Search

The present dissertation aimed to provide empirical grip on the conceptualization of hate across interpersonal and intergroup targets, by employing insights and methods from emotion research, social psychology, and political psychology. This general goal was addressed in three empirical chapters focused on: a) the unique features of hate, and how hate differs from other negative emotions (Chapter 2); b) the effects of threat perception on the development of hate and its association with aggressive behaviors (Chapter 3); and c) the influence of political worldviews on the development of hate over time (Chapter 4). The research program advanced in the present dissertation contributes to the scientific inquiry on feelings of hate. It provides empirical ground to the notion that hate is a unique feeling distinct from other negative emotions, deeply ingrained in perceived differences in core moral values and identity traits with its targets, and associated with aggressive behaviors intended to eliminate them physically or symbolically from one’s life.The present research also illustrates how the central themes of particular political worldviews match exceptionally well with core features of hate, promoting the rise of strong negative feelings among people and fostering social division and conflict. The present dissertation is not only intended to contribute to the growing field of empirical research on hate, but also to make a contribution to the reduction of human suffering and the promotion of more trusting and secure societies through a better understanding of the dynamics underlying the feelings of hate.

In order to deter burglars, we need to understand what deters them. Although targeting patterns, targeting characteristics, interviews and surveys have produced a valuable and consistent body of work, the most important limitations of these methods combined are the lack of observing actual behaviour and a lack of experimental research. The method that can bypass the problems associated with studying burglars is the use of virtual reality (VR). VR is a computer-generated environment, which is viewed in 3D. The goal of placing recipients in VR is to transform them into another world – a virtual environment that can be close to the real world or contain fictional elements – and have participants feel part of this virtual environment. With VR the context of any scene – including a burglars’ scouting process - can be simulated in a realistic way. VR offers new possibilities to face the practical and ethical challenges in burglary research and has contributed to understanding burglar decision-making while they are in the targeted houses. The burglar scouting process – the decision-making process in which a burglar appraises a neighbourhood and behaviour exhibited in the neighbourhood– has not received such attention in VR. Observing how burglars behave in virtual neighbourhoods while simultaneously being able to experimentally manipulate factors that could impact this scouting process will provide us with more insight into effective deterrence burglars. In particular for the factors of guardianship (both symbolic and physical) and personality, VR can offer possibilities to better understand their impact on the burglar scouting process. In the current dissertation, 181 burglars and 172 non-offenders were asked to scout two virtual neighbourhoods, in which in neighbourhood 1 symbolic guardianship (via the presence of a neighbourhood watch sign, a police sign, both signs or no sign was manipulated, and in neighbourhood 2 physical guardianship (via a absent, merely present, monitoring or intervening guardian) was manipulated. Participants were asked about their personality traits and burglary expertise. In respect to physical guardianship, the presence of a guardian deterred both burglars and non-offenders, in which there were only negligible incremental effects of guardianship. In line with the original notion of guardianship developed by Cohen and Felson (1979), guardians serve as a deterrent simply by being present. In respect to symbolic guardianship, it appears that symbolic guardianship via deterring neighbourhood watch or police signs seems to elicit only small effects in deterring burglars. Given the low cost and maintenance of these signs, however, we should not be quick to dismiss them as deterrent measures. As for personality and the association with the scouting process, personality traits (in particular honesty-humility, self-control and conscientiousness) appeared to be not only related to engaging in crime but are also associated with the burglar scouting process. This association is however contingent upon the (dysfunctional) expertise of burglars. With this work, it is as if we have been given a peek into the mind of the burglar. How neighbourhood residents deter him, signs meant to deter do not affect him as much and how his scouting process can be different due to his personality traits. This is only a small portion of all situational features and individual differences that influence the burglar scouting process and that VR can help uncover. In combination with well-established methods, VR is a valuable addition in burglary research when you want to observe how burglars behave and have control over what he is exposed to. There is still much more left to discover, replicate and extend. VR has its place in burglary research, offender research in general and that we can look forward to exciting studies in this field.

People do not always align what they do with what they say, and such misalignment is often condemned as hypocrisy (Alicke et al., 2013; Batson et al., 1997, 2002, 1999; Effron, O’Connor, et al., 2018; Jordan et al., 2017; Stone & Fernandez, 2008). Hypocrisy can be especially detrimental to others and collective goods when it comes to issues about right or wrong, and the relative balance of self- versus social interest (i.e., morality). One of the most striking cases of moral hypocrisy in contemporary human societies may be environmental protection. For instance, while more than 90% of the European citizens indicate that protecting the environment is important to them personally, merely one-third of them have regularly taken environmentally friendly actions like avoiding single-use plastic goods (Eurobarometer, 2019). Despite its prevalence and societal detriments, there is limited evidence on (a) why people behave hypocritically, and (b) how social others perceive and interact with moral hypocrites. Here, moral hypocrisy is defined as inconsistent behaviors that endow the actors with undeserved moral benefits (e.g., Batson et al., 1997, 2002, 1999; Effron & Miller, 2015; Effron, O’Connor, et al., 2018). Thus, the present dissertation aims to illuminate the behavioral regulatory mechanisms of moral hypocrisy at both (a) intrapersonal and (b) interpersonal levels. It is also expected to shed light on potential intervention schemes to promote actions of moral integrity in pivotal domains of social life including work ethics, politics, philanthropy, and sustainability. Specifically, the present dissertation contributes to the understanding of moral hypocrisy by answering four main research questions: (1) Do motives to self-enhance and feelings of moral superiority contribute to the emergence of hypocritical behavior? (2) Do cues of goal-attainment capacities (i.e., competence) influence judgments and attributions of word-deed misaligned transgressions? (3) Are groups motivated to engage in costly punishment to counteract the hypocritical exploitation of higher-status members? And (4) are groups adaptive to cultural dynamics of interdependence in their reactions of status holders’ misaligned words with deeds? Four tentative conclusions can be drawn from our empirical findings: (1) motives to self-enhance and feelings of moral superiority account for moral hypocrisy by prompting public but not private moral behavior; (2) high competence incurs harsher condemnations for word-deed inconsistency; (3) when high status builds on competence, third-party sanctions can be an effective mechanism to counteract status holders’ calculated inconsistencies; and (4) third-party evaluations of word-deed inconsistency differ depending on their cultural interdependence. Moral hypocrisy is a product of both impression management and self-enhancement, and can be appraised differently both depending on who enacts it and who evaluates it. As an initial attempt to address this important but understudied topic, our work is expected to stimulate future studies on mechanisms of moral hypocrisy and intervention programs of moral integrity.

12380

Voters are good at detecting phonies. A google search for “fake” and the name of a losing American presidential candidate the day after the election yielded cynical comments about his fake tan, his staged charity, his fictive heritage, his fraudulent polls, and his rigged voting machines. The winner did little better, but, on average, polled as more motivated to serve the interests of middle-class voters. The candidate–voter dynamic depends on politicians being trusted not to put their own self-interest (gaining and keeping power) over that of the voters who elect them. We argue here that trust is a critical – if not the critical – judgment that voters make. Every few years, voters evaluate candidates, and political leaders result. Much ink, many minutes, and even more bytes analyze elections both formally (political science) and informally (public media). But elections are about people, and social psychologists know a lot about people. We come to this project as social psychologists interested in how people make sense of individuals as group members and groups as society members. As we will show, politicians are acknowledged to be powerful, but are disliked and distrusted around the world. We argue that the politician-versus-citizen distrust depends on a failure of relational accountability, citizens’ lacking trust in politicians’ shared intentions. Politicians have a goal to get and maintain power, and voters have a goal to elect politicians who will represent their interests and adopt competent policies. Knowing for sure only that a candidate wants to win power, voters must infer whether the candidate genuinely cares about anything else, and, if so, represents their long-term shared interests. Apparently most politicians consistently fail on this dimension.