Political involvement moderates the impact of worldviews and values on SDO and RWA

The Dual Process Model (DPM) of social attitudes and prejudice proposes that Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) reflect two distinct motivational processes. In two studies, we investigated how political involvement moderates the impact of social worldviews and value‐based dimensions on SDO and RWA. We proposed that political involvement constrains SDO, RWA and their antecedents into a tighter left–right ideological dimension, therefore transforming the double dissociation pattern of the DPM into a double additive pattern. As expected, for stronger political involvement, Study 1 (N = 237) showed that SDO and RWA were a function of both the competitive jungle and the dangerous world worldviews, whereas Study 2 (N = 143) pointed out that SDO and RWA were both connected with the value dimensions of self‐enhancement and conservation.     

Religion in American Presidential Campaigns, 1952–2016: Applying a New Framework for Understanding Candidate Communication

The content and impact of religious communication in politics has been a topic of increasing public and scholarly interest in recent years. To provide a foundation for future research in this area, the present study theorizes five broad factors—historical trajectory, party expectations, audience religiosity, candidate attributes, and opponent strategy—that may help explain why political candidates use religious language. We employ this framework in a large‐scale computer‐assisted content analysis of U.S. presidential campaign speeches from 1952 to 2016. Findings reveal that the Reagan shift observed in prior research was driven specifically by God language, that the “God gap” between Democrats and Republicans is modest and topic‐specific, and that audience characteristics are crucial in explaining candidates’ religious communication.     

The mirror and the hammer: the politics of resacralization

The paper consists of the opening chapter of Andrew Samuels’ book The Political Psyche, published in 1993, together with a retrospective introduction. In the chapter, the author discussed the possibilities and limitations of applying depth psychological thinking to social and political problematics. He situates the attempt to make such applications within a wider movement to refresh and reform Western political endeavours. He terms this wider project ‘resacralization’. The author cautions against psychological reductionism and a simplistic approach to market‐based capitalism, calling for a transformation of the latter to the degree possible. He links sociopolitical criticism and psychological writings on numinous experience, thereby connecting the worlds of politics and depth psychology without losing their separate and unique qualities.     

Position,Preference and Personality: A Microlevel Explanation of Negativity in Day‐To‐Day Politics

While many scholars investigate the determinants of negativity in the political sphere, it remains largely unclear why some politicians are more negative than others. Studies thus far lack explanations at the individual level, and they almost exclusively focus on negativity during electoral races. Surveying national and regional representatives in Belgium (N = 228), this study seeks to explain individual politicians’ willingness to go negative during everyday politics. The results show that negativity is not so much related to institutionally driven differences between representatives but more to politicians’ personal characteristics and preference roles. Negative politics, hence, is not an inevitable result of institutional structures, rules, and norms, but rather depends on the characteristics and motivations of the individual representatives citizens elect.     

The Influence of Existential Threat and Tolerance Salience on Anti‐Islamic Attitudes in American Politics

Fierce public discussion has centered on anti‐Islamic attitudes and tolerance in America and the West more broadly. The present research explored whether the awareness of mortality (a common theme in politics, e.g., war/terrorism, health care, abortion, and so on) and tolerance salience might influence (1) the endorsement of anti‐Islamic attitudes in American politics and (2) political orientation. Study 1 (n = 79) was conducted in lab and Study 2 (preregistered, n = 396) replicated it online; both obtained the same results. In a neutral‐value‐prime condition, American participants reminded of mortality (vs. control topic) more strongly endorsed a Congressman’s anti‐Islamic statements about Rep. Ellison. However, in a tolerance‐value‐prime condition, participants reminded of mortality maintained their acceptance of Rep. Ellison’s beliefs and practices. Political orientation was not impacted. Implications for terror management theory (TMT), other theories of existential dynamics and motivated conservative political ideology, and both recent and contemporary American politics are discussed.     

Reciprocity and Discrimination: An Experiment of Hindu‐Muslim Cooperation in Indian Slums

This article shows that indirect positive reciprocity triggered by experiencing short and superficial cooperation with outgroups' individual members reduces discrimination of other members of the same group. The field research combined a lab‐in‐the‐field experiment and a survey conducted in the slums of Mumbai, an Indian city notorious for Hindu‐Muslim violence. After the treatment manipulated expectations of cooperative behavior, ethnically heterogeneous groups produced as much public goods in a public goods game as homogeneous groups. This positive experience radically reduced Hindu subjects' discriminatory attitudes towards the Muslim minority after the experiment. The effect was equally strong among voters of two extremist parties implicated in ethnic riots. The survey compared reciprocity with alternative explanations of why people discriminate against some, but not other ethnic groups. Indirect positive reciprocity and intergroup contact are associated with less, and relative size of the outgroup with more discriminatory attitudes.     

Fear and its vicissitudes

Abstract

The USA has been a changed society since 9/11: the Zeitgeist either has a background of low-level angst, or when an attack occurs or a threat is sounded, the fear peaks and comes to the foreground for a time. Perhaps nothing demonstrates the degree to which fear permeates contemporary culture more than the continual presence of the measures the USA takes to be safe: airport security, the Patriot Act, the mining of formerly private information by the government, to name but a few. Can we account for the pervasive nature of fear solely by the devastating and deadly attacks 15 years ago, unspeakably horrifying though they were? This paper will explore this omnipresent fear in contemporary American culture from a psychoanalytic perspective, and in so doing hopes to shed light on the nature of that fear, why it is so persistent despite 15 years without any sequels, and what the consequences of that fear are for the American way of life. The discussion will be rounded out by linking this pervasive fear to the violence that is endemic to our age.     

孔子的政治伦理思想及其现实意义——兼论其在祖国和平统一的作用

孔子“为政以德”的政治伦理思想以“仁”为基础,以“利民”为价值导向,以实现社会“大同”为理想目标。为此,他要求治国者自身不断加强道德修养,坚持人道主义的伦理原则,选贤任能,反对战争,维护和平。坚持和发扬孔子的政治伦理思想,对于实现海峡两岸的和平统一具有重要现实意义。     

Iraq, American Empire, And The War On Terrorism

Abstract: The U.S. government is trying to secure continuing American military and economic supremacy on a global scale over the long term. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq is part of this imperial project, which is now being pursued under the mantle of the war on terrorism. This essay examines these developments in the context of U.S. military spending and foreign policy since the end of the cold war, and it argues that there is reason to be concerned about the continuing viability of democratic government in the United States.     

Misreading Islamist Terrorism: The "War Against Terrorism" and Just-War Theory

Abstract: The Bush administration's military war on terrorism is a blunt, ineffective, and unjust response to the threat posed to innocent civilians by terrorism. Decentralized terrorist networks can only be effectively fought by international cooperation among police and intelligence agencies representing diverse nation‐states, including ones with predominantly Islamic populations. The Bush administration's allegations of a global Islamist terrorist threat to the national interests of the United States misread the decentralized and complex nature of Islamist politics. Undoubtedly there exists a “combat fundamentalist” element within Islamism. But the threat posed to U.S. citizens by Islamist terrorism neither necessitates nor justifies as a response massive military invasions of other nations. Not only does the Bush administration's war on alleged “terrorist states” violate the doctrine of just war, but in addition these wars arise from a new, unilateral, imperial foreign‐policy doctrine of “preventive wars.” Such a doctrine will isolate the United States from international institutions and long‐standing allies. The weakening of these institutions and alliances will only weaken the ability of the international community to deter terrorism.