European Review of Social Psychology最新文献_第2页

Face–context integration and trustworthiness evaluation 人脸语境整合与可信度评估

IF 7.2 2区心理学

European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2024-02-13 DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2024.2315915

Marco Brambilla, Simone Mattavelli, Matteo Masi

引用次数: 0

Procedural fairness in ethnic-cultural decision-making: Benefits, processes and minority and majority group perspectives 民族文化决策中的程序公平:利益、过程和少数与多数群体的观点

IF 7.2 2区心理学

European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-11-28 DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2023.2287921

Kim Dierckx, Alain Van Hiel, Barbara Valcke, Kees van den Bos

引用次数: 0

Beneficiary effects in prosocial decision making: Understanding unequal valuations of lives 亲社会决策中的受益人效应：理解生命价值的不平等

IF 7.2 2区心理学

European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-11-06 DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2023.2272238

Arvid Erlandsson, Stephan Dickert, Hajdi Moche, Daniel Västfjäll, Cassandra Chapman

引用次数: 0

Singlehood as an identity 单身是一种身份

IF 7.2 2区心理学

European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-07-31 DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2023.2241937

Elyakim Kislev

引用次数: 0

Longitudinal tests of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis 计划行为理论的纵向检验:荟萃分析

IF 7.2 2区心理学

European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-06-22 DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2023.2225897

M. Hagger, K. Hamilton

引用次数: 3

Threat and reactions to violated expectations in groups: Adding control to the equation 对群体中违反期望的威胁和反应:在等式中增加控制

IF 7.2 2区心理学

European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-05-19 DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2023.2211463

Lara Ditrich, K. Sassenberg

引用次数: 0

How identity fusion predicts extreme pro-group orientations: A meta-analysis 身份融合如何预测极端亲群体倾向:一项元分析

2区心理学

European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-03-29 DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2023.2190267

Anders Hustad Varmann, Line Kruse, Kinga Bierwiaczonek, Ángel Gómez, Alexandra Vázquez, Jonas R. Kunst

{"title":"How identity fusion predicts extreme pro-group orientations: A meta-analysis","authors":"Anders Hustad Varmann, Line Kruse, Kinga Bierwiaczonek, Ángel Gómez, Alexandra Vázquez, Jonas R. Kunst","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2023.2190267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2190267","url":null,"abstract":"Researchers have productively tested identity fusion theory, aiming to explain extreme pro-group orientations. However, the strength of effects, types of measurements, and study contexts have varied substantially. This first meta-analysis (90 studies from 55 reports, 106 effects, N = 36,880) supported four main conclusions based on the available literature: (1) identity fusion has a strong and positive but very heterogeneous relationship with extreme pro-group orientations; (2) its effect is significantly stronger than that of social identification; however, some evidence suggests that this difference is primarily observed in published rather than unpublished studies; (3) the verbal identity fusion scale has the best explanatory power; (4) identity fusion is most strongly associated with extreme collective action, followed by a willingness to sacrifice oneself, fight or die for the group, and outgroup hostility. We discuss the findings’ implication for identity fusion theory. Based on the literature’s limitations, we highlight avenues for future research.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135468875","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

A social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): Multiple explanations of system justification by the disadvantaged that do not depend on a separate system justification motive 系统态度的社会认同模型（SIMSA）：弱势群体对系统正当性的多重解释，不依赖于单独的系统正当性动机

IF 7.2 2区心理学

European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-03-10 DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2022.2046422

Mark Rubin, Chuma Kevin Owuamalam, R. Spears, Luca Caricati

{"title":"A social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA): Multiple explanations of system justification by the disadvantaged that do not depend on a separate system justification motive","authors":"Mark Rubin, Chuma Kevin Owuamalam, R. Spears, Luca Caricati","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2022.2046422","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2046422","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT System justification theory (SJT) assumes that social identity theory (SIT) cannot fully account for system justification by members of low-status (disadvantaged) groups. Contrary to this claim, we provide several elaborations of SIT that explain when and why members of low-status groups show system justification independent from any separate system justification motive. According to the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA), the needs for social accuracy and a positively distinct social identity fully account for system justification by members of low-status groups. In the present article, we (a) explain SIMSA’s accounts of system justification, (b) develop associated hypotheses, (c) summarise evidence that supports each hypothesis, and (d) highlight issues to be addressed in future research. We conclude that SIMSA provides a more parsimonious explanation of system justification by the disadvantaged than SJT, because it does not refer to an additional separate system justification motive.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"34 1","pages":"203 - 243"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45729290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Rejoinder to Rubin, Owuamalam, Spears, and Caricati (2023): Ideology is not accuracy; identity is not everything; and the social identity model of social attitudes does not explain system justification, it presupposes it 对鲁宾、奥瓦马拉姆、斯皮尔斯和卡里卡蒂的复辩（2023）：意识形态不是准确的；身份不是一切；社会态度的社会认同模型并不能解释制度正当性，而是以制度正当性为前提

IF 7.2 2区心理学

European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-03-08 DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2022.2122319

J. Jost, Jeannine Alana Bertin, Ali Javeed, Usman Liaquat, Eduardo J. Rivera Pichardo

{"title":"Rejoinder to Rubin, Owuamalam, Spears, and Caricati (2023): Ideology is not accuracy; identity is not everything; and the social identity model of social attitudes does not explain system justification, it presupposes it","authors":"J. Jost, Jeannine Alana Bertin, Ali Javeed, Usman Liaquat, Eduardo J. Rivera Pichardo","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2022.2122319","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2022.2122319","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article rebuts arguments made by proponents of the Social Identity Model of Social Attitudes (SIMSA), especially the claim that needs for accuracy and a positively distinct social identity are sufficient to explain system justification by members of disadvantaged groups. There are many serious conceptual and empirical problems with SIMSA: (1) It treats system justification as the outcome of neutral, non-ideological processes, adopting a relativistic position about social injustice; (2) It conflates completely different concepts, such as (a) holding beliefs that favour an out-group vs. believing that one is a member of that group, and (b) recognising that status differences exist vs. believing that those differences are legitimate; (3) It is fatalistic, implying that it would be “socially inaccurate and maladaptive” for the disadvantaged to challenge “social reality” by protesting against the status quo; (4) It fails to explain individual differences and within-group variability in system justification tendencies; (5) Most SIMSA hypotheses presuppose the existence of system justification by assuming that the social system is already perceived as legitimate and stable; and (6) Existing evidence is based on experiments that are subject to numerous interpretational ambiguities. We call for an integrative model of social attitudes that incorporates ideological factors – such as whether one is motivated to defend vs. challenge the status quo – alongside needs for self-esteem and positive group distinctiveness.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"34 1","pages":"244 - 267"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48352851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Social identity explanations of system justification: Misconceptions, criticisms, and clarifications 制度正当性的社会身份解释：误解、批评和澄清

IF 7.2 2区心理学

European Review of Social Psychology Pub Date : 2023-03-08 DOI: 10.1080/10463283.2023.2184578

Mark Rubin, C. Owuamalam, R. Spears, Luca Caricati

{"title":"Social identity explanations of system justification: Misconceptions, criticisms, and clarifications","authors":"Mark Rubin, C. Owuamalam, R. Spears, Luca Caricati","doi":"10.1080/10463283.2023.2184578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2184578","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, we reply to Jost et al.'s (2023) rejoinder to our article reviewing evidence for the social identity model of system attitudes (SIMSA; Rubin et al., 2023). We argue that (1) SIMSA treats system justification as the outcome of an interaction between general social psychological process and specific historical, political, cultural, and ideological environments; (2) it does not conflate perceived intergroup status differences with the perceived stability and legitimacy of those differences, (3) it is not fatalistic, because it assumes that people may engage in social change when they perceive an opportunity to do so; (4) it adopts a non-reductionist, social psychological explanation of system justification, rather than an individualist explanation based on individual differences; (5) it presupposes “existing social arrangements”, including their existing legitimacy and stability, and assumes that these social arrangements are either passively acknowledged or actively supported; and (6) it is not reliant on minimal group experiments in its evidence base.","PeriodicalId":47582,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Social Psychology","volume":"34 1","pages":"268 - 297"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45257559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1