The Dual Process Model of National Identification: Harmonious and Dangerous Worldviews as Antecedents of National Attachment and Glorification

Worldviews can shape the way in which we perceive the world. They can also shape the way in which we identify with our ingroup. Conceptualizing national identification as national attachment and glorification, four studies (total N = 1795) tested the association between endorsement of a harmonious or a dangerous worldview and national identification. Study 1 established the harmonious worldview and refined the dangerous worldview scale. Study 2 examined these relationships correlationally, and highlighted the prejudicial ideologies of right wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) as mediators to this association. Study 3 examined this relationship longitudinally, across the span of two months. Study 4 successfully manipulated dangerous but not harmonious worldviews, partially establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between worldviews and national identification. A dangerous worldview predicted increased attachment and glorification via increased RWA and SDO. Contrary to our expectation, a harmonious worldview predicted decreased attachment and glorification via increased RWA and SDO. These effects remained significant two months later, and when controlling for other key worldviews such as belief in a competitive world. Crucially, for liberals, but not moderates or conservatives, a harmonious worldview predicted increased attachment as well as decreased glorification

Taking responsibility for future generations promotes personal action on climate change

Climate change is already here, but we know that its worst impacts are waiting in the wings for future generations. Unless we step up to the challenge, as individuals and as a species. Stylianos Syropoulos and Ezra Markowitz discuss how emphasising personal and collective responsibility towards future generations can not only promote climate change concern, but also potentially increase support for the hard work ahead

Which appraisals are foundational to moral judgment?:Harm, injustice, and beyond

Harm-centric accounts of judgments of moral wrongdoing argue that moral judgments are fundamentally based on appraisals of harm. However, past research has failed to operationally discriminate harm appraisals from appraisals related to injustice. Four studies carefully discriminated harm qua pain/suffering from injustice, alongside appraisals related to impurity, authority, and disloyalty. Appraisals of injustice outperformed appraisals of harm as independent predictors of the judged wrongness of recalled offenses (Study 1). Studies 2a, 2b, and 3 extended these findings using a diverse range of wrongful acts and two different cultural samples—the United States and Greece. In addition to the strong relevance of injustice appraisals, these latter studies uncovered substantial contributions of impurity and authority appraisals. The results inform debates on moral pluralism and the foundations of moral cognition

Trust in scientific information mediates associations between conservatism and coronavirus responses in the U.S., but few other nations

U.S.-based research suggests conservatism is linked with less concern about contracting coronavirus and less preventative behaviors to avoid infection. Here, we investigate whether these tendencies are partly attributable to distrust in scientific information, and evaluate whether they generalize outside the U.S., using public data and recruited representative samples across three studies (Ntotal = 34,710). In Studies 1 and 2, we examine these relationships in the U.S., yielding converging evidence for a sequential indirect effect of conservatism on compliance through scientific (dis)trust and infection concern. In Study 3, we compare these relationships across 19 distinct countries. Although the relationships between trust in scientific information about the coronavirus, concern about coronavirus infection, and compliance are consistent cross-nationally, the relationships between conservatism and trust in scientific information are not. These relationships are strongest in North America. Consequently, the indirect effects observed in Studies 1–2 only replicate in North America (the U.S. and Canada) and in Indonesia. Study 3 also found parallel direct and indirect effects on support for lockdown restrictions. These associations suggest not only that relationships between conservatism and compliance are not universal, but localized to particular countries where conservatism is more strongly related to trust in scientific information about the coronavirus pandemic

Trust in scientific information mediates associations between conservatism and coronavirus responses in the U.S., but few other nations

U.S.-based research suggests conservatism is linked with less concern about contracting coronavirus and less preventative behaviors to avoid infection. Here, we investigate whether these tendencies are partly attributable to distrust in scientific information, and evaluate whether they generalize outside the U.S., using public data and recruited representative samples across three studies (Ntotal = 34,710). In Studies 1 and 2, we examine these relationships in the U.S., yielding converging evidence for a sequential indirect effect of conservatism on compliance through scientific (dis)trust and infection concern. In Study 3, we compare these relationships across 19 distinct countries. Although the relationships between trust in scientific information about the coronavirus, concern about coronavirus infection, and compliance are consistent cross-nationally, the relationships between conservatism and trust in scientific information are not. These relationships are strongest in North America. Consequently, the indirect effects observed in Studies 1–2 only replicate in North America (the U.S. and Canada) and in Indonesia. Study 3 also found parallel direct and indirect effects on support for lockdown restrictions. These associations suggest not only that relationships between conservatism and compliance are not universal, but localized to particular countries where conservatism is more strongly related to trust in scientific information about the coronavirus pandemic

A many-analysts approach to the relation between religiosity and well-being

The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N=10,535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported β=0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported β=0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: a global intervention tournament in 63 countries

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions’ effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior—several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people’s initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors

A Many-analysts Approach to the Relation Between Religiosity and Well-being

The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N = 10, 535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported β = 0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported β = 0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates

On the Importance of Perceived Interpersonal Safety: Antecedents and Consequences of Living A Subjectively Safe Life

The need to be and feel safe is a fundamental human need. Despite extensive theoretical arguments on the subject, and research on relevant concepts, empirical work on what it means to feel interpersonally safe (i.e., in the presence of others or in social environments in general) is scarce. This dissertation presents four investigations that seek to address this gap. It also seeks to highlight the consequences of feeling interpersonally safe for our mental and physical health, and to what degree healthy and high-quality close relationships influence how safe we feel. Chapter 1 is a literature review summarizing theories underlying these investigations and distinguishes subjective from objective safety. Chapter 2 validates a novel, comprehensive and multidimensional scale that captures perceived interpersonal safety. Chapter 3 examines the consequences of feeling safe for our mental and physical health across three developmental stages (adolescence, emerging adulthood, adulthood). Chapter 4 examines how secure attachment relates to increased feelings of safety. Chapter 5 investigates whether high-quality romantic relationships can increase overall perceptions of interpersonal safety. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes by highlighting the empirical, applied and theoretical contribution of the aforementioned investigations, concluding by posing suggestions for future research