Search

Your search keyword '"Albina Gallyamova"' showing total 4 results
Start Over Author "Albina Gallyamova"
4 results on '"Albina Gallyamova"'

1. The International Climate Psychology Collaboration: Climate change-related data collected from 63 countries

Author

Kimberly C. Doell, Boryana Todorova, Madalina Vlasceanu, Joseph B. Bak Coleman, Ekaterina Pronizius, Philipp Schumann, Flavio Azevedo, Yash Patel, Michael M. Berkebile-Wineberg, Cameron Brick, Florian Lange, Samantha J. Grayson, Yifei Pei, Alek Chakroff, Karlijn L. van den Broek, Claus Lamm, Denisa Vlasceanu, Sara M. Constantino, Steve Rathje, Danielle Goldwert, Ke Fang, Salvatore Maria Aglioti, Mark Alfano, Andy J. Alvarado-Yepez, Angélica Andersen, Frederik Anseel, Matthew A. J. Apps, Chillar Asadli, Fonda Jane Awuor, Piero Basaglia, Jocelyn J. Bélanger, Sebastian Berger, Paul Bertin, Michał Białek, Olga Bialobrzeska, Michelle Blaya-Burgo, Daniëlle N. M. Bleize, Simen Bø, Lea Boecker, Paulo S. Boggio, Sylvie Borau, Björn Bos, Ayoub Bouguettaya, Markus Brauer, Tymofii Brik, Roman Briker, Tobias Brosch, Ondrej Buchel, Daniel Buonauro, Radhika Butalia, Héctor Carvacho, Sarah A. E. Chamberlain, Hang-Yee Chan, Dawn Chow, Dongil Chung, Luca Cian, Noa Cohen-Eick, Luis Sebastian Contreras-Huerta, Davide Contu, Vladimir Cristea, Jo Cutler, Silvana D’Ottone, Jonas De keersmaecker, Sarah Delcourt, Sylvain Delouvée, Kathi Diel, Benjamin D. Douglas, Moritz A. Drupp, Shreya Dubey, Jānis Ekmanis, Christian T. Elbaek, Mahmoud Elsherif, Iris M. Engelhard, Yannik A. Escher, Tom W. Etienne, Laura Farage, Ana Rita Farias, Stefan Feuerriegel, Andrej Findor, Lucia Freira, Malte Friese, Neil Philip Gains, Albina Gallyamova, Sandra J. Geiger, Oliver Genschow, Biljana Gjoneska, Theofilos Gkinopoulos, Beth Goldberg, Amit Goldenberg, Sarah Gradidge, Simone Grassini, Kurt Gray, Sonja Grelle, Siobhán M. Griffin, Lusine Grigoryan, Ani Grigoryan, Dmitry Grigoryev, June Gruber, Johnrev Guilaran, Britt Hadar, Ulf J. J. Hahnel, Eran Halperin, Annelie J. Harvey, Christian A. P. Haugestad, Aleksandra M. Herman, Hal E. Hershfield, Toshiyuki Himichi, Donald W. Hine, Wilhelm Hofmann, Lauren Howe, Enma T. Huaman-Chulluncuy, Guanxiong Huang, Tatsunori Ishii, Ayahito Ito, Fanli Jia, John T. Jost, Veljko Jovanović, Dominika Jurgiel, Ondřej Kácha, Reeta Kankaanpää, Jaroslaw Kantorowicz, Elena Kantorowicz-Reznichenko, Keren Kaplan Mintz, Ilker Kaya, Ozgur Kaya, Narine Khachatryan, Anna Klas, Colin Klein, Christian A. Klöckner, Lina Koppel, Alexandra I. Kosachenko, Emily J. Kothe, Ruth Krebs, Amy R. Krosch, Andre P. M. Krouwel, Yara Kyrychenko, Maria Lagomarsino, Julia Lee Cunningham, Jeffrey Lees, Tak Yan Leung, Neil Levy, Patricia L. Lockwood, Chiara Longoni, Alberto López Ortega, David D. Loschelder, Jackson G. Lu, Yu Luo, Joseph Luomba, Annika E. Lutz, Johann M. Majer, Ezra Markowitz, Abigail A. Marsh, Karen Louise Mascarenhas, Bwambale Mbilingi, Winfred Mbungu, Cillian McHugh, Marijn H. C. Meijers, Hugo Mercier, Fenant Laurent Mhagama, Katerina Michalaki, Nace Mikus, Sarah G. Milliron, Panagiotis Mitkidis, Fredy S. Monge-Rodríguez, Youri L. Mora, Michael J. Morais, David Moreau, Kosuke Motoki, Manuel Moyano, Mathilde Mus, Joaquin Navajas, Tam Luong Nguyen, Dung Minh Nguyen, Trieu Nguyen, Laura Niemi, Sari R. R. Nijssen, Gustav Nilsonne, Jonas P. Nitschke, Laila Nockur, Ritah Okura, Sezin Öner, Asil Ali Özdoğru, Helena Palumbo, Costas Panagopoulos, Maria Serena Panasiti, Philip Pärnamets, Mariola Paruzel-Czachura, Yuri G. Pavlov, César Payán-Gómez, Adam R. Pearson, Leonor Pereira da Costa, Hannes M. Petrowsky, Stefan Pfattheicher, Nhat Tan Pham, Vladimir Ponizovskiy, Clara Pretus, Gabriel G. Rêgo, Ritsaart Reimann, Shawn A. Rhoads, Julian Riano-Moreno, Isabell Richter, Jan Philipp Röer, Jahred Rosa-Sullivan, Robert M. Ross, Anandita Sabherwal, Toshiki Saito, Oriane Sarrasin, Nicolas Say, Katharina Schmid, Michael T. Schmitt, Philipp Schoenegger, Christin Scholz, Mariah G. Schug, Stefan Schulreich, Ganga Shreedhar, Eric Shuman, Smadar Sivan, Hallgeir Sjåstad, Meikel Soliman, Katia Soud, Tobia Spampatti, Gregg Sparkman, Ognen Spasovski, Samantha K. Stanley, Jessica A. Stern, Noel Strahm, Yasushi Suko, Sunhae Sul, Stylianos Syropoulos, Neil C. Taylor, Elisa Tedaldi, Gustav Tinghög, Luu Duc Toan Huynh, Giovanni Antonio Travaglino, Manos Tsakiris, İlayda Tüter, Michael Tyrala, Özden Melis Uluğ, Arkadiusz Urbanek, Danila Valko, Sander van der Linden, Kevin van Schie, Aart van Stekelenburg, Edmunds Vanags, Daniel Västfjäll, Stepan Vesely, Jáchym Vintr, Marek Vranka, Patrick Otuo Wanguche, Robb Willer, Adrian Dominik Wojcik, Rachel Xu, Anjali Yadav, Magdalena Zawisza, Xian Zhao, Jiaying Zhao, Dawid Żuk, and Jay J. Van Bavel

Subjects
Science
Abstract

Abstract Climate change is currently one of humanity’s greatest threats. To help scholars understand the psychology of climate change, we conducted an online quasi-experimental survey on 59,508 participants from 63 countries (collected between July 2022 and July 2023). In a between-subjects design, we tested 11 interventions designed to promote climate change mitigation across four outcomes: climate change belief, support for climate policies, willingness to share information on social media, and performance on an effortful pro-environmental behavioural task. Participants also reported their demographic information (e.g., age, gender) and several other independent variables (e.g., political orientation, perceptions about the scientific consensus). In the no-intervention control group, we also measured important additional variables, such as environmentalist identity and trust in climate science. We report the collaboration procedure, study design, raw and cleaned data, all survey materials, relevant analysis scripts, and data visualisations. This dataset can be used to further the understanding of psychological, demographic, and national-level factors related to individual-level climate action and how these differ across countries.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Collective action against corruption in Western and non-Western countries: cross-cultural implications of the Axiological-Identitary Collective Action Model

Author

Dmitry Grigoryev, Albina Gallyamova, Lucian Gideon Conway, Alivia Zubrod, José Manuel Sabucedo, Marcos Dono, Anastasia Batkhina, and Klaus Boehnke

Subjects
collective action, system justification, perceived efficacy, national identification, moral obligation, protest against political corruption, Psychology, BF1-990
Abstract

People sometimes protest government corruption, yet our current understanding of why they do so is culturally constrained. Can we separate pancultural factors influencing people’s willingness to protest government corruption from factors culturally specific to each socioecological context? Surprisingly little cross-cultural data exist on this important question. To fill this gap, we performed a cross-cultural test of the Axiological-Identitary Collective Action Model (AICAM) regarding the intention to protest against corruption. As a collective action framework, AICAM integrates three classical antecedents of collective action (injustice, efficacy, identity) with axiological variables (ideology and morality). A total sample of 2,316 participants from six countries (Nigeria, Russia, India, Spain, United States, Germany) in a multilevel analysis of AICAM predictions showed that the positive relationship of the intention to protest corruption with moral obligation, system-based anger, and national identification can be considered pancultural. In contrast, the relationships between system justification and perceived efficacy are culturally specific. System justification negatively predicted the intention to participate only in countries with high levels of wealth, while perceived efficacy positively predicted it only in countries perceived as less corrupt. These findings highlight the importance of accounting features of socioecology and separating pancultural from culture-specific effects in understanding collective action.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Education and Revolutionary Destabilization Risks: A Quantitative Analysis

Author

Vadim Ustyuzhanin, Yana Stepanishcheva, Albina Gallyamova, Leonid Grinin, and Andrey Korotayev

Subjects
Cultural Studies, Philosophy, Sociology and Political Science, General Social Sciences
Abstract

There is a significant number of theoretical studies linking education and socio-political destabilization. At the same time, there is an almost complete absence of global quantitative cross-national studies analyzing the impact of education on the risks of revolutionary uprisings. This research is aimed to fill the existing gap. The existing literature shows that education contributes to the accumulation of human capital, develops a culture of discussion and tolerance, and makes people more susceptible to liberal democratic values. On the one hand, these factors raise the population’s expectations of and demands on the authorities. On the other hand, they increase the relative costs of participating in any type of demonstrations. In this regard, it is hypothesized that formal education enrollment: (1) will reduce the likelihood of armed revolutionary campaigns, which are associated with greater risks and uncertainty for participants, but (2) will be curvilinearly correlated to the risks of unarmed campaigns, since in the early and active stages of modernization there will be a positive relationship, while in the most developed countries it will be negative. Accordingly, it follows that education in general is negatively associated with any revolutionary actions. The analysis uses 10,350 observations (with 387 revolutionary events) from 1950 to 2019, based on extended-release NAVCO data and a combination of the Barro and Lee Education Research Project with information from the UNDP (with cross-validation on the basis of the authors’ own database). The main research methods were cross-tabulation and correlation-regression analyses with the construction of probability functions.

Published
2023

4. A Worldwide Test of the Predictive Validity of Ideal Partner Preference-Matching

Author

Paul Wolfe Eastwick, Jehan Sparks, Eli Finkel, Eva Meza, Matus Adamkovic, Peter Adu, Ting Ai, Aderonke A. Akintola, Laith Al-Shawaf, Denisa Apriliawati, Patrícia Arriaga, Benjamin Aubert-Teillaud, Gabriel Baník, Krystian Barzykowski, Carlota Batres, Katherine Baucom, Elizabeth Z. Beaulieu, Maciej Behnke, Natalie Butcher, Deborah Yazhini Charles, Jane M. Chen, Jeong Eun Cheon, Phakkanun Chittham, Patrycja Chwiłkowska, Chin Wen Cong, Lee Copping, Nadia Saraí Corral-Frías, Vera Cubela Adoric, Hongfei Du, Michael Ibukun Ehinmowo, Daniela A. Escribano, Natalia Espinosa, Francisca Expósito, Gilad Feldman, Raquel Meister Ko. Freitag, Martha Frias-Armenta, Albina Gallyamova, Omri Gillath, Biljana Gjoneska, Theofilos Gkinopoulos, Dmitry Grigoryev, Agata Groyecka-Bernard, Gul Gunaydin, Ruby D. Ilustrisimo, Emily Impett, Peder Mortvedt Isager, Pavol Kačmár, Young Hoon Kim, Mirosław Kocur, Marta Kowal, Maatangi Krishna, Paul Danielle Labor, Jackson G. Lu, Marc Yancy Lucas, Wojciech W. Małecki, Klara Malinakova, Zdenek Meier, Michał Misiak, Amy Muise, Erita Narhetali, Dyna Nguyen, Lukas Novák, Asil Ali Özdoğru, Haeyoung Gideon Park, Mariola Paruzel-Czachura, Zoran Pavlović, Marcell Püski, Gianni Ribeiro, S. Craig Roberts, Jan Philipp Röer, Ivan Ropovik, Robert M Ross, Ezgi Sakman, Cristina Salvador, Emre Selcuk, Shayna Skakoon-Sparling, Agnieszka Sorokowska, Piotr Sorokowski, Ognen Spasovski, Sarah C. E. Stanton, Suzanne Stewart, Viren Swami, Barnabas Szaszi, Kaito Takashima, Petr Tavel, Julian Tejada, Eric Tu, Jarno Tuominen, David C. Vaidis, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Laura Villanueva-Moya, Dian Wisnuwardhani, Yuki Yamada, Fumiya Yonemitsu, Radka Zidkova, Kristýna Živná, and Nicholas Alvaro Coles

Abstract

Ideal partner preferences (i.e., ratings of the desirability of attributes like attractiveness or intelligence) are the source of numerous foundational findings in the interdisciplinary literature on human mating. Recently, research on the predictive validity of ideal partner preference-matching (i.e., do people positively evaluate partners who match versus mismatch their ideals?) has become mired in several problems. For one, articles exhibit discrepant analytic and reporting practices. Furthermore, different findings emerge across laboratories worldwide, perhaps because they sample different relationship contexts and/or populations. The current project—partnered with the Psychological Science Accelerator—can bring clarity to this literature. This registered report uses a highly powered design across multiple world regions to calculate preference-matching effect sizes and variability estimates for all relevant analytic tests. It also examines effects in different relationship contexts and subsamples (e.g., attraction, established relationships, recently formed relationships).

Published
2023

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results