Research in political psychology has uncovered "elective affinities" between psychological traits and political ideology. Strong correlations have been found linking psychological variables to political-economic beliefs in Western countries. These results suggest that people's psychological traits influence the development of their ideology, making some ideas, explanations, prescriptions, and ways of understanding the world seem more convincing or satisfying than others. Most such investigations have focused on differences along the liberal-conservative ideological spectrum in the United States, or the left-right divide in Europe and (the rest of) the Americas. Relatively little research has examined psychological elective affinities with neoliberal ideology in particular, and none to our knowledge has been done outside of the West (including Turkey), except for Israel. We report the results of a preliminary investigation into the psychological correlates of neoliberal ideology in Hong Kong, India, and the United States. Our U.S. results replicate earlier research introducing the Neoliberal Beliefs Index, whereas our Hong Kong and Indian results reveal similarities and differences in the psychological traits associated with neoliberal beliefs.From inauspicious beginnings, neoliberalism has become a globally dominant political-economic ideology (Harvey, 2005). Although past research has revealed the structural and ideational factors behind neoliberalism's rise (e.g., Blyth, 2002;Mudge, 2018), until recently little attention has been given to possible psychological contributors. For neoliberal ideology to spread so successfully, it would seemingly need not only a favorable political-economic environment and

Neoliberalism has been the dominant influence on economic policy in most of the world for nearly four decades. There has been a great deal of analysis of neoliberalism's economic effects, but its psychological effects have received comparatively less attention. This article attempts to fill this gap, providing an assessment of neoliberalism according to psychological criteria. First, it describes the development and evolution of neoliberal theory, noting how it has changed over time. The psychological suppositions inherent in neoliberal theory are foregrounded, and judged by their correspondence to psychological research. Then, relevant psychological literature is reviewed and discussed to discover the possible psychological effects of neoliberal economic policies. The conclusion refers to the genesis of neoliberalism as a source of inspiration for crafting an alternative economic ideology better suited to human psychology. "Economics are [sic] the method; the object is to change the heart and soul."

No abstract

COVID-19 has drastically changed human behaviors and posed a threat to globalism by spurring a resurgence of nationalism. Promoting prosocial behavior within and across borders is of paramount importance for global cooperation to combat pandemics. To examine both self-report and actual prosocial behavior, we conducted the first empirical test of global consciousness theory in a multinational study of 35 cultures ( N = 18,171 community adults stratified by age, gender, and region of residence). Global consciousness encompassed cosmopolitan orientation, identification with all humanity, and multicultural acquisition, whereas national consciousness reflected ethnic protection. Both global consciousness and national consciousness positively predicted perceived risk of coronavirus and concern about coronavirus, after controlling for interdependent self-construal. While global consciousness positively predicted prosocial behavior in response to COVID-19, national consciousness positively predicted defensive behavior. These findings shed light on overcoming national parochialism and provide a theoretical framework for the study of global unity and cooperation.

A robust empirical literature suggests that the development of one's political ideology is the product of an “elective affinity” between the discursive, socially constructed elements of ideological belief systems and the psychological constraints, motives, and interests of those who are drawn to those belief systems. However, most studies which support this elective affinity theory have been conducted in the West. In the present study, we tested the theory in China to see whether elective affinities between psychological traits and political ideology are more likely to be universal. Across a nationally representative sample (N = 509), we found initial support for the characterization of the left‐right divide in China, albeit in reverse. Namely, the “liberal Right in China mostly evinces traits of the psychological Left in the West (e.g., lower intolerance of ambiguity), while the “conservative Left” mostly evinces traits of the psychological right in the West (e.g., higher system justification). Epistemic motives were most reliably related to political ideology, while existential and relational motives were more mixed; economic and political aspects of ideology were more closely linked to psychological traits than social/cultural aspects. The present findings provide an extension of existing theory and opportunities for further development.

Past research on the link between anti-Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government has revealed a partial correlation between the two. However, among the political arguments that have inspired such research, one has gone unaddressed: that criticism of the Israeli government along with silence about more egregious human rights abuses committed elsewhere can only arise from anti-Semitism. This article investigates the link between knowledge of conflicts around the world, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and criticism of the Israeli and Saudi governments, among US participants. Using a deeper index of anti-Israel opinions than prior research, the results indicate that some criticisms of the Israeli government are more reliable indicators of anti-Semitic sentiment than others. The findings are discussed with regard to how legitimate political criticism can be distinguished from prejudice in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

No abstract

Motivated reasoning as a pervasive feature of human psychology poses challenges to the ideal of liberal democratic government, which relies on citizens’ rationality. Motivated reasoning is at least partially caused by a biased store of knowledge, a partial set of accumulated information that skews reasoning about important political issues. However, there is some evidence that specialized training in a given domain may reduce the effects of motivated reasoning within that domain. To test whether a similar phenomenon is evident in the field of international relations, a signal detection technique is used to measure knowledge of U.S. foreign policy among two samples, one of IR professors and one of laypersons. The results uncover significant differences between experts and nonexperts, indicating that training in IR helps to reduce biases in knowledge, potentially providing “knowledge constraints” on motivated reasoning. Nonetheless, some evidence of bias among IR professors remains, suggesting that knowledge constraints on motivated reasoning may not fully allay normative concerns of bias in the domain of international relations.