Search

Scholars and policy‐makers are increasingly concerned with the detrimental effects of conspiracy theories. Yet, it remains unclear whether conspiracy beliefs actually pose a threat to democracy by rendering people less supportive of democratic governance. Three studies suggest that conspiracy theories may incite support for autocratic regimes. A first nationally representative sample (Greece, N = 492), established a link between conspiracy beliefs and rejection of democracy and the political status quo. Study 2 extended these findings (Greece, N = 264) by showing that conspiracy beliefs are positively related to support for autocracy, while feelings of political powerlessness (but not cynicism) partly mediate this relationship. Study 3 (USA, N = 300, pre‐registered) directly tested whether perceptions of conspiracies enhance support for autocratic rule. Results revealed that the perceived presence of conspiracies increased support for autocracy, partly due to feelings of political powerlessness. These studies are the first ones to establish empirically that conspiracy theories may increase support for autocracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immigration is a worldwide subject of interest, and studies about attitudes toward immigrants have been frequent due to immigration crises in different locations across the globe. We aimed at understanding individual‐level effects of human values and ideological beliefs (Right‐Wing Authoritarianism—RWA, and Social Dominance Orientation—SDO) on attitudes toward immigrants, and whether country‐level variables (perception of Islamic fundamentalism as a threat, perception of immigrants as a threat, and international migrant stock) moderate these relations. With representative samples from 20 countries (N = 21,362; the Americas, Europe, Asia, and Oceania), and using Multilevel Bayesian regressions, results showed the negative effect of RWA, SDO, and existence values on attitudes toward immigrants, and the positive effects of suprapersonal and interactive values. Cross‐level interactions indicated that the effects of RWA, SDO, and suprapersonal and existence values were intensified in countries with societally high levels of perceiving Islamic fundamentalism as a threat. International migrant stock served as a country‐level moderator for the effects of SDO and RWA only. When country‐level moderators were included simultaneously, Islamic fundamentalism as a threat was the most consistent moderator. Framing theory is offered as a plausible explanation of these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Moral Foundations Theory proposes five intuition‐based moral concerns: Care and Fairness ("individualizing foundations") as well as Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity ("binding foundations"). In studies carried out in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the authors examined how these concerns are associated with the acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression (AMMSA), and how both jointly predict rape victim blaming. Overall, victim blaming was positively predicted by Authority and Sanctity, and negatively predicted by Care and Fairness. Although victim blaming was best predicted by AMMSA, moral concerns also contributed to its prediction, partly independently, partly mediated through AMMSA, and in the case of Sanctity in interaction with AMMSA. Discussion highlights how integrating moral foundations in the investigation of victim blaming and AMMSA across different cultural contexts may deepen our understanding of why, in each cultural context, victim blaming and related beliefs are resistant to change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using data from the Austrian National Election Study (Study 1) and the American National Election Study (Study 2), this research investigated the role of right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) in shaping attitudes toward governmental action related to the redistribution of wealth. We show that RWA is a relevant variable in explaining attitudes toward redistribution policies, and that the association between RWA and redistribution attitudes is moderated by political sophistication. RWA was associated with opposition to redistribution policies among individuals high in political sophistication, while among individuals low in political sophistication, RWA was either associated with support for redistribution policies (Study 1) or unrelated to redistribution attitudes (Study 2). Results suggest that exposure to the political discourse in a society affects how psychological needs and motives are related to preferences regarding the redistribution of wealth through the government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stronger beliefs in human supremacy over animals, and stronger perceived threat posed by vegetarianism to traditional practices, are associated with stronger speciesism and more meat consumption. Both variables might also be implicated in the moral exclusion of animals. We tested this potential in a 16‐month longitudinal study in the USA (N = 219). Human supremacy showed longitudinal effects on the moral exclusion of all animals. Vegetarianism threat only predicted moral exclusion of food animals (e.g., cows and pigs), and, unexpectedly, appealing wild animals (e.g., chimps and dolphins). These findings demonstrate the importance of both human supremacy and perceived threat in explaining moral exclusion of animals and highlight potential paradoxical negative consequences of the rise of vegetarianism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using data from a longitudinal study of American adults collected between July and November 2016, we examine the hypothesis that American collective narcissism (CN) would uniquely predict increases in conspiracy thinking during the 2016 presidential campaign. Going beyond previous findings, our results indicate that CN (but not in‐group identification) predicted growth in general conspiracy thinking—that is, a tendency to view political events in terms of group‐based conspiracies—over the course of the 2016 US presidential campaign. This relationship is found even after accounting for other predictors such as demographics, political knowledge, social trust, authoritarianism, and need for cognitive closure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In two quasi-experimental vignette studies, we have analyzed how societal threat to safety moderates the relation between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and psychological distress. In Study 1 (Italian community sample, N = 343), we focused on depressive symptoms (measured with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale and the General Health Questionnaire). Two moderated regressions showed that the relation between RWA and both measures of depressive symptoms was positive and significant only among people exposed to a socially threatening scenario. In Study 2 (Italian student sample, N = 219), we focused on state anxiety and replicated Study 1's results. The findings indicated that, in conditions of societal threat to safety, RWA is a risk factor for psychological distress. Strengths, limitations, and possible developments of this research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study investigated the role of authoritarianism in the association between the actual proportion of ethnic minorities (objective diversity) within a neighborhood and majority members' subjective perception thereof (perceived diversity). Additionally, we tested how authoritarianism affects the direct and indirect relationships between objective diversity and outgroup threat, anxiety, and mistrust. Analyses in a nationally stratified sample of Dutch citizens ( N = 848) without migration background from 706 different neighborhoods showed that higher levels of authoritarianism have a dual effect on the relationship between objective diversity and negativity towards outgroups. In particular, authoritarianism (i) boosts the indirect relationship between objective diversity and greater outgroup negativity through perceived diversity, and (ii) curbs the direct association of objective diversity with reduced outgroup negativity. These findings shed light on how majority members with different levels of authoritarianism differentially perceive diversity in their neighborhood, and how this relates to their responses to ethnic minorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dozens of studies have shown that authoritarian people are ethnocentric. They are described as nationalistic, prejudiced, and hostile toward ethnic/national out-groups. However, it can be argued that this critical claim remains unproven, as researchers do not take into consideration the very conservative right-wing views typical of authoritarian people. To address this problem, two theoretical approaches were contrasted: the most commonly used right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) approach and the group authoritarianism approach. Both approaches define authoritarianism as the covariance of submission, aggression, and conventionalism, but they differ in that the former is inextricably related to right-wing ideology while the latter is not. This paper presents the results of two survey studies conducted on samples of 600 and 400 respondents. In Study 1, it was found that RWA and group authoritarianism had different patterns of relationships with in-group and out-group national attitudes, providing strong evidence in support of the hypothesis that the right-wing ideology generated ethnocentric national attitudes. Study 2 showed a strong direct effect of right-wing ideology on ethnocentric national attitudes, while the impact of 'pure' authoritarian covariance is marginal and sometimes even seems to be negative (e.g., ethnic prejudices). These findings suggest that authoritarianism has little to do with ethnocentric national attitudes. It is not the covariance of authoritarian attitudes that results in growing ethnocentrism. The true perpetrator can be found in the large component of right-wing ideology contained in such measurement instruments as the RWA scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social issues are important dividing lines in the "culture wars" between the political left and right. Despite much research into social issue stance and ideology, little research has explored these with Relational Models Theory (RMT). RMT proposes four distinct models that people use to construe social relations, each entailing distinct moral considerations. In two studies, participants read summaries of the models, rated how relevant each was to their positions on several social issues (e.g., capital punishment), and expressed issue positions. In Study 1, Communal Sharing and Equality Matching construals predicted prototypical liberal positions across a range of issues; Authority Ranking and Market Pricing construals predicted prototypical conservative positions. By using multilevel modelling in Study 2, individual differences in average Communal Sharing and Authority Ranking construals predicted prototypical liberal and conservative positions, respectively, independent of several factors known to predict social issue stance. In issue-specific analyses (e.g., focusing on euthanasia), all models showed effects independent of self-reported ideology, while for certain issues (same-sex marriage, animal testing, gun control, and flag burning), issue construal using different models predicted opposing positions, implicating relational models in moral disagreement. This paper provides novel tests of Relationship Regulation Theory and suggests that RMT is relevant in understanding political ideology, social issue stance, and moral judgement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two studies examined the moderating effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on the relationship between terrorist images (soldiers versus criminals) and preference for counterterrorist actions (military aggression versus criminal prosecution). Study 1 indicated that the perception of Al-Qaeda terrorists as soldiers was related to preference for military counterterrorism, especially among people high in social dominance orientation. The relationship between the perception of Al-Qaeda terrorists as criminals and preference for the criminal prosecution of terrorists was strengthened among those high in right wing authoritarianism. Study 2 showed that when terrorists were framed as soldiers, social dominance orientation was related to support for military counterterrorism. When terrorists were framed as criminals, only people who endorsed high levels of right wing authoritarianism supported criminal prosecution of terrorists. Social dominance orientation was related to opposition towards military counterterrorism when terrorists were not perceived as soldiers or framed as criminals. It was also related to opposition towards criminal prosecution of terrorists when terrorists were framed as criminals. The findings suggest that different terrorist images are related to preference for counterterrorism that corresponds with the content of the images and individuals' chronic ideological orientations. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present article we build on previous work suggesting that people react more strongly to the favorability of outgroup authority allocations than ingroup authority allocations. Based on theorizing and research on intergroup perception and self-categorization, we refine this argument by suggesting that responses to outgroup authorities depend on people's level of ingroup identification. We present data from an experiment showing that the favorability of treatment by an outgroup member primarily influences decision acceptance among high (vs. low) ingroup identifiers. In line with theory and research based on the relational model of authority, findings of the present study also suggest that ingroup identification has a reversed effect on acceptance of an ingroup authority's decisions. Specifically, the favorability of treatment by an ingroup member primarily influences decision acceptance among low (vs. high) ingroup identifiers. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is popularly believed that powerful people enjoy a nearly-absolute lack of constraints, and that powerless people suffer under overwhelming constraints; in fact, such differences largely define the social categories of ‘powerful person’ and ‘powerless person.’ This association of power-related social categories and constraint constitutes a stereotype that may lead perceivers to overlook other, more diagnostic information when explaining others' behavior. As a result, the actions of powerholders may tend to be seen as dispositionally motivated and those of the powerless as situationally motivated. This should occur because of both real differences in constraint, and bias in the failure to account for other, more diagnostic information about constraint. Two studies support these predictions. In Study 1, participants judged powerless workers as more situationally motivated, especially under coercion, than both controls and powerholders, who were judged as more dispositional. In Study 2, given more fine-grained information about constraints and power, participants' attributions reflected both accurate use of this information and bias. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It has often been proposed that people are intrinsically motivated to gain or increase power over others. We argue that theoretical underpinnings of such a claim are lacking. Moreover, empirical support for this claim is more convincingly explained by strivings to increase one's sense of agency (personal power) by decreasing dependence on others, rather than by strivings to increase power over others (social power). In two experiments, we directly tested the explanatory value of the personal power concept. In Experiment 1, participants performed a decision-making task, together with a (simulated) other person. The power of the two persons over each other was manipulated orthogonally by varying the control they had over each other's decisions. As expected, the participants mostly increased their personal power, by decreasing their dependence on the other person's power. They did not increase their social power but even decreased it when they were very superior themselves. Comparable findings were obtained in Experiment 2, in which participants interacted with another person whose decisions conflicted with those made by the participant. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explores the effects of power, positional threat, and expectancies on interactions between powerholders and subordinates. Two hundred and forty-two participants were randomly assigned to power role (boss or employee). Bosses were further randomly assigned to levels of positional threat (power role secure or insecure) and expectancy regarding subordinates' problem-solving ability (negative or positive). Evidence for a self-fulfilling prophecy was obtained, such that dyads where bosses held negative expectancies of their subordinates rated the subordinate and experience most negatively and awarded less potential prize money to the subordinates. Expectancy interacted with positional threat in a consistent manner such that the most negative effects were obtained for dyads where bosses were both positionally threatened and held negative expectancies of subordinates. Implications for theories of power are discussed. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing inferences about other people's thoughts and feelings related to power issues (‘power-relevant’ thoughts and feelings) can affect how hierarchies are formed. Perceivers who infer such thoughts and feelings can be biased (i.e., over- or underestimating the occurrence of power-relevant thoughts and feelings). We investigated whether the perceiver's gender and the perceiver's preference for a high or low power position (‘power preference’) affects the perceiver's bias toward attributing power-relevant thoughts and feelings to others. Participants were 80 female and 35 male students who indicated their power preference and then guessed whether videotaped target individuals had experienced power-relevant thoughts and feelings or not. Using a signal detection approach, we found that men who preferred a high power position overestimated the occurrence of power-relevant thoughts and feelings in others more than men who preferred a low power position. No such difference in overestimation bias was found for women. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present article, we discuss and compare recent theoretical and empirical contributions to the growing body of research on social power. In the last decade, five different theories on power have been proposed. These theories can be distinguished according to whether they focus on intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup or ideological processes. Our analysis leads us to claim that future theoretical contributions would have much to gain by addressing the issue of social power on multiple levels of analysis. The recent empirical work on social power suggests that powerful individuals and members of powerful groups differ from powerless individuals and members of powerless groups with regard to (a) how they perceive and judge others, (b) how they are evaluated as targets, and (c) how they behave. Those who have power perceive others more stereotypically and judge them more negatively. They also tend to take action more frequently and generally behave in a more variable manner. This difference in objective variability is further reinforced by perceivers' tendency to exaggerate the variability of high power groups. The latter two effects contribute to the phenomenon that high power groups are less often the target of stereotypes than low power groups. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Past research suggests that reactions to an authority's decision are most influenced by treatment quality when individuals value their relationship with the authority and the group s/he represents. The present experiments examine how institutional recognition of self-relevant identities (implicit in Study 1 and explicit in Study 2) affects the relationship between treatment quality and reactions to the delivery of a negative outcome by an outgroup authority. The overall pattern of results suggests that treatment quality affects reactions to the decision only when the common identity shared with the authority and a subgroup identity that distinguishes one from the authority are both recognized. Possible mechanisms for the observed effect are discussed along with implications for the dual identity approach to conflict resolution. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new theory of power is presented using the concept of symmetry breakdown in small and large groups. Power appears to result from the building up of conflicts within the group. Introduction and support of these conflicts requires an internal organization of the group. The organization-associated complexity is a decreasing function of group size. Thus small groups have more difficulties in generating internal conflicts than large ones. This group dynamic is characterized by two states which are different in their nature. The group is first built within the paradigmatic state aimed to determine and reproduce group conformity. The group challenge is then to reach the transitional state which enriches the group possibilities through the inclusion and stabilization of internal conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two contrasting notions concerning upward power tendencies within hierarchically structured groups are investigated. Power Distance Theory assumes that people have a desire for power that results in a tendency to reduce the power distance towards a more powerful other, and this tendency is assumed to be stronger the smaller the power distance. The bureaucratic rule implies that a vacant position may only be taken over by someone from the level immediately below the vacant position. In Experiment 1, power distance from the top position of a hierarchy was manipulated by assigning 120 subjects to a higher or a lower position in a power hierarchy. Results showed that only the motivation derived from the bureaucratic rule (i.e. entitlement) mediated the relationship between power distance and upward tendencies. In Experiment 2, a more pertinent test of the two theoretical notions was performed by assigning 139 subjects to one of three positions. The main results were consistent with the bureaucratic rule: (1) subjects immediately below the top position showed a stronger upward tendency towards this position than subjects in the two lower positions, whereas no differences were found between subjects in these two lower positions; (2) again only entitlement mediated the relationship between power distance and upward tendencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a resource management game we investigated how regular group members respond to a leader who promotes group success or fails to do so, while operating in a predictable or totally unpredictable environment. The subjects (N = 110) were confronted with a bogus leader who purportedly took decisions on behalf of the whole group. Performance of the leader and Predictability of the environment were manipulated by means of a 2 × 2 factorial design. As predicted, a failing leader received weaker endorsement than a successful leader (Performance main effect). The Performance × Predictability interaction effect was ascribed to two circumstances: (a) As predicted by the attributional approach of leadership (Calder, 1977; Pfeffer, 1977), endorsement of a successful leader was weaker in the Unpredictable than in the Predictable environment. However, (b) endorsement of a failing leader was not significantly weaker in the Predictable than in the Unpredictable environment. Additional data showed that regular group members' attributions played a mediating role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of European Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents results which, though being in general agreement with specified hypothesis, did not support the author's general interpretative scheme behind expectations formulated in terms of a psychological distance hypothesis. According to this hypothesis maximum behaviour modeling would occur at an optimal psychological distance and the experimental effect should be due to lessening the psychological distance between the competent model and the subjects, this lessening of distance resulting in turn in optical conditions for imitation.

Abstract: This research examined how leader illegitimacy affects leaders' and subordinates' responses to relinquishing power decisions. The processes underlying responses to leader illegitimacy and relinquishing power were also examined. Across four studies, participants were placed in leader roles (Studies 1a/1b) or subordinate roles (Studies 2a/2b) in an online competition. In Studies 1a/1b, participants assigned a leadership role learned, via a leadership skills test, that their leadership was illegitimate or legitimate. By contrast, in Studies 2a/2b, participants assigned a subordinate role were confronted with either an illegitimate leader who retained their power after performing poorly or a legitimate leader who received the leader role after a poor‐performing leader had relinquished their power. Results demonstrated that leaders who felt they did not belong in their leadership role relinquished more power when their leadership was illegitimate (vs. legitimate) and subordinates who felt less in control and greater anger supported illegitimate (vs. legitimate) leaders less. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]