Search

Concerns about threats to politicians have been growing. But what is the public's view of abuse and intimidation directed at MPs? Sarah Shair-Rosenfield, Robert Johns, Reed M. Wood, and Graeme A.M. Davies report on new research that found some surprisingly upbeat results.Professor of Politics at the University of York.Professor of Politics at the University of Southampton.Professor of International Relations at the University of Essex.Professor of Politics at the University of York. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Health Psychology is the property of American Psychological Association 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.)

Government restrictions intended to mitigate the spread of COVID-19—such as "lockdowns," mask mandates, and vaccine passports—produced intense resentment among some groups and led to resistance, defiance, and social unrest in many countries. To better understand the roots of this opposition, we examine the role of dispositional authoritarianism as a psychological motivator of participation in anti-restriction protests and support for the groups that engaged in such actions. Because obedience to authority is commonly identified as a core feature of authoritarianism, existing studies have suggested authoritarians should be more likely to endorse pandemic restrictions and oppose anti-government dissent. However, we propose the alternative hypothesis: individuals with authoritarian dispositions are more likely to oppose pandemic restrictions and more likely to express support for pandemic dissidents (e.g., anti-vax and anti-lockdown groups). Data from three surveys deployed in the United States and United Kingdom support our hypotheses, demonstrating a counterintuitive relationship between dispositional authoritarianism and opposition to public health authorities during the pandemic. We further find that dispositional authoritarianism produces an intriguing misalignment between ideology and support for pandemic restrictions among those on the left, leading liberals who score high in authoritarianism to mirror the attitudes and behaviors of their conservative counterparts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do third-party interventions affect the severity of mass killings? The authors theorize that episodes of mass killing are the consequence of two factors: (1) the threat perceptions of the perpetrators and (2) the cost of implementing genocidal policies relative to other alternatives. To reduce genocidal hostilities, interveners must address these factors. Doing so requires that interveners alter the genocidaire's expectation of a successful extermination policy, which in turn requires a demonstration of the third party's resolve. This cannot be achieved immediately upon intervention, and, given the perpetrator's strategic response to third-party involvement, the authors expect intervention to increase hostilities in the short term. With time, however, the authors contend that the characteristics of impartial interventions offer the greatest opportunity for reducing the violence in the long term. A statistical analysis of the 1955-2005 period supports the theoretical expectations. (Contains 1 figure, 4 tables, and 13 notes.)

We investigate the potential relationship between female combatants and conflict duration. We contend that recruiting female combatants extends war duration via its influence on state–rebel bargaining. The recruitment and deployment of female combatants contribute to divergent perspectives between the rebels and the incumbent regarding the rebel group's capabilities and the depth of its resolve, which impedes successful bargaining and extends the duration of the conflict. Results from duration analyses using data on the estimated prevalence of female combatants in rebel groups active between 1964 and 2011 support our central hypothesis and suggest that the use of female fighters is associated with longer conflicts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]