Societies are increasingly divided about political issues such as migration or counteracting climate change. This attitudinal polarization is the basis for intergroup conflict and prevents societal ...progress in addressing pressing challenges. Research on attitude change should provide an answer regarding how people might be persuaded to move away from the extremes to take a moderate stance. However, persuasive communication often most strongly affects those who hold a moderate attitude or are undecided. More importantly, barely any research has explicitly aimed at mitigating extreme attitudes and behavioral tendencies. Addressing this gap, this article summarizes research demonstrating that (different types of) intraindividual conflicts might be a means to mitigate polarized attitudes. Goal conflicts, cognitive conflicts, counterfactual thinking, and paradoxical thinking facilitate cognitive flexibility. This, in turn, seems to initiate the consideration of alternative stances and mitigate the polarization of attitudes. We discuss the limitations of the existing research and the potential of this approach for interventions.
During COVID-19, conspiracy theories were intensely discussed in the media. Generally, both believing in conspiracy theories (i.e., explanations for events based on powerholders’ secret arrangements) ...and being confronted with a conspiracy theory have been found to predict cognition and behavior with negative societal effects, such as low institutional trust. Accordingly, believing in conspiracy theories around COVID-19 should reduce institutional trust, support of governmental regulations and their adoption, and social engagement (e.g., helping members of risk groups). We tested these predictions in a national random sample survey, an experiment, and a longitudinal study (N
total = 1,213; all studies were preregistered). Indeed, believing in and being confronted with a COVID-19 conspiracy theory decreased institutional trust, support of governmental regulations, adoption of physical distancing, and—to some extent—social engagement. Findings underscore the severe societal effects of conspiracy theories in the context of COVID-19.
Conversational AI (e.g., Google Assistant or Amazon Alexa) is present in many people’s everyday life and, at the same time, becomes more and more capable of solving more complex tasks. However, it is ...unclear how the growing capabilities of conversational AI affect people’s disclosure towards the system as previous research has revealed mixed effects of technology competence. To address this research question, we propose a framework systematically disentangling conversational AI competencies along the lines of the dimensions of human competencies suggested by the action regulation theory. Across two correlational studies and three experiments (Ntotal = 1453), we investigated how these competencies differentially affect users’ and non-users’ disclosure towards conversational AI. Results indicate that intellectual competencies (e.g., planning actions and anticipating problems) in a conversational AI heighten users’ willingness to disclose and reduce their privacy concerns. In contrast, meta-cognitive heuristics (e.g., deriving universal strategies based on previous interactions) raise privacy concerns for users and, even more so, for non-users but reduce willingness to disclose only for non-users. Thus, the present research suggests that not all competencies of a conversational AI are seen as merely positive, and the proposed differentiation of competencies is informative to explain effects on disclosure.
Public discourse on immigration has seemed to polarize over recent years—with some people strongly trusting, but others strongly distrusting immigrants. We examined whether a cognitive strategy could ...mitigate these biased outgroup judgments. Given that subtractive counterfactual thoughts (“If only I had not done X. . .”) facilitate cognitive flexibility and especially a relational processing style, we hypothesized that these thoughts (vs. additive counterfactuals “If only I had done X. . .” and no counterfactuals) would weaken the relationship between people’s political orientation and the perceived trustworthiness of immigrants. In five experiments (two preregistered; total N = 1,189), we found that inducing subtractive (but not additive) counterfactuals—either via rhetorical questions in a political speech or via mindset priming—had the predicted debiasing effect. Taken together, subtle means such as using subtractive counterfactual questions in political communication seem to be a promising way to reduce biased outgroup judgments in heated public debates.
Intergroup emotions powerfully shape intergroup relations. Anger and fear fuel, while hope and sympathy reduce intergroup strife. This implies that emotion regulation may play an important role in ...improving intergroup relations. Broadening the scope of prior research, we herein investigate the potential benefits of integrative emotion regulation for improving intergroup relations. Integrative emotion regulation involves actively paying attention to emotions to determine which information they provide. Interindividual differences in the use of integrative emotion regulation correlate with sympathy and supportiveness towards outgroups, but why this is the case is unclear. We tested two possible explanations: a person effect (i.e., interindividual differences in integrative emotion regulation shape respondents' general outlook on outgroups) and a person-situation interaction effect (i.e., integrative emotion regulation reduces the impact of situational factors that would typically dampen sympathy, thereby shaping situation-specific responses to outgroups). In four experiments (total N = 984), we manipulated outgroup behaviour and measured interindividual differences in integrative emotion regulation. We found no interaction between integrative emotion regulation and outgroup behaviour in predicting outgroup-directed sympathy and supportiveness. Instead, integrative emotion regulation consistently correlated positively with supportiveness, mediated by sympathy. These findings suggest that those high in integrative emotion regulation have a more positive, general outlook on outgroups than those low in integrative emotion regulation, but being high in integrative emotion does not alter situational responses.
Civil war, flight, escape and expulsion are extremely stressful and assert a negative impact on refugees' mental health. However scientific research about resilience and coping of refugees is scarce. ...Especially in the recent refugee crisis, calls have been made to consider factors contributing to coping and resilience in this vulnerable population. Therefore, the current research sought to investigate individual differences that could serve as antecedents of coping and contextual factors that might moderate these effects. Specifically, it took into account individual's self-regulatory differences in terms of regulatory focus (i.e., a promotion focus on nurturance needs, ideals and gains vs. a prevention focus on security needs, oughts and losses). It furthermore explored contextual influences by considering Syrian refugees in Turkey (Sample 1, N = 273) and Germany (Sample 2, N = 169). Compared to Syrian refugees in Turkey, those in Germany had a stronger promotion focus. They also reported more problem-focused and less maladaptive coping, as well as less symptoms. Both promotion and prevention focus were positively related to problem-focused coping. Problem-focused coping, in turn, predicted more symptoms in Turkey but not in Germany. Furthermore, a stronger promotion focus was associated with less symptoms and maladaptive coping was associated with more symptoms in both samples. These results contribute to the coping literature in demonstrating that under certain conditions problem-focused coping can be maladaptive and extend the scarce previous work on self-regulation and coping. Most importantly, they highlight a promotion focus as a clear resilience factor and the role of maladaptive coping in increasing vulnerability. As such, they might inform the design of effective interventions among Syrian refugees and beyond.
Successful leadership requires leaders to make their followers aware of expectations regarding the goals to achieve, norms to follow, and task responsibilities to take over. This awareness is often ...achieved through leader-follower communication. In times of economic globalization and digitalization, however, leader-follower communication has become both more digitalized (virtual, rather than face-to-face) and less frequent, making successful leader-follower-communication more challenging. The current research tested in four studies (three preregistered) whether digitalization and frequency of interaction predict task-related leadership success. In one cross-sectional (Study 1, N = 200), one longitudinal (Study 2, N = 305), and one quasi-experimental study (Study 3, N = 178), as predicted, a higher frequency (but not a lower level of digitalization) of leader-follower interactions predicted better task-related leadership outcomes (i.e., stronger goal clarity, norm clarity, and task responsibility among followers). Via mediation and a causal chain approach, Study 3 and Study 4 (N = 261) further targeted the mechanism; results showed that the relationship between (higher) interaction frequency and these outcomes is due to followers perceiving more opportunities to share work-related information with the leaders. These results improve our understanding of contextual factors contributing to leadership success in collaborations across hierarchies. They highlight that it is not the digitalization but rather the frequency of interacting with their leader that predicts whether followers gain clarity about the relevant goals and norms to follow and the task responsibilities to assume.
Power usually lowers stress responses. In stressful situations, having high (vs. low) power heightens challenge and lowers threat. Yet, even power-holders may experience threat when becoming aware of ...the responsibility that accompanies their power. Power-holders can construe (i.e., understand) a high-power position primarily as opportunity to “make things happen” or as responsibility to “take care of things.” Power-holders construing power as responsibility (rather than opportunity) may be more likely to experience demands—such as taking care of important decisions under their control—as outweighing their resources, resulting in less challenge and more threat. Four experiments with subjective and cardiovascular threat-challenge indicators support this. Going beyond prior work on structural aspects (e.g., power instability) that induce stress, we show that merely the way how power-holders construe their power can evoke stress. Specifically, we find that power construed as responsibility (vs. opportunity) is more likely to imply a “burden” for the power-holder.
People believing in conspiracy theories question mainstream thoughts and behavior, but it is unknown whether it is also linked to lower adherence to the prosocial norms of the broader society. ...Furthermore, interventions targeting correlates of the belief in conspiracy theories so far are scarce. In four preregistered, mixed-design experiments (Ntotal = 1,659, Nobservations = 8,902), we tested whether believing in conspiracy theories is related to lower prosocial norm adherence and whether deliberation about the reason for the norms mitigates this relationship. Across four studies with the U.S. samples, we found that believing in conspiracy theories correlated negatively with prosocial norm adherence in the control condition, which was less pronounced after deliberation (effect size of interaction: d = 0.16). Whether the norm was related to the law or not did not moderate this effect. Results point toward possible ways of mitigating negative correlates and potentially also consequences of believing in conspiracy theories.
Social power can be construed as opportunity (focusing on the possibility of one's own goal achievement resulting from the control over others' outcomes) or as responsibility (focusing on the ...implications of one's own actions resulting from the control over others' outcomes). Four experiments tested the impact of different construals of social power on the attraction of power. Due to the salience of the possibility for goal achievement, power construed as opportunity was expected to be more attractive than power construed as responsibility. This effect was predicted to be particularly pronounced among individuals with a strong promotion orientation, because of their focus on gains and achievements. Results supported these predictions and indicate that future research should take different construals of power into account.
► We primed construal of power as opportunity versus responsibility. ► Power is more attractive when construed as opportunity (vs. responsibility). ► Power as opportunities means power provides resources to attain goals. ► We showed that power as opportunity is attractive as it allows for accomplishment.
PDF
