfort with ambiguity, and closed-mindedness) and authoritarian beliefs. Need for cognition was only related to one aspect of need for closure: closed-mindedness. The voters of right-wing parties did not display higher levels of authoritarianism than the voters of the left social-democrat party. The role of demographic and political variables, limitations, and possible developments of this research are discussed. ; peerReviewed ; publishedVersion

This research was aimed at examining just-world beliefs, system justification, authoritarianism, and cognitive style in a nationally representative sample (N = 1000) in Hungary, and at relating these phenomena to various demographic and political variables to find out whether the findings in Hungary would differ from its Western counterparts. According to system justification theory, there is a psychological motive to defend and justify the status quo. This theory has been tested several times in North American and Western European samples. The core finding of our study was that Hungarian people, unlike people in Western democracies, did not justify the existing establishment. There was strong pessimism with regard to the idea that the system serves the interests of the people. Members of disadvantaged groups (people with low economic income and/or far right political preference) strongly rejected the system. System justification beliefs were moderately related to just world beliefs, and there was a significant relationship between some aspects of need for closure (need for order, discomfort with ambiguity, and closed-mindedness) and authoritarian beliefs. Need for cognition was only related to one aspect of need for closure: closed-mindedness. The voters of right-wing parties did not display higher levels of authoritarianism than the voters of the left social-democrat party. The role of demographic and political variables, limitations, and possible developments of this research are discussed.

The universality versus culture specificity of quantitative evaluations (negative-positive) of 40 events in world history was addressed using World History Survey data collected from 5,800 university students in 30 countries/societies. Multidimensional scaling using generalized procrustean analysis indicated poor fit of data from the 30 countries to an overall mean configuration, indicating lack of universal agreement as to the associational meaning of events in world history. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified one Western and two non-Western country clusters for which adequate multidimensional fit was obtained after item deletions. A two-dimensional solution for the three country clusters was identified, where the primary dimension was historical calamities versus progress and a weak second dimension was modernity versus resistance to modernity. Factor analysis further reduced the item inventory to identify a single concept with structural equivalence across cultures, Historical Calamities, which included man-made and natural, intentional and unintentional, predominantly violent but also nonviolent calamities. Less robust factors were tentatively named as Historical Progress and Historical Resistance to Oppression. Historical Calamities and Historical Progress were at the individual level both significant and independent predictors of willingness to fight for one's country in a hierarchical linear model that also identified significant country-level variation in these relationships. Consensus around calamity but disagreement as to what constitutes historical progress is discussed in relation to the political culture of nations and lay perceptions of history as ...