Neoliberalism has become the dominant ideology in many parts of the world. Yet there is little empirical research on its psychological impact. On the basis of a social identity approach to health, we hypothesize that, by increasing competition and by reducing people's sense of connection to others, neoliberalism can increase loneliness and compromise our well-being. Study 1 (N = 246) shows that the more neoliberal people perceive society to be, the worse their well-being, and that this relationship is mediated via loneliness. In two experiments, we showed that exposure to neoliberal ideology increases loneliness (Study 2, N = 204) and, through this, decreases well-being (Study 3, N = 173). In Study 4 (N = 303), we found that exposure to neoliberal ideology increased loneliness and decreased well-being by reducing people's sense of connection to others and by increasing perceptions of being in competition with others. In Study 4, the effect of neoliberalism on well-being was evident for liberals only. We discuss the potential impact of neoliberalism on different social groups in society.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
For several decades now, neoliberalism has been the dominant economic and political ideology throughout large parts of the world. In many places, its rise has gone hand in hand with growing social inequality and a cultural emphasis on individualism and competition. Lately, concerns are being raised about the effects of these developments on politics and societies. The renewed rise of populism in Europe, the United States, and other countries has been attributed to economic insecurity among the working and middle classes by politicians, journalists, and academics alike. Similarly, the spread of nationalist and anti-immigration sentiments is frequently interpreted as a result of fears over job security and perceived competition in a hostile economic climate. We examined the effect of neoliberalism on two types of prejudice (anti-elitism and anti-immigrant prejudice) across two studies in Germany (N = 198) and the UK (N = 173). Results show that priming neoliberalism leads to higher levels of anti-elitism but not anti-immigrant prejudice and that this effect is mediated by anomie and negative psychological reactions (feelings of threat, unfairness, and hopelessness). Thus, our research suggests that while neoliberalism is linked to lower social cohesion and increased outgroup derogation, this is not primarily directed against disadvantaged social groups but against those at the top.With neoliberal economics on the rise and social in equality increasing in large parts of the world, the question of how these developments are affecting societies and their political climates is becoming more and more urgent. As Fritsche and
There is a growing body of work suggesting that social class stereotypes are amplified when people perceive higher levels of economic inequality-that is, the wealthy are perceived as more competent and assertive and the poor as more incompetent and unassertive. The present study tested this prediction in 32 societies and also examines the role of wealth-based categorization in explaining this relationship. We found that people who perceived higher economic inequality were indeed more likely to consider wealth as a meaningful basis for categorization. Unexpectedly, however, higher levels of perceived inequality were associated with perceiving the wealthy as less competent and assertive and the poor as more competent and assertive. Unpacking this further, exploratory analyses showed that the observed tendency to stereotype the wealthy negatively only emerged in societies with lower social mobility and democracy and higher corruption. This points to the importance of understanding how socio-structural features that co-occur with economic inequality may shape perceptions of the wealthy and the poor.
Based on dual-pathway models of collective action, this research examines how social movements’ proximity to their stated goal affects potential supporters’ willingness and motivations to engage. Across three experimental studies in two different contexts, and for members of both the disadvantaged ingroups and advantaged outgroups (total N = 1,102), we find consistent support for two counteracting indirect effects of goal distance on collective action. When movements are closer to their goals, potential supporters perceive less injustice, which reduces their willingness to engage in collective action for the movements’ cause via the emotion-focused pathway. At the same time, perceptions of political efficacy increase, bolstering engagement via the problem-focused pathway. We conclude that while goal proximity does not seem to affect overall intentions to engage in collective action, it does affect the motivational paths to it, which makes it a relevant factor to consider in both research and social justice contexts.
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.