European Journal of Social Psychology

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2779pmid: N/A

Onuki, Mayuko; Aoyagi, Keitaro; Takasaki, Yoshito

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2811pmid: N/A

Although personal intergroup contact is known to predict positive intergroup outcomes, little is known about the kind of positive personal contact that reduces prejudice in real‐world post‐conflict societies. Using a behavioural experiment, the present study examined the effect of face‐to‐face personal contact between three groups of ex‐combatants (national army, former national army and armed group) and civilians with disabilities in Rwanda. A total of 444 participants were randomly assigned to intergroup or intragroup pairs under high and low personalisation conditions, and their person preference, evaluative bias and impressions of contact partners were compared to those who had contact without personalisation. Between ex‐combatants of the national army and civilians, low personalisation generally resulted in better intergroup outcomes than high personalisation or no personalisation. The trend is reversed for personalisation between the three groups of ex‐combatants, who are former adversaries. Implications for personal contact in real‐world post‐conflict societies are discussed.

Klussman, Kristine; Nichols, Austin Lee; Curtin, Nicola; Langer, Julia; Orehek, Edward

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2812pmid: N/A

Self‐connection is defined as an (1) awareness of oneself, (2) acceptance of oneself based on this awareness, and (3) alignment of one's behavior with this awareness. Although some promising results suggest that self‐connection uniquely contributes to well‐being, they have relied on an untested, single‐item measure. To advance empirical examination of self‐connection and its role in well‐being, the current research developed and validated a 12‐item Self‐Connection Scale (SCS). We recruited a total of 1,469 participants across three studies to examine the SCS and its three underlying components. Using both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, we found evidence supporting the factor structure and inter‐item reliability as well as evidence of construct, concurrent, and incremental validity. Importantly, results from three studies suggest that the SCS is associated with multiple important indicators of health and well‐being. The scale also demonstrated incremental validity beyond mindfulness, authenticity, self‐concept clarity, self‐compassion, and self‐acceptance in its association with various mental health and well‐being indicators. Thus, the SCS provides a valuable tool to measure and examine self‐connection and its relationship to well‐being and other important psychological outcomes.

Kodapanakkal, Rabia I.; Brandt, Mark J.; Kogler, Christoph; Beest, Ilja

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2814pmid: N/A

Theories of moralization argue that moral relevance varies due to inter‐individual differences, domain differences, or a mix of both. Predictors associated with these sources of variation have been studied in isolation to assess their unique contribution to moralization. Across three studies (NStudy1 = 376; NStudy2a = 621; NStudy2b = 589), assessing attitudes towards new big data technologies, we found that moralization is best explained by theories focusing on inter‐individual variation (∼29%) and intra‐individual variation across technology domains (∼49%), and less by theories focusing on differences between technology domains (∼6%). We simultaneously examined 15 inter‐individual and 16 intra‐individual predictors that potentially explain this variation. Predictors directly relevant to the technologies (e.g., justice concerns), cognitive styles (e.g., faith in intuition), and emotional reactions (e.g., anger) best explain variation in moral relevance. Accordingly, scholars should simultaneously adopt and adapt moralization theories related to inter‐individual and intra‐individual differences across domains rather than in isolation.

Renström, Emma A.; Lindqvist, Anna; Sendén, Marie Gustafsson

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2816pmid: N/A

The Swedish gender‐inclusive pronoun hen can be used generically (referring to anyone), or specifically (referring to non‐binary gender identities). Three studies tested evaluations and use of hen, and individual‐level predictors. In Study 1 (N = 2145), specific hen was slightly favoured over generic hen. In Study 2 (N = 297), hen was more negatively evaluated than binary pronouns, and generic hen was more positively evaluated than specific hen. In Study 3 (N = 450), hen was less frequently used compared to binary pronouns overall but preferred in generic contexts. Traditionalism mainly predicted attitudes towards generic hen and beliefs about gender, as binary mainly predicted attitudes towards specific hen, although the pattern varied across studies. Because hen was preferred in generic contexts, but not in specific ones, this work has implications for understanding the non‐acceptance of non‐binary gender identities since the traditional binary notion of gender still is strong.

Decker, Kaleigh A.; Lord, Charles G.

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2817pmid: N/A

Previous research has shown that attitudes can become more extreme through mere thought. The present studies tested whether one specific type of thought—generalizing about a group's traits across settings—makes attitudes toward the group more extreme. We gave participants in four experiments initial information about (fictitious) foreign groups who wanted to enter the United States. The initial information concerned traits the group displayed in a specific type of setting. Participants thought it highly likely the group's traits would generalize across settings. Compared to reviewing the information given, generalizing made both negative (Experiment 1) and positive (Experiment 2) attitudes and behavioral intentions more extreme, regardless of the initial or generalized setting (Experiment 3). Individual differences in correspondence bias moderated the effects of generalizing versus reviewing on attitudes and behavioral intentions (Experiment 4). The current findings offer novel insights into how a specific type of thought can make attitudes more extreme.

Pauls, Inga L.; Shuman, Eric; Zomeren, Martijn; Saguy, Tamar; Halperin, Eran

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2818pmid: N/A

In three studies conducted in the United States, we examined whether a perceived moral violation motivates willingness to engage in normative and more radical collective action. Using value‐protection and identity‐formation models, we explored whether increased endorsement of moral convictions and relevant opinion‐based group identification could explain such effects. Study 1, using the “travel ban” for Muslims as the focal issue, experimentally found that a strong violation, compared to a weak violation, increased normative and nonnormative collective action, moral convictions and opinion‐based group identification. Study 2 replicated these results in a longitudinal design and supported a mediating effect of increased endorsement of moral convictions and opinion‐based group identity. Study 3 used a real‐world violation (the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate agreements) to replicate the findings cross‐sectionally. We conclude that a perceived moral violation motivates normative and nonnormative collective action because the violation makes one's moral conviction and opinion‐based group identification more salient.

Rothschild, Zachary K.; Keefer, Lucas A.

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2820pmid: N/A

Individuals are frequently exposed to media describing salient moral violations, often eliciting negative reactions. Three studies examined whether the outrage engendered by such news may serve as a source of personal meaning for justice sensitive individuals. Using an experience sampling method, Study 1 found that among high (but not low) justice sensitive individuals, outrage (but not sadness) at unethical/unjust news content predicted greater personal meaning. Employing an experimental paradigm, Study 2 found that the opportunity to express outrage at third‐party harm‐doing attenuated a threat‐induced reduction in personal meaning among high (but not low) justice sensitive participants. Study 3 found that giving justice sensitive participants the opportunity to affirm the meaningfulness of their own life (vs. another person's life or no affirmation) reduced expressions of outrage at third‐party harm‐doing. Results suggest outrage may uniquely serve a meaning‐maintenance function for those who view upholding justice as a central value.

Ton, Gonneke Marina; Stroebe, Katherine; Zomeren, Martijn

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2821pmid: N/A

Social psychological research on societal debates about potential social change (e.g., abortion, racial segregation) often focuses on those who take clear positions in these debates. Yet, little is known about the often invisible yet potentially influential group that experiences ambivalence in societal debates. Extending and integrating ambivalence and social change research, we explore the relation between social forces in societal debates and the experiences of ambivalence about social change within these debates. Thematic analysis of extensive interviews with 15 Dutch students experiencing ambivalence in a heated Dutch societal debate revealed that different social forces (e.g., interpersonal relations, groups people belong to, societal systems) facilitate felt ambivalence about potential social change. Moreover, this ambivalence was often experienced as feeling caught in a social crossfire. Our work contributes to a richer psychological understanding of ambivalence about potential social change and reveals the complexity of decision‐making in the context of societal debates.

Wallrich, Lukas; West, Keon; Rutland, Adam

doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2822pmid: N/A

Valuing diversity and intergroup contact predict less prejudice and discrimination, yet their relationship deserves closer attention. There is some evidence that valuing diversity and intergroup contact are associated, but it has not been tested whether the established effects of contact come about through changes in valuing diversity. We address this in two studies (total N = 2835) that consider valuing diversity as a mediator of intergroup contact. They show that valuing diversity mediates the relationships of intergroup contact with prejudice, bystander intervention intentions, policy support and approach intentions. Our results increase the understanding of pathways from intergroup contact to intergroup relations and offer a lever that contact interventions can target.