Selfish power and unselfish status in Chinese work situations

The present research explored the selfishness of power and status as well as the mechanism in Chinese work situations. By using experimental and survey methods, two studies were designed to investigate the relationships among power, status, and self‐interested behaviour (SIB) as well as the mediating effect of perspective‐taking (PT). Results of the two studies consistently indicated that power increases whereas status reduces SIB. These opposing behavioural effects are partially attributed to the fact that power reduces whereas status increases PT. In addition, our results showed an interaction between power and status on SIB in Study 1 (interaction as a mental function), and a positive correlation between perceived power and status in Study 2 (correlation as a mental perception). Through the discussion from the perspective of the self/other‐orientation trait, as well as the stable effects of power and status on SIB in the two studies, we conclude that power is selfish and status is unselfish in Chinese work situations.     

Research in counselling and psychotherapy Post‐COVID‐19

The COVID‐19 pandemic brings to light many areas the field of counselling and psychotherapy may need to address in future research. We outline several issues stemming from or exacerbated by the pandemic and offer suggestions for future research to address the mental health needs of those impacted. Our suggestions focus on five domains: (a) the health and well‐being of helping professionals, (b) the infodemic, (c) discrimination and minority stress, (d) spiritual and existential dynamics in mental health and (e) couple and family stress and resilience. We aim to provide a multi‐systemic perspective of mental health and well‐being in the time of COVID‐19, as well as encourage current and future studies to incorporate these suggestions to advance the health and well‐being of our communities through evidence‐based treatment approaches.     

走进大自然：自然体验及其积极效应

自然体验是指个体通过各种感官感知自然或与源于自然界的刺激互动。学者通常使用问卷测量法、自然指标法或实验操纵法来量化操纵人们的自然体验,发现接触自然可以在心理、生理和行为等方面产生积极效应。且这些积极效应会受到物理环境、个体以及社会因素的影响。未来应突破“城市——自然”二元对立思想并加强积极效应的纵深研究;拓展研究群体;促进相关研究成果的实际应用。     

Social isolation,aggression, and dominance in attacks in juvenile angelfish,Pterophyllum scalare

The effects of social isolation on aggressive behavior and rank order have been investigated in small groups of juvenile angelfish, Pterophyllum scalare. An experimental protocol including a “double transfer” of the subjects was used, in which fish were transferred to new aquaria in groups, before subsequent isolation and regrouping. A significant decrease in aggression was observed in the first recording session following both isolation and group transfer, after which the level returned to that recorded in the home tanks. The social hierarchy was also perturbed, but changes generally involed the two highest ranking fish in two out of the three groups, and were found not to be statistically significant. The behavior patterns are interpreted as adaptive responses to environmental change. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

Counter-argument self-efficacy predicts choice of belief-defense strategies

Research has identified many strategies people use to defend against belief-inconsistent information. However, little research has identified factors that predict which defense strategy people will use when more than one is available. Two experiments tested whether people choose to counter-argue belief-inconsistent information because they believe arguing will be successful, but resort to weaker defense strategies because they believe arguing will be unsuccessful. Exposure to strong versus weak belief-inconsistent information caused a decrease in counter-arguing and an increase in ignoring (Experiment 1) or claiming a belief to be a matter of opinion (untestable) rather than a matter of fact (testable; Experiment 2). Consistent with self-efficacy theory, expectations of successful counter-arguing was the mechanism responsible for both effects. When people feel less capable of successfully counter-arguing because the information is too difficult to refute, they resort to epistemically weaker defense strategies in order to preserve their belief.     

Zero-sum beliefs shape advantaged allies’ support for collective action

Three studies (N₁ = 1,019; N₂ = 312; N₃ = 494) tested whether seeing intergroup relations as inherently antagonistic shaped advantaged social groups’ allyship intentions. More specifically, we tested whether endorsing zero-sum beliefs related to their willingness to support system-challenging and system-supporting collective action. Zero-sum beliefs were negatively correlated with system-challenging and positively correlated with system-supporting collective action intentions. Zero-sum beliefs were more common among advantaged than disadvantaged groups and translated into lower allyship intentions. Advantaged group members with higher levels of zero-sum beliefs were also more likely to experience anger and fear when considering the demographic racial shift in the United States. Increased fear was associated with greater support for system-supporting and lower support for system-challenging collective action. We find consistent evidence that advantaged group members see intergroup relations as a zero-sum game and that these beliefs are negatively related to their intentions to become allies.     

More Royalist Than the King? Immigration Policy Attitudes Among Naturalized Citizens

Social psychological research has analyzed immigration attitudes mostly from the perspective of natives without an immigrant background. Nevertheless, an increasing number of migrants obtain national citizenship and take a stance towards immigration policies. By studying immigration policy attitudes reported by naturalized citizens, this article develops a dual-pathway model of immigrant political incorporation featuring pathways of either absorption or transformation. Based on a unique sample of immigrants who just accomplished the naturalization procedure (N = 566), we investigate participants' preferences for permissive or restrictive immigration policies as a function of their naturalization motives and expectations about how immigrants should acculturate in the receiving society (i.e., acculturation orientations). Our findings provide evidence for both processes of political absorption and transformation. On the one hand, belongingness motives underlying naturalization were connected to orientations towards host culture adoption, which in turn predicted support for restrictive immigration policies. On the other hand, instrumental motives were connected to orientations towards heritage culture maintenance, which in turn predicted support for permissive immigration policies. To conclude, we discuss the social psychological dynamics involved in the transition from national outsiders to national insiders and highlight the effects of naturalization on power relations between national majority and immigrant minority groups.     

Gender Attitudes and Public Opinion Towards Electoral Gender Quotas in Brazil

Research on public opinion towards affirmative action shows that citizens often support the principle of equality while simultaneously rejecting policies that promote it in a pattern described as the “principle-policy puzzle.” The scholarship also shows that ideology and prejudice towards the targeted group explain the puzzle with respect to racial affirmative action. In this article, we use unique survey questions included in the 2014 round of the AmericasBarometer in Brazil to show that citizens tend to support electoral gender quotas while rejecting gender-based egalitarianism in a reversed version of the “principle-policy puzzle.” We argue that a different type of gender attitudes, namely benevolent sexism, shapes support for gender quotas as well as for the principle of equality. While benevolent sexists tend to reject gender equality based on views about gender complementarity and stereotypes about women's purity, they also support quotas as policies to foster such values. Our findings suggest that even though the political and scholarly debates can provide sound normative reasons for the adoption of quotas across different contexts, public support for them often relies on paternalistic views and expectations about the role of women in politics.