 Subjects -> SOCIAL SERVICES AND WELFARE (Total: 224 journals)
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | | The end of the list has been reached or no journals were found for your choice. |
|
|
- Mental Time Travel as Self-Affirmation
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Elena Stephan, Constantine Sedikides
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Academic AbstractThis article integrates and advances the scope of research on the role of mental time travel in bolstering the self. We propose that imagining the self in the future (prospection) or in the past (retrospection) highlights central and positive self-aspects. Thus, bringing to mind one’s future or past broadens the perceived bases of self-integrity and offers a route to self-affirmation. In reviewing corresponding research programs on self-prospection and nostalgia, we illustrate that mental time travel serves to affirm the self in terms of self-esteem, coherence, and control. Mental time travel could be implemented as a source of self-affirmation for facilitating coping and behavior change in several domains such as relationships, health, education, and organizational contexts.Public AbstractPeople can mentally travel to their future or to their past. When people imagine what they will be like in the future, or what they were like in the past, they tend to think about themselves in terms of the important and positive attributes that they possess. Thinking about themselves in such an affirming way expands and consolidates their self-views. This broader image of themselves can increase self-esteem (the extent to which one likes who they are), coherence (the extent to which one perceives life as meaningful), and control (the extent to which one feels capable of initiating and pursuing goals or effecting desirable outcomes). Mental time travel, then, has favorable or affirming consequences for one’s self-views. These consequences can be harnessed to modify one’s behavior in such life domains as relationships, health, education, and work.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-10-25T06:28:43Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683231203143
- Mobilizing or Sedative Effects' A Narrative Review of the Association
Between Intergroup Contact and Collective Action Among Advantaged and
Disadvantaged Groups-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Veronica Margherita Cocco, Loris Vezzali, Sofia Stathi, Gian Antonio Di Bernardo, John F. Dovidio
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Academic AbstractIn this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects.Public AbstractWe present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-10-21T11:11:20Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683231203141
- Insight in the Conspiracist’s Mind
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Sander Van de Cruys, Jo Bervoets, Stephen Gadsby, David Gijbels, Karolien Poels
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Academic AbstractThe motto of the conspiracist, “Do your own research,” may seem ludicrous to scientists. Indeed, it is often dismissed as a mere rhetorical device that conspiracists use to give themselves the semblance of science. In this perspective paper, we explore the information-seeking activities (“research”) that conspiracists do engage in. Drawing on the experimental psychology of aha experiences, we explain how these activities, as well as the epistemic experiences that precede (curiosity) or follow (insight or “aha” experiences) them, may play a crucial role in the appeal and development of conspiracy beliefs. Aha moments have properties that can be exploited by conspiracy theories, such as the potential for false but seemingly grounded conclusions. Finally, we hypothesize that the need for autonomous epistemic agency and discovery is universal but increases as people experience more uncertainty and/or feel epistemically excluded in society, hence linking it to existing literature on explaining conspiracy theories.Public AbstractRecent events have made it painfully clear that conspiracy beliefs can tear deep rifts in society and that we still have not found an adequate, de-escalating response to this. To understand the appeal of conspiracy theories and find new, humanizing ways to talk about them, we propose in this perspective paper to start from the universal human need to autonomously make discoveries through personal knowledge-generating actions. Indeed, psychological research shows that the aha experiences that accompany subjective discoveries create confidence in and perceived ownership of ideas that may be exploited by conspiracy theories. We hypothesize that people experiencing more uncertainty and/or epistemic exclusion in society will especially feel the need to re-establish autonomous epistemic agency and discovery. While this explanation starts from shared human experiences and practices, it also illustrates the potential of those processes to lead to a narrowed world and ossified cognition.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-09-30T01:56:59Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683231203145
- Studying Emotion Regulation Success in Daily Life: Distinctions From
Maladaptive Regulation and Dysregulation-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Tabea Springstein, Tammy English
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Academic AbstractThis paper aims to motivate research on emotion regulation success in naturalistic settings. We define emotion regulation success as achieving one’s emotion regulation goal and differentiate it from related concepts (i.e., maladaptive regulation and dysregulation). As goals vary across individuals and situations, it is insufficient to conceptualize emotion regulation success as maximizing positive affect and minimizing negative affect. Instead, emotion regulation success can be measured through novel approaches targeting the achievement of emotion regulation goals. In addition to utilizing novel data analytic tools (e.g., response surface analyses), future research can make use of informant reports and observing ambulatory behavior or physiology. Considering emotion regulation goals when measuring daily emotion regulation success has the potential to answer key questions about personality, development, and mental health.Public AbstractPeople differ in how they want to feel in daily situations (e.g., excited) and why they want to feel that way (e.g., to make others feel better), depending on factors such as culture or age. Although people manage their emotions to reach these goals, most research assessing emotion regulation success has not taken individual goals into account. When assessing if people successfully regulate their emotions, most research in daily life has been focused on whether people feel more positive or less negative. To help study emotion regulation success in a more thoughtful and inclusive way, we propose a new approach to conceptualizing emotion regulation success that incorporates individual differences in what motivates people to regulate and discuss future research directions and applications.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-09-20T09:59:09Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683231199140
- The Intergroup Value Protection Model: A Theoretically Integrative and
Dynamic Approach to Intergroup Conflict Escalation in Democratic Societies
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Martijn van Zomeren, Chantal d’Amore, Inga Lisa Pauls, Eric Shuman, Ana Leal
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Scientific AbstractWe review social-psychological evidence for a theoretically integrative and dynamic model of intergroup conflict escalation within democratic societies. Viewing individuals as social regulators who protect their social embeddedness (e.g., in their group or in society), the intergroup value protection model (IVPM) integrates key insights and concepts from moral and group psychology (e.g., group identification, outrage, moralization, protest) into a functional intergroup value protection process. The model assumes that social regulators are continuously looking for information diagnostic of the outgroup’s intentions to terminate the relationship with the ingroup, and that their specific cognitive interpretations of an outgroup’s action (i.e., as a violation of ingroup or shared values) trigger this process. The visible value-protective responses of one group can trigger the other group’s value-protective responses, thus dynamically increasing chances of conflict escalation. We discuss scientific implications of integrating moral and group psychology and practical challenges for managing intergroup conflict within democratic societies.Public AbstractThe 2021 Capitol Hill attack exemplifies a major “trigger event” for different groups to protect their values within a democratic society. Which specific perceptions generate such a triggering event, which value-protective responses does it trigger, and do such responses escalate intergroup conflict' We offer the intergroup value protection model to analyze the moral and group psychology of intergroup conflict escalation in democratic societies. It predicts that when group members cognitively interpret another group’s actions as violating ingroup or shared values, this triggers the intergroup value protection process (e.g., increased ingroup identification, outrage, moralization, social protest). When such value-protective responses are visible to the outgroup, this can in turn constitute a trigger event for them to protect their values, thus increasing chances of intergroup conflict escalation. We discuss scientific implications and practical challenges for managing intergroup value conflict in democratic societies, including fears of societal breakdown and scope for social change.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-09-05T08:12:07Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683231192120
- The Migration Experience: A Conceptual Framework and Systematic Scoping
Review of Psychological Acculturation-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Jannis Kreienkamp, Laura F. Bringmann, Raili F. Engler, Peter de Jonge, Kai Epstude
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Academic AbstractOne of the key challenges to researching psychological acculturation is the immense heterogeneity in theories and measures. These inconsistencies make it difficult to compare past literature, hinder straightforward measurement selections, and stifle theoretical integration. To structure acculturation, we propose to utilize the four basic aspects of human experiences (wanting, feeling, thinking, and doing) as a conceptual framework. We use this framework to build a theory-driven assessment of past theoretical (final N = 92), psychometric (final N = 233), and empirical literature (final N = 530). We find that the framework allows us to examine and compare past conceptualizations. For example, empirical works have understudied the more internal aspects of acculturation (i.e., motivations and feelings) compared with theoretical works. We, then, discuss the framework’s novel insights including its temporal resolution, its comprehensive and cross-cultural structure, and how the framework can aid transparent and functional theories, studies, and interventions going forward.Public AbstractThis systematic scoping review indicates that the concept of psychological acculturation can be structured in terms of affect (e.g., feeling at home), behavior (e.g., language use), cognition (e.g., ethnic identification), and desire (e.g., independence wish). We find that the framework is useful in structuring past research and helps with new predictions and interventions. We, for example, find a crucial disconnect between theory and practice, which will need to be resolved in the future.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-08-12T06:19:11Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683231183479
- Believing That We Can Change Our World for the Better: A Triple-A
(Agent-Action-Aim) Framework of Self-Efficacy Beliefs in the Context of
Collective Social and Ecological Aims-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Karen R. S. Hamann, Marlis C. Wullenkord, Gerhard Reese, Martijn van Zomeren
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Social and ecological crises require people to act together, for instance, against climate change or social injustice. Psychological scholarship suggests that human agency, in terms of individuals’ self-efficacy and collective efficacy, plays a crucial role in motivating people to act for a better world. However, progress in this field and hence the utilization of its accumulated knowledge is hindered by manifold conceptualizations and operationalizations. We therefore identify key problems in how the concept of self-efficacy has evolved and been used in the domain of environmental protection and then present a conceptual solution: the triple-A framework. This framework organizes and integrates theoretical insights by differentiating which agents, actions, and aims are involved in assessments of efficacy. We then illustrate the framework’s broader application and highlight recommendations for improved measurement of self-efficacy beliefs. We further offer a research agenda on how human agency can be utilized to promote social and ecological aims.Public AbstractMany people do not act together against climate change or social inequalities because they feel they or their group cannot make a difference. Understanding how people come to feel that they can achieve something (a perception of self-efficacy) is therefore crucial for motivating people to act together for a better world. However, it is difficult to summarize already existing self-efficacy research because previous studies have used many different ways of naming and measuring it. In this article, we uncover the problems that this raises and propose the triple-A framework as a solution. This new framework shows which agents, actions, and aims are important for understanding self-efficacy. By offering specific recommendations for measuring self-efficacy, the triple-A framework creates a basis for mobilizing human agency in the context of climate change and social injustice.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-06-30T06:20:15Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683231178056
- Self- and Other-Orientation in High Rank: A Cultural Psychological
Approach to Social Hierarchy-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Matthias S. Gobel, Yuri Miyamoto
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Social hierarchy is one fundamental aspect of social living, structuring interactions in families, teams, and entire societies. In this review, we put forward a cultural psychological approach to social hierarchy, positing that rank differences are embedded within larger cultural meaning systems, which shape how high rank is attained or conferred and how social hierarchy affords behavior and psychology. We then examine manifestations of hierarchy in two cultural meaning systems: Western and East Asian cultural contexts. Accumulating evidence on collective, interpersonal, and individual processes suggests cultural similarities in self-orientation but cultural differences in other-orientation of high-ranking individuals. Such literature reveal how thought and behavior within social hierarchies and cultural beliefs, values, and norms mutually constitute each other. We close with a discussion of how the present review is a stepping stone for future research and of remaining questions to further advance social hierarchy research across wider and more diverse cultural contexts.Public AbstractSocial hierarchy is one fundamental aspect of human life, structuring interactions in families, teams, and entire societies. In this review, we put forward a new theory about how social hierarchy is shaped by the wider societal contexts (i.e., cultures). Comparing East Asian and Western cultural contexts, we show how culture comprises societal beliefs about who can raise to high rank (e.g., become a leader), shapes interactions between high- and low-ranking individuals (e.g., in a team), and influences human thought and behavior in social hierarchies. Overall, we find cultural similarities, in that high-ranking individuals are agentic and self-oriented in both cultural contexts. But we also find important cross-cultural differences. In East Asian cultural contexts, high-ranking individuals are also other oriented; they are also concerned about the people around them and their relationships. We close with a call to action, suggesting studying social hierarchies in more diverse cultural contexts.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-05-25T07:11:58Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683231172252
- Motivated Categories: Social Structures Shape the Construction of Social
Categories Through Attentional Mechanisms-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Suraiya Allidina, William A. Cunningham
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Social categorization is often framed as the antecedent to stereotyping, with perceivers rationally sorting the social world on the basis of perceptually salient categories before applying biased or motivated beliefs about those categories. Here, we instead suggest that the construction of social categories by individuals is itself subject to motivational influences, such that perceivers will attend to a given dimension of social categorization (e.g., race or gender) insofar as doing so fits within their motivations. Drawing from classic conceptualizations of social structure as the interplay of schemas and resources, we focus on how the motivations for shared schemas and for material benefits or resources may shape attention to social category dimensions. We outline the potential cognitive mechanisms through which these motivations may act on attention, before discussing the implications of this model for individual differences, conceptualizations of social categorization as rational information reduction, and prejudice reduction.Public AbstractSocial categories like race and gender often give rise to stereotypes and prejudice, and a great deal of research has focused on how motivations influence these biased beliefs. Here, we focus on potential biases in how these categories are even formed in the first place, suggesting that motivations can influence the very categories people use to group others. We propose that motivations to share schemas with other people and to gain resources shape people’s attention to dimensions like race, gender, and age in different contexts. Specifically, people will pay attention to dimensions to the degree that the conclusions produced from using those dimensions align with their motivations. Overall, we suggest that simply examining the downstream effects of social categorization like stereotyping and prejudice is not enough, and that research should look earlier in the process at how and when we form the categories on which those stereotypes are based.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-05-22T11:14:48Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683231172255
- Dress is a Fundamental Component of Person Perception
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Neil Hester, Eric Hehman
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Academic AbstractClothing, hairstyle, makeup, and accessories influence first impressions. However, target dress is notably absent from current theories and models of person perception. We discuss three reasons for this minimal attention to dress in person perception: high theoretical complexity, incompatibility with traditional methodology, and underappreciation by the groups who have historically guided research in person perception. We propose a working model of person perception that incorporates target dress alongside target face, target body, context, and perceiver characteristics. Then, we identify four types of inferences for which perceivers rely on target dress: social categories, cognitive states, status, and aesthetics. For each of these, we review relevant work in social cognition, integrate this work with existing dress research, and propose future directions. Finally, we identify and offer solutions to the theoretical and methodological challenges accompanying the psychological study of dress.Public AbstractWhy is it that people often agonize over what to wear for a job interview, a first date, or a party' The answer is simple: They understand that others’ first impressions of them rely on their clothing, hairstyle, makeup, and accessories. Many people might be surprised, then, to learn that psychologists’ theories about how people form first impressions of others have little to say about how people dress. This is true in part because the meaning of clothing is so complex and culturally dependent. We propose a working model of first impressions that identifies four types of information that people infer from dress: people’s social identities, mental states, status, and aesthetic tastes. For each of these, we review existing research on clothing, integrate this research with related work from social psychology more broadly, and propose future directions for research.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-03-23T10:20:30Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683231157961
- Social Psychology of and for World-Making
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Séamus A. Power, Tania Zittoun, Sanne Akkerman, Brady Wagoner, Martina Cabra, Flora Cornish, Hana Hawlina, Brett Heasman, Kesi Mahendran, Charis Psaltis, Antti Rajala, Angela Veale, Alex Gillespie
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Academic AbstractSocial psychology’s disconnect from the vital and urgent questions of people’s lived experiences reveals limitations in the current paradigm. We draw on a related perspective in social psychology1—the sociocultural approach—and argue how this perspective can be elaborated to consider not only social psychology as a historical science but also social psychology of and for world-making. This conceptualization can make sense of key theoretical and methodological challenges faced by contemporary social psychology. As such, we describe the ontology, epistemology, ethics, and methods of social psychology of and for world-making. We illustrate our framework with concrete examples from social psychology. We argue that reconceptualizing social psychology in terms of world-making can make it more humble yet also more relevant, reconnecting it with the pressing issues of our time.Public AbstractWe propose that social psychology should focus on “world-making” in two senses. First, people are future-oriented and often are guided more by what could be than what is. Second, social psychology can contribute to this future orientation by supporting people’s world-making and also critically reflecting on the role of social psychological research in world-making. We unpack the philosophical assumptions, methodological procedures, and ethical considerations that underpin a social psychology of and for world-making. Social psychological research, whether it is intended or not, contributes to the societies and cultures in which we live, and thus it cannot be a passive bystander of world-making. By embracing social psychology of and for world-making and facing up to the contemporary societal challenges upon which our collective future depends will make social psychology more humble but also more relevant.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-01-11T09:25:50Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683221145756
- When Is Masculinity “Fragile”' An Expectancy-Discrepancy-Threat Model
of Masculine Identity-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors: Adam Stanaland, Sarah Gaither, Anna Gassman-Pines
Abstract: Personality and Social Psychology Review, Ahead of Print.
Academic AbstractManhood is a precarious social status. Under perceived gender identity threat, men are disproportionately likely to enact certain stereotype-consistent responses such as aggression to maintain their gender status. Yet less is known regarding individual variation in men’s threat responsiveness—that is, the psychological conditions under which one’s masculine identity is more or less “fragile.” We propose a novel model of masculine identity whereby masculine norm expectancy generates discrepancy within the self to the extent that rigid norms are internalized as obligational (actual-ought discrepancy) versus aspirational (actual-ideal discrepancy), which predict extrinsic versus intrinsic motivations to reduce these discrepancies, respectively. Under threat, then, extrinsic motivations predict externalized responses (e.g., aggression), and intrinsic motivations elicit internalized responses (e.g., anxiety, shame, self-harm). We also consider the conditions under which masculinity may be less fragile—for example, in contexts with less rigid expectations and among men who reject expectations—as pathways to mitigate adverse masculinity threat-related outcomes.Public AbstractIn many cultures, men prove their manhood by engaging in behaviors that harm themselves and others (e.g., violence, sexism, homophobia), particularly people from marginalized groups. Yet less is known about why some men are more likely than others to enact these masculinity-proving behaviors. The goal of our model is to specify certain conditions under which masculinities become “fragile” and elicit these responses when under threat. We start by describing the rigid expectations men experience—for example, that they are strong and tough. We propose that these expectations cause men to experience different forms of discrepancy within themselves that produce corresponding motivations to reduce these discrepancies. Under threat, motivations driven by others’ expectations elicit outward attempts to restore masculine status (e.g., aggression), whereas motivations driven by self-ideals cause internalized responses (e.g., shame, self-harm). We conclude by discussing how to reduce these discrepancies, such as mitigating the rigidity of and encouraging men’s resistance to masculinity expectations.
Citation: Personality and Social Psychology Review
PubDate: 2023-01-04T07:01:55Z
DOI: 10.1177/10888683221141176
|
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
