Common Sense as a Political Weapon: Populism, Science Skepticism, and Global Crisis‐Solving Motivations

This research examines the relationship between populist thinking and global crisis-solving motivations concerning climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic. Using data from five European countries (Switzerland, France, Finland, Greece, and Italy), we test a model where crisis-related science skepticism—understood as the defense of commonsense knowledge against scientific expertise—mediates the association between populist thinking and crisis-mitigation attitudes. The results show considerable convergence across national contexts. Relative deprivation predicts endorsement of two core components of populism’s thin ideology, people sovereignty and antielitism. These subdimensions of populism are linked to science skepticism, although variably across contexts. Science skepticism then leads to a lower sense of personal responsibility for climate change mitigation and to negative attitudes towards a governmental measure to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings further show that under specific conditions, the populist request for greater democratic participation may mobilize individuals to get involved in crisis mitigation. Overall, our results highlight the role of politicized common sense in motivating and justifying opposition to measures and policies based on scientific expertise. We conclude that science skepticism, rather than populism per se, explains cynical and dismissive attitudes towards global crises

Factor Structure, Gender Invariance, Measurement Properties, and Short Forms of the Spanish Adaptation of the Big Five Inventory-2

<jats:p> Abstract. After the publication of the Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2) and its short versions, many validations in other languages have been published. Three studies (total N = 1,673) were conducted to validate a Spanish version of the BFI-2, BFI-2-S and BFI-2-XS). Study 1 first tested the structural validity at both the domain and facet levels of 60 BFI-2 item translations and tested measurement invariance across gender. Study 2 established the temporal stability of the BFI-2 using two data collection waves. Study 3 evaluated in a new sample the generalizability of the measurement properties of the Spanish BFI-2 obtained in Study 1 and the measurement properties of its abbreviated versions. The findings of these studies show that the Spanish BFI-2 is a valid and reliable measure of personality with psychometric properties corresponding to the original in English. The preliminary results of the short forms' measurement properties are promising and should encourage further replication. </jats:p&gt

The general fault in our fault lines

Ruggeri et al. tested perceptions of opposing political party members in 10,207 participants from 26 countries. Results show that beliefs about others are overly negative but could be more realistic with transparency about actual group beliefs.Pervading global narratives suggest that political polarization is increasing, yet the accuracy of such group meta-perceptions has been drawn into question. A recent US study suggests that these beliefs are inaccurate and drive polarized beliefs about out-groups. However, it also found that informing people of inaccuracies reduces those negative beliefs. In this work, we explore whether these results generalize to other countries. To achieve this, we replicate two of the original experiments with 10,207 participants across 26 countries. We focus on local group divisions, which we refer to as fault lines. We find broad generalizability for both inaccurate meta-perceptions and reduced negative motive attribution through a simple disclosure intervention. We conclude that inaccurate and negative group meta-perceptions are exhibited in myriad contexts and that informing individuals of their misperceptions can yield positive benefits for intergroup relations. Such generalizability highlights a robust phenomenon with implications for political discourse worldwide.</p

The general fault in our fault lines

Pervading global narratives suggest that political polarization is increasing, yet the accuracy of such group meta-perceptions has been drawn into question. A recent US study suggests that these beliefs are inaccurate and drive polarized beliefs about out-groups. However, it also found that informing people of inaccuracies reduces those negative beliefs. In this work, we explore whether these results generalize to other countries. To achieve this, we replicate two of the original experiments with 10,207 participants across 26 countries. We focus on local group divisions, which we refer to as fault lines. We find broad generalizability for both inaccurate meta-perceptions and reduced negative motive attribution through a simple disclosure intervention. We conclude that inaccurate and negative group meta-perceptions are exhibited in myriad contexts and that informing individuals of their misperceptions can yield positive benefits for intergroup relations. Such generalizability highlights a robust phenomenon with implications for political discourse worldwide

The general fault in our fault lines

Ruggeri et al. tested perceptions of opposing political party members in 10,207 participants from 26 countries. Results show that beliefs about others are overly negative but could be more realistic with transparency about actual group beliefs. Pervading global narratives suggest that political polarization is increasing, yet the accuracy of such group meta-perceptions has been drawn into question. A recent US study suggests that these beliefs are inaccurate and drive polarized beliefs about out-groups. However, it also found that informing people of inaccuracies reduces those negative beliefs. In this work, we explore whether these results generalize to other countries. To achieve this, we replicate two of the original experiments with 10,207 participants across 26 countries. We focus on local group divisions, which we refer to as fault lines. We find broad generalizability for both inaccurate meta-perceptions and reduced negative motive attribution through a simple disclosure intervention. We conclude that inaccurate and negative group meta-perceptions are exhibited in myriad contexts and that informing individuals of their misperceptions can yield positive benefits for intergroup relations. Such generalizability highlights a robust phenomenon with implications for political discourse worldwide