Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Till, Franziska Julia; Heimrich, Julia; Frenzel, Svenja B.; Dick, Rolf; Mojzisch, Andreas; Junker, Nina M.; Häusser, Jan A.

2024 Journal of Applied Social Psychology

doi: 10.1111/jasp.13077

In a world shaped by global crises—from pandemics to international armed conflicts to an escalating climate crisis—research into human reactions to and coping with uncertainty is becoming increasingly important. The fundamental role of identification with social groups in maintaining well‐being during times of threat has been emphasized. In this context, the aim of this study was to examine the relationship between interindividual differences— need to belong, perspective taking, need for cognitive closure—and changes in social identification. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a two‐wave online study with a sample of 1008 participants during the COVID‐19 pandemic. We examined changes in social identification in narrow social groups (i.e., family, friends, neighbors) and broader social categories (i.e., own country, Europe, humanity). We found an overall increase in social identification in times of crises across all groups. The results show that need to belong (at Time 1) was positively related to increases in social identification (at Time 2) for all groups, while the positive association between perspective taking (at Time 1) and increases in social identification (at Time 2) was observed for almost all groups except neighbors. Contrary to our expectations, however, the need for cognitive closure (at Time 1) showed no association with changes in identification with any social group (at Time 2). These findings emphasize the importance of interindividual differences for our understanding of changes in social identification over time.

Wong, C. Y. Edwina; Kirby, Teri A.; Ryan, Michelle K.; Rink, Floor

2024 Journal of Applied Social Psychology

doi: 10.1111/jasp.13075

Organizations are increasingly committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. However, those who have the power to implement DEI interventions and those who ought to benefit from such interventions might have conflicting perspectives about their aims. In three studies, we investigate how those with high (vs. low) power endorse structural versus individualistic interventions for women. In Study 1 (n = 403), we focus on women's evaluation of the intervention. We find that they anticipate that structural interventions will be more successful at alleviating gender barriers at work than individualistic interventions. In Studies 2 (n = 500) and 3 (n = 319), we focus on men and women across different levels of power and find that individuals, regardless of their gender and their hierarchical position, prefer interventions that challenge organizational systems that maintain inequalities than those that support women in coping with DEI issues. However, individuals with stronger system‐legitimacy beliefs showed just as much support for individualistic DEI interventions as for structural ones. The results suggest overall support for structural DEI interventions, but that ongoing meritocratic beliefs can detract from their actual implementation. We discuss how intervention research may benefit from focusing on interventions that target system‐legitimacy beliefs to leverage more support and implementation of structural interventions.