Psychological aspects of childbirth: Evidence for a birth‐related mindset

Psychological research on childbirth is rare, even though research from other scientific fields such as obstetrics or midwifery highlights the importance of psychological factors in childbirth. In this article, the theoretical construct of a birth‐related mindset and direct and indirect measures for assessing the mindset are proposed. It is assumed that childbirth can be mentally presented as a rather natural (natural mindset) or a rather medicalized (medicalized mindset) event. In three online studies (Study 1: N = 117, Study 2: N = 206, Study 3: N = 192), we aimed to explore whether the proposed birth‐related mindset is related to the retrospectively reported process of labor and birth (operationalized, e.g., by performed interventions, duration of birth, place of birth). For this, the relation between the mothers’ birth‐related decisions and outcomes of childbirth and the mothers' birth‐related mindsets were analyzed. Results indicated that (1) birth‐related criteria such as place of birth, epidural anesthesia, and C‐sections were associated with the birth‐related mindset, (2) these aspects of the delivery were related to the evaluation of the birth (birth experience), (3) the birth‐related mindset moderated the relationship between C‐section and birth experience, and (4) the indirect measures had little to no added explanatory value to the developed Mindset and Birth Questionnaire. Thus, the results indicate that the birth process experienced by the women and the mental representations of birth (birth‐related mindset) are closely related. Future studies need to investigate to what extend the experienced birth process influences the mindset of birth, or the mindset the experienced birth process, or both.     

Psychological Correlates of Populist Attitudes

Studies of demand-side populism with a focus on attitudinal and behavioral factors are becoming more popular, but only a few have explored the phenomenon's psychological determinants. We tackle the lack of conversation between populism scholars and political psychologists and test the impact of conspiracy beliefs, moral disengagement, need for cognition, and belief in simple solutions on populist attitudes. We use the most widespread ideational definition in an attempt to bring clarity to demand-side populism, as the literature often conflates the concept of populism with adjacent ideological and psychological factors. We analyze representative samples from two very different countries (Italy and Turkey) to test our hypotheses. We use two of the most often-used measures of populist attitudes and also explore populism's individual building blocks: people-centrism, antielitism, and a Manichean worldview. We consistently find conspiracy beliefs (and our control variable of institutional trust) as primary sources of populist attitudes, whereas the impact of the other psychological factors is more dependent on context and operationalization. Our article calls for more conceptual clarity, careful theorization, and more work on the refinement of available survey measures. We also highlight the importance of national contexts and the dangers of generalization based on individual country studies.     

Evaluating evidence for a global mindset factor across multiple ability domains

The current studies help to clarify the nature of growth mindsets by evaluating how strongly people hold a global belief that generalizes across multiple ability domains (e.g., math, writing). Study 1 (N = 651) showed that a bifactor model, consisting of a common global belief and beliefs specific to each domain, fit the data reasonably well. Global mindset beliefs and domain-specific mindset beliefs predicted domain-specific outcomes, whereas global mindset more strongly predicted global outcomes than domain-specific factors. Study 2 (N = 1,422) used an augmented bifactor model with newly developed global mindset items that only served as indicators of the global factor. Results showed high convergence between the new global mindset items and the global factor from a bifactor model.     

Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view

Strong disagreements have stymied today’s political discourse. We investigate intellectual humility – recognizing the limits of one’s knowledge and appreciating others’ intellectual strengths – as one factor that can make disagreements more constructive. In Studies 1 and 2, participants with higher intellectual humility were more open to learning about the opposition’s views during imagined disagreements. In Study 3, those with higher intellectual humility exposed themselves to a greater proportion of opposing political perspectives. In Study 4, making salient a growth mindset of intelligence boosted intellectual humility, and, in turn, openness to opposing views. Results suggest that intellectual humility is associated with openness during disagreement, and that a growth mindset of intelligence may increase intellectual humility. Implications for current political polarization are discussed.     

Thinking about “why” eliminates retrieval‐induced forgetting: Levels of construal affect retrieval dynamics

The present study examined how levels of construal affect retrieval‐induced forgetting. Higher‐level construal is associated with the focus on the similarities among stimuli, suggesting that high‐level construal promotes relational processing. Based on this fact, retrieval‐induced forgetting may be reduced or eliminated under high‐level construal condition because of the effect of relational processing. Two experiments were conducted using a retrieval‐practice paradigm with different stimuli while priming the level of construal. A meta‐analysis synthesizing the results showed that retrieval‐induced forgetting occurred under the low‐level construal condition, whereas forgetting did not occur under the high‐level construal condition. These results suggest that abstract thinking can eliminate retrieval‐induced forgetting because of relational processing, demonstrating the role of the levels of construal on memory inhibition.     

Some Dare Call It Conspiracy: Labeling Something a Conspiracy Theory Does Not Reduce Belief in It

“Conspiracy theory” is widely acknowledged to be a loaded term. Politicians use it to mock and dismiss allegations against them, while philosophers and political scientists warn that it could be used as a rhetorical weapon to pathologize dissent. In two empirical studies conducted on Amazon Mechanical Turk, I present an initial examination of whether this concern is justified. In Experiment 1, 150 participants judged a list of historical and speculative theories to be no less likely when they were labeled “conspiracy theories” than when they were labeled “ideas.” In Experiment 2 (N = 802), participants who read a news article about fictitious “corruption allegations” endorsed those allegations no more than participants who saw them labeled “conspiracy theories.” The lack of an effect of the conspiracy‐theory label in both experiments was unexpected and may be due to a romanticized image of conspiracy theories in popular media or a dilution of the term to include mundane speculation regarding corruption and political intrigue.     

Market mindset impacts moral decisions: The exposure to market relationships makes moral choices more utilitarian by means of proportional thinking

We show that exposure to market relationships increases people’s tendency to make utilitarian moral choices by means of proportional thinking—the definitional feature of the market mindset. In Experiment 1, participants primed with market relationships made more utilitarian choices in both the trolley and the footbridge dilemmas. In Experiment 2, priming market mindset led to more utilitarian moral choices and to greater focus on the proportion of survivors to victims. Experiment 3 showed that the effect of market mindset on utilitarian choices held only when the numbers of potential deaths and saved lives were clearly specified. A preregistered Experiment 4 demonstrated that the motivation to use proportional thinking mediates the relationship between market mindset and making utilitarian choices. Experiment 5, also preregistered, showed that the main effect we demonstrated is not due to suppressed emotions and that proportional thinking increases utilitarian choices as part of a broader orientation on rationality.     

The role of motivation and volition in economic decisions: Evidence from eye movements and pupillometry

Economic decisions usually involve high stakes, real consequences, and some degree of personal risk. This article explores the impact of motivational and volitional states on economic decision processes in an incentivized lottery choice task. We investigated the patterns of decision time, choice, information search, and pupil dilation dependent on an experimental manipulation of motivation and volition, that is, the deliberative and the implemental mindset. The results indicated that choice preferences in economic decisions were robust and remained unaffected by motivational and volitional states, but decision processes were notably impacted. Decision makers in a deliberative state of mind searched for information more extensively and made slower decisions than the baseline. The implemental mindset was associated with more attention paid to the probability attributes of the gambles relative to the deliberative mindset. Furthermore, we observed that gamble outcomes that entailed no win at all (i.e., zero outcomes) played an important role for information search. These outcomes were largely disregarded in terms of predecisional information search but elicited pupillary responses similar to very high outcome lotteries. These results inform the current debate about the zero effect in risky choice. We also discuss the potential of eye-tracking studies of risky choice to dissolve ambiguities concerning the contributions of effort and arousal to modulating pupillary response. Implications for theoretical advances in decision research are discussed.     

The role of stress mindset in support provision

To better understand the antecedents of support provision within relationships, this study examined the potential role of a novel individual difference; spouses' stress mindset (i.e., beliefs about whether stress‐is‐enhancing or stress‐is‐debilitating). As individuals with a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset often underestimate other's stress, we hypothesized that those with a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset will generally provide less and worse support compared to individuals with a stress‐is‐debilitating mindset. The results revealed few significant associations and the associations that were significant were contrary to predictions. For example, wives with a stress‐is‐enhancing mindset provided more support, and husbands who perceived their partner as having a more stress‐is‐enhancing mindset provided better support. Further research is needed to replicate these results and determine whether stress mindset has interpersonal consequences.