Responses to norm violators are poorly understood. On one hand, norm violators are perceived as powerful, which may help them to get ahead. On the other hand, norm violators evoke moral outrage, which may frustrate their upward social mobility. We addressed this paradox by considering the role of culture. Collectivistic cultures value group harmony and tight cultures value social order. We therefore hypothesized that collectivism and tightness moderate reactions to norm violators. We presented 2,369 participants in 19 countries with a norm violation or a norm adherence scenario. In individualistic cultures, norm violators were considered more powerful than norm abiders and evoked less moral outrage, whereas in collectivistic cultures, norm violators were considered less powerful and evoked more moral outrage. Moreover, respondents in tighter cultures expressed a stronger preference for norm followers as leaders. Cultural values thus influence responses to norm violators, which may have downstream consequences for violators’ hierarchical positions.

No abstract

In the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic, personal protective measures (e.g., social distancing, handwashing, and mask wearing) have been adopted as a cornerstone to limit the spread of the disease. Yet, the effectiveness of these measures depends on people's levels of adherence. In this article, we apply social‐psychological research to the study of compliance with personal protective measures during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Chile. We consider three possible models underlying adherence: (1) sociodemographic and socioeconomic factors, (2) instrumental factors, and (3) normative factors. We draw on data from a longitudinal nonrepresentative panel study (Study 1, n = 32,304) and a cross‐sectional representative survey (Study 2, n = 1,078) to explore the impact of these different factors on personal protective measures compliance. Findings show the strongest support for the role of instrumental and normative factors, in that people who comply with protective measures report to a greater extent that relatives and friends comply too and tend to perceive high risk of COVID‐19. We finish by proposing policy recommendations to promote effective strategies to contain the spread of the virus.

This special thematic section aims to bring together current research on the connections between collective memories -or representations of history -and present-day intergroup relations. Drawing from a multitude of geographical and historical contexts as well as different methodologies, we bring forth ten articles focusing on distinct aspects of the relations between representations of the past and present day intergroup dynamics. The topics covered in these articles focus on one or more of the four research lines identified within this field: 1) the antecedents of collective memories; 2) the contents and structure of collective memories; 3) the official or institutional transmission of collective memories; and 4) distinct socio-psychological correlates of collective memories in present-day societies. Together, the contributions in this special thematic section showcase current directions of research within the field and highlight the need to consider the role of representations of the past for understanding present day instances of intergroup conflict or harmony. We discuss the need for more interdisciplinary work in this field, as well as more applied research in the future.Keywords: collective memories, representations of history, intergroup relations, conflict, collective forgetting, group-based emotions Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 2017, Vol. 5(2), 694-706, doi:10.5964/jspp.v5i2.895 Published (VoR): 2018-02-05.Handling Editor: Johanna Ray Vollhardt, Department of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, MA, USA *Corresponding author at: Public Policy Research Center, Universidad Mayor, Chile, Campus Alonso de Córdova, Avenida Alonso de Córdova 5495 Dept. 1405, Las Condes, Santiago de Chile, Chile. E-mail: figueiredo.anacm@gmail.com This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.History is regularly mobilized by politicians, activists or the media to justify, contextualize, or legitimize ideological claims, proposals for a course of action, or political and societal standpoints. This mobilization of history is nevertheless selective: depending on their specific aims, people will choose particular historical events, moments or figures to strengthen their arguments or champion their goals. Interestingly, the very same event or "chapter" of the past may be used by different political actors, to achieve quite different aims: Past wrongdoing can be framed as "historical responsibility" that needs to be remembered or as a stain on the country's image that should be Journal of Social and Political Psychology jspp.psychopen.eu | 2195-3325 forgotten. Thus, remembering the past cannot be conceived of as an objective recollection of historical events, without consideration of the affective, cognitive and behavioral aspects that influence such recollection.According to t...

No abstract

No abstract

In the present study we examine feelings of group-based guilt among Portuguese people in relation to the Portuguese colonial war, and their consequences for social behaviour. Specifically, we focus on the way Portuguese university students identify with their national group and the outgroup and their feelings of group-based guilt regarding their group's past misdeeds during the colonial period. The consequences of group-based guilt are also analyzed. 130 Portuguese university students answered a questionnaire and results show that students feel low levels of group-based guilt in relation to this period. Our results show that ingroup glorification is positively related with the use of cognitions to justify the ingroup's behaviour, presumably to avoid responsibility for the harm committed by the ingroup. Outgroup identification correlates with compensatory behavioural intentions and openness to negative information about the colonial war. As expected, feelings of group-based guilt show a significant correlation with compensatory behavioural intentions. Links between political orientation, ingroup attachment and glorification, exonerating cognitions and group-based guilt are analyzed and their implications for intergroup relations are discussed.

It has often been found in the literature that guilt motivates reparative behavior and that shame elicits aggressive reactions. However, recent research suggests that it is not the experience of shame, but rather the experience of humiliation that triggers aggressive reactions. The present study focuses on the role of shame, guilt and humiliation appraisals in predicting the motivation to repair and be aggressive in four different countries, namely Argentina, Belgium, Finland and Portugal. Using multi-group structural equation modeling with situational-level assessments of shame, guilt and humiliation appraisals, we found that guilt appraisals were indeed most likely to motivate reparation, although guilt also had a weak, but positive link to aggression via blaming others. Shame defined as negative self-evaluations had weak positive relations with both aggression and reparation. The experience of being humiliated clearly motivated aggression through blaming others and reduced reparation tendencies. These results were largely stable across the four cultural groups. The present study underlines the need to take humiliation into account when studying the links between guilt, shame and aggression