What are the most common themes of conflict between aging parents and their adult children? Six types emerged in a qualitative analysis of Longitudinal Study of Generations survey data: conflicts over (1) communication and interaction style; (2) habits and lifestyle choices; (3) child-rearing practices and values; (4) politics, religion, and ideology; (5) work habits and orientations; and (6) household standards or maintenance. There were generational differences: parents most often listed conflicts over habits and lifestyle choices, whereas children cited communication and interaction style. These results suggest a new agenda for gerontological research: intergenerational conflict in the context of solidarity within aging families.

Research consistently shows that right‐wing ideological adherents are more likely to deny climate change. However, less is known about how right‐wing ideological subtypes are uniquely related to climate change denial, as well as what explains these relationships. This study examines whether threat to the socioeconomic system in the form of climate change mitigation policies, referred to as Climate Change Mitigation Threat (CCMT), mediates the relationships between Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) subtypes and four forms of climate change denial (existence denial, human cause denial, impact denial and climate science denial). U.S. participants (N = 334; Mage = 34.70, SD = 5.98) were recruited via Amazon MTurk. When shared variance in the predictors was accounted for, we found that: (a) Conventionalism (RWA‐C) positively predicted all forms of climate change denial; (b) Dominance (SDO‐D) positively predicted existence denial; (c) Anti‐Egalitarianism (SDO‐E) positively predicted both human cause and impact denial; and (d) Aggression (RWA‐A) negatively predicted existence denial. All significant direct relationships were partially mediated by CCMT, except for the direct paths between SDO‐D and existence denial, and RWA‐A and existence denial. These findings suggest that right‐wing adherents who conform to societal norms and prefer unequal social systems may deny climate change partly due to a perception that mitigation strategies proposed to combat climate change threaten the existing socioeconomic system.

Many government strategies to reduce the spread of Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) involved unprecedented restrictions on personal movement, disrupting social and economic norms. Although generally well-received in Australia, community frustration regarding these restrictions appeared to diverge across political lines. Therefore, we examined the unique effects of the ideological subfactors of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; Aggression, Submission and Conventionalism) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Dominance and Anti-egalitarianism) in predicting perceived personal threat of COVID-19, and support for and reactance to government restrictions, in Australian residents across two separate samples (S1 N = 451, S2 N = 838). COVID-19 threat was positively predicted by Submission, and negatively by Conventionalism, and Anti-egalitarianism. Support for restrictions was also positively predicted by Submission, and negatively by Conventionalism, Dominance, and Anti-egalitarianism. Reactance to government restrictions was negatively predicted by Submission, and positively by Conventionalism, Dominance, and Anti-egalitarianism. These findings suggest that right-wing ideological subfactors contribute to the one's perception of COVID-19 threat and government restrictions differentially.

Recent research promotes comparing the current state of the environment with the past (and not the future) to increase the pro-environmental attitudes of those on the political right. We aimed to replicate this temporal framing effect and extend on research in this area by testing the potential drivers of the effect. Across two large-scale replication studies, we found limited evidence that past comparisons (relative to future comparisons) increase pro-environmentalism among those with a more conservative political ideology, thus precluding a full investigation into the mediators of the effect. Where the effect was present, it was not consistent across studies. In Study One, conservatives reported greater certainty that climate change was real after viewing past comparisons, as the environmental changes were perceived as more certain. However, in Study Two, the temporal framing condition interacted with political orientation to instead undermine the certainty about climate change among political liberals in the past-focused condition. Together, these studies present the first evidence of backfire from temporal frames, and do not support the efficacy of past comparisons for increasing conservatives’ environmentalism. We echo recent calls for open science principles, including preregistration and efforts to replicate existing work, and suggest the replication of other methods of inducing temporal comparisons.

Limited research to date has qualitatively explored the perceptions members of the public who are not environmental activists hold of environmentalists. Therefore a qualitative survey was conducted with 89 US residents aged 21-53 (M age = 32.74, SD age = 7.89) to obtain an indepth understanding of how non-activists within the public perceive environmentalists. Data obtained were analyzed using thematic analysis and demonstrated that non-activist perceptions of environmentalists contained both positive and negative components. Environmentalists were seen to value nature and to be actively involved in bringing about positive environmental change (positive component), yet were also viewed as aggressive in their behaviors and stubborn in their beliefs (negative component). Further still, it was found that environmentalists were more likely to be perceived positively when they engaged in individual-level, private sphere behaviors (such as recycling), and negatively when they engaged in collective-level, public sphere behaviors (such as protesting). These findings not only challenge the assumption that members of the public typically evaluate environmentalists negatively, they also outline why some individuals may fail to identify as an environmentalist and engage in pro-environmental behavior. Furthermore, they also provide some insight as to why some environmentalists find it difficult to advocate for system change that results from collective action within the public sphere.