This research tested the hypothesis that people forgive serious transgressions by ingroup leaders but not by other group members or outgroup leaders. They apply a double standard in judgments of ingroup leaders. A series of studies (N = 623), using an array of different ingroups and outgroups, tested how group members judged ingroup or outgroup leaders and nonleaders who unexpectedly transgressed or did not transgress in important intergroup scenarios. Experiments 1, 2, and 4 focused on captains and players in either soccer or netball sports competitions. Across studies, transgressive captains of ingroup teams were evaluated more favorably than captains from outgroup teams and (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) more favorably than transgressive ingroup players. Experiment 3 demonstrated the double standard in a minimal group paradigm. Experiment 5 showed that the double standard is only applied if the leader is perceived as serving the group's interest. Across studies, the double standard is evident in evaluations toward, inclusion and punishment of, and rewards to the transgressive targets. Implications for sport, politics, and business and intergroup conflict are discussed.
A few weeks prior to the EU referendum (23rd June 2016) two broadly representative samples of the electorate were drawn in Kent (the south‐east of England, N = 1,001) and Scotland (N = 1,088) for online surveys that measured their trust in politicians, concerns about acceptable levels of immigration, threat from immigration, European identification, and voting intention. We tested an aversion amplification hypothesis that the impact of immigration concerns on threat and identification would be amplified when political trust was low. We hypothesized that the effect of aversion amplification on voting intentions would be mediated first by perceived threat from immigration, and then by (dis) identification with Europe. Results in both samples were consistent with this hypothesis and suggest that voters were most likely to reject the political status quo (choose Brexit) when concerns that immigration levels were too high were combined with a low level of trust in politicians.
This research uses the social banditry framework to propose that voiceless individuals in an unjust context may express their grievances vicariously. Specifically, it holds that individuals who perceive the system as unjust but lack political efficacy, express their anger against the system as support for actors whose behavior disrupts the system's functioning. These actors are situated outside conventional societal and political structures of power, and institutions. To test the social banditry framework, two studies investigate attitudes toward Anonymous, a group of hackers who challenge the status quo using online tactics such as trolling. Study 1 (N = 304)demonstrates that appraising the system as more unjust, and perceiving lower political efficacy are positively linked to anger against the system, which in turn predicts more positive attitudes toward Anonymous. In contrast, stronger injustice-fueled anger and stronger political efficacy predict intentions to engage in direct forms of political action, such as protesting or voting. Study 2 (N = 410) replicates these findings, and theorizes and tests the role of individualistic and collectivistic values in predicting vicarious and direct expressions of dissent. Study 2 demonstrates that endorsement of horizontal individualism predicts positive attitudes towards Anonymous, whereas horizontal collectivism predicts engagement in direct political action. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
Criminal organizations have a strong influence on social, political and economic life in Italy and other parts of the world. Nonetheless, local populations display collective passivity against organized crime, a phenomenon known as omertà. Omertà is linked to the concepts of honor and masculinity. That is, in order to fit ideological constructions of manliness, individuals should display indifference toward illegal activities and should not collaborate with legal institutions. In two studies, we investigated the link between endorsement of a masculine honor ideology and collective action tendencies against criminal organizations
The COVID-19 pandemic has increased negative emotions and decreased positive emotions globally. Left unchecked, these emotional changes might have a wide array of adverse impacts. To reduce negative emotions and increase positive emotions, we tested the effectiveness of reappraisal, an emotion-regulation strategy that modifies how one thinks about a situation. Participants from 87 countries and regions (n = 21,644) were randomly assigned to one of two brief reappraisal interventions (reconstrual or repurposing) or one of two control conditions (active or passive). Results revealed that both reappraisal interventions (vesus both control conditions) consistently reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions across different measures. Reconstrual and repurposing interventions had similar effects. Importantly, planned exploratory analyses indicated that reappraisal interventions did not reduce intentions to practice preventive health behaviours. The findings demonstrate the viability of creating scalable, low-cost interventions for use around the world.
Masculine honor is an important cultural code in the south of Italy. Italian criminal organizations (COs) manipulate and exploit this code to maintain legitimacy among local populations and exert social control in the territory where they operate. This research tested the hypothesis that different levels of identification-the region and the nation-would have opposite associations with male honor-related values and, indirectly, with intentions to oppose COs collectively. Results from a sample of young southern Italians (N = 170) showed that regional identification positively predicted endorsement of male honor-related values, which in turn were associated with lowered intentions to oppose COs. In contrast, national identification negatively predicted male honor-related values, associated in turn with stronger intentions to oppose COs. These results also held when perceived risk and social dominance orientation were taken into account. Directions for future research are discussed.
The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.
regional identification was also positively associated with masculine honour which in turn predicted weaker intentions to oppose COs. The evidence supports the idea that social identity can have opposing effects on collective action in the same context, depending on which beliefs are mobilised.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.