The Meaning of Collective Terrorist Threat: Understanding the Subjective Causes of Terrorism Reduces Its Negative Psychological Impact

This article hypothesized that the possibility to construct intellectual meaning of a terrorist attack (i.e., whether participants can cognitively understand why the perpetrators did their crime) reduces the negative psychological consequences typically associated with increased terrorist threat. Concretely, the authors investigated the effect of intellectual meaning (induced by providing additional information about potential economic, cultural, and historical reasons for the terrorist attack) on perceived terrorist threat and associated emotional well-being. Study 1 revealed that pictures of terrorist attacks elicited less experienced terrorist threat when they were presented with background information about the terrorists’ motives (meaning provided) rather than without additional background information (no meaning provided). Study 2 replicated this effect with a different manipulation of terrorist threat (i.e., newspaper article) and clarified the underlying psychological process: Participants in the high terror salience condition with meaning provided experienced less terrorist threat and thus more emotional well-being in the face of crisis than participants in the high terror salience condition without meaning provided. Theoretical and practical implications in the context of psychological health and mass media effects are discussed

Dealing with disagreement:The depolarizing effects of everyday diplomatic skills face-to-face and online

In online text-based discussions, people behave less diplomatically because they are more outspoken and less responsive. This can feed impressions of polarization. This article uses a new methodology to isolate the influence of outspokenness and responsiveness in shaping perceptions of polarization in online chat and face-to-face discussions. Text-based online and face-to-face discussions were reproduced in a face-to-face format (Study 1) and in a text-based chat format (Study 2). Uninformed observers (N = 102 and N = 103, repeated measures) evaluated these. The results showed that responsiveness was generally considered indicative of agreement and good social relationships but the interpretation of outspokenness (or lack of ambiguity) depended on the medium format. This suggests that what counts as diplomacy is not the same for each medium. Moreover, the experiences of the actors reproducing the chats in a face-to-face format highlighted the differences between media. We conclude that online conversational dynamics may play an important role in societal polarization

Relative Deprivation and Relative Wealth Enhances Anti-Immigrant Sentiments:The V-Curve Re-Examined

Previous research has shown that negative attitudes towards immigrants and support for anti-immigrant parties are observed both among those experiencing relative deprivation and those experiencing relative gratification (so called v-curve). Whereas the effect of relative deprivation is intuitive, the effect of relative gratification is more difficult to explain. Why would economic prosperity provoke negative attitudes towards immigrants? We first present correlational (Study 1) and experimental (Study 2) support for the v-curve. In Study 1, in a national Swiss referendum, a higher percentage anti-immigrant voting was found in cantons with relatively lower and relatively higher relative disposable income. In Study 2, in a hypothetical society, more opposition to 'newcomers' joining society was found among poor or above average wealth group members than among those in a moderate wealth group condition. In Study 3, we replicate this finding and also show that opposition to immigration is higher for all wealth groups when societal inequality is growing rather than declining. In a final study, we examine different forms of relative gratification and mediators of the relationship between relative gratification and opposition to immigration (i.e., identification, collective self-definition as competent and cold, and fear about future wealth). Only fear about future wealth mediates this relationship. We conclude that, paradoxically, relative gratification effects are partly due to the fear of future deprivation

On conviction's collective consequences:Integrating moral conviction with the social identity model of collective action

This article examines whether and how moral convictions predict collective action to achieve social change. Because moral convictions defined as strong and absolute stances on moral issues tolerate no exceptions, any violation motivates individuals to actively change that situation. We propose that moral convictions have a special relationship with politicized identities and collective action because of the potentially strong normative fit between moral convictions and the action-oriented content of politicized identities. This effectively integrates moral conviction with the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (Van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008), which predicts that, on the basis of a relevant social identity, group-based anger and efficacy predict collective action. Results from two studies indeed showed that moral convictions predicted collective action intentions (Study 12) and collective action (Study 2) through politicized identification, group-based anger, and group efficacy. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our integrative model

Disrupting the flow:How brief silences in group conversations affect social needs

AbstractWe all know the awkward feeling when a conversation is disrupted by a brief silence. This paper studies why such moments can be unsettling. We suggest that silences are particularly disturbing if they disrupt the conversational flow. In two experiments we examined the effects of a single brief instance of silence on social needs, perceived consensus, emotions, and rejection. Study 1 demonstrated that fluent conversations are associated with feelings of belonging, self-esteem, and social validation. If a brief silence disrupts this fluency, negative emotions and feelings of rejection arise. Study 2 replicated these effects in a more realistic setting, and showed that the effects of a brief silence are considerable despite participants' unawareness of the silence. Together, results show that conversational flow induces a sense of belonging and positive self-esteem. Moreover, this research suggests an implicit route to social validation, in which consensus is inferred from fluent group conversation

The microdynamics of social regulation:Comparing the navigation of disagreements in text-based online and face-to-face discussions

This study explores how people navigate the field of tension between expressing disagreement and maintaining social relationships in text-based online as compared to face-to-face discussions. In face-to-face discussions, differences of opinion are socially regulated by introducing ambiguity in message content coupled with instant responding on a relational level. We hypothesized that online messages are less ambiguous and less responsive, both of which may hinder social regulation. Thirty-six groups of three unacquainted students discussed politically controversial statements via chat, video-chat (nonanonymous), and face-to-face, in a multilevel repeated measures Graeco-Latin square design. Content coding revealed that online discussions were relatively clear and unresponsive. This related to participants experiencing reduced conversational flow, less shared cognition, and less solidarity online. These results suggest that ambiguity and responsiveness enable people to maintain social relationships in the face of disagreement. This emphasizes the key role that subtle microdynamics in interpersonal interaction play in social regulation

Online Social Regulation:When Everyday Diplomatic Skills for Harmonious Disagreement Break Down

In group discussions, people rely on everyday diplomatic skills to socially regulate the interaction, maintain harmony, and avoid escalation. This article compares social regulation in online and face-to-face (FtF) groups. It studies the micro-dynamics of online social interactions in response to disagreements. Thirty-two triads discussed, in a repeated measures design, controversial topics via text-based online chat and FtF. The fourth group member was a confederate who voiced a deviant (right-wing) opinion. Results show that online interactions were less responsive and less ambiguous compared with FtF discussions. This affected participants’ social attributions: they felt their interaction partners ignored them and displayed disinhibited behavior. This also had relational consequences: participants experienced polarization and less solidarity. These results offer a new perspective on the process of online polarization: this might not be due to changes in individual psychology (e.g., disinhibition), but to misattributions of online behavior