The limited impact of adverse experiences on worldviews and ideologies
Felipe Vilanova,
Damiao Soares Almeida-Segundo,
Pablo Borges Moura
et al.
Abstract:The impact of adverse experiences on clinical symptoms has been consistently demonstrated, but their impact on ideologies and worldviews has been rarely tested empirically. It has been long assumed that threatening experiences increase Dangerous World Beliefs (DWB) and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), whereas scarcity experiences increase Competitive World Beliefs (CWB) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). Here we assess whether self-reports of these adverse experiences are associated with clinical sympto… Show more
Sometimes skeptics are tempted to dismiss world beliefs as meaningful phenomena. Such dismissal, we argue, is a mistake. How beliefs about many different broad topics impact behavior is well-established. Psychologically-rich world beliefs have also peppered cultural milieu for centuries. Multiple, decades-old literatures have already established psychometrically the existence of world beliefs, proposed effects, and developed sufficient theory to define the beliefs and explain effects (e.g., Belief in a Just World literature). However, a shared, operationalized list of belief dimensions was lacking. Does one craft such a list a priori, with a specific outcome in mind—the typical approach—or seek to discover pre-existing dimensionality empirically, with no outcome privileged—similar to how Big Five traits were identified? The former being tried (Janoff-Bulman, 1989), Clifton and colleagues (2019) chose the latter, sparking an emerging, interdisciplinary effort. Yet the origins of these beliefs remain unknown and developmental psychologists are, now, sorely needed.
Sometimes skeptics are tempted to dismiss world beliefs as meaningful phenomena. Such dismissal, we argue, is a mistake. How beliefs about many different broad topics impact behavior is well-established. Psychologically-rich world beliefs have also peppered cultural milieu for centuries. Multiple, decades-old literatures have already established psychometrically the existence of world beliefs, proposed effects, and developed sufficient theory to define the beliefs and explain effects (e.g., Belief in a Just World literature). However, a shared, operationalized list of belief dimensions was lacking. Does one craft such a list a priori, with a specific outcome in mind—the typical approach—or seek to discover pre-existing dimensionality empirically, with no outcome privileged—similar to how Big Five traits were identified? The former being tried (Janoff-Bulman, 1989), Clifton and colleagues (2019) chose the latter, sparking an emerging, interdisciplinary effort. Yet the origins of these beliefs remain unknown and developmental psychologists are, now, sorely needed.
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.