Social influence matters: We follow pandemic guidelines most when our close circle does

Why do we adopt new rules, such as social distancing? Although human sciences research stresses the key role of social influence in behaviour change, most COVID-19 campaigns emphasize the disease’s medical threat. In a global data set (n = 6,675), we investigated how social influences predict people’s adherence to distancing rules during the pandemic. Bayesian regression analyses controlling for stringency of local measures showed that people distanced most when they thought their close social circle did. Such social influence mattered more than people thinking distancing was the right thing to do. People’s adherence also aligned with their fellow citizens, but only if they felt deeply bonded with their country. Self-vulnerability to the disease predicted distancing more for people with larger social circles. Collective efficacy and collectivism also significantly predicted distancing. To achieve behavioural change during crises, policymakers must emphasize shared values and harness the social influence of close friends and family.     

Screw Those Guys: Polarization,Empathy, and Attitudes About Out-Partisans

Empathic ability is the ability to interpret the emotional state of others. In today's highly partisan and polarized environment, empathic ability may play a key role in determining how partisans respond emotionally to changes in public policy and those helped or harmed by the policy. Utilizing Baron-Cohen et al.'s (Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241–251, 2001) “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test to measure empathic ability, we conduct a survey experiment where we asked participants to read about a partisan individual who may lose their health insurance if the Affordable Care Act were to be repealed. We show that empathic ability shapes attitudes about people and policies, but that the effects are contingent upon the respondent's partisanship, the target's partisanship, and an interaction of the two. Empathic ability produces more positive affect and policy support among Democrats but reduces positive affect among Republicans. The divergent effects of empathic ability on Democrats and Republicans are further exacerbated when the target is an out-partisan.     

Doing history that matters: Going public and activating voices as a form of historical activism

For many of us academics, doing community‐engaged research means coming to terms with the significant gaps in experience, privilege, and power, and overall access to knowledge. We are trained to learn through texts, not through direct experience. In some ways, we are even conditioned to tune out experience, or anecdote, to dilute personal subjectivities in favor of a critical analysis informed by a combination of methods and sources, and a reliance on text‐based forms of evidence. Whereas for most community members, evidence is experiential. This dynamic also underscores the tremendous power and responsibility we have as historians to shape identities and legacies through the stories we tell. In the end, I believe the risks are worth the rewards.     

Antiwomen But Proquota: Disaggregating Sexism and Support for Gender Quota Policies

Previous research on support for gender quotas focuses on attitudes toward gender equality and government intervention as explanations. We argue the role of attitudes toward women in understanding support for policies aiming to increase the presence of women in politics is ambivalent—both hostile and benevolent forms of sexism contribute in understanding support, albeit in different ways. Using original data from a survey conducted on a probability-based sample of Australian respondents, our findings demonstrate that hostile sexists are more likely to oppose increasing of women's presence in politics through the adoption of gender quotas. Benevolent sexists, on the other hand, are more likely to support these policies than respondents exhibiting low levels of benevolent sexism. We argue this is because benevolent sexism holds that women are pure and need protection; they do not have what it takes to succeed in politics without the assistance of quotas. Finally, we show that while women are more likely to support quotas, ambivalent sexism has the same relationship with support among both women and men. These findings suggest that aggregate levels of public support for gender quotas do not necessarily represent greater acceptance of gender equality generally.     

权力感对道德判断的影响及其理论解释:基于CNI模型的视角

权力感指个体对控制他人和自身的能力的感知。现有权力对道德判断的影响研究主要使用传统两难困境范式,围绕权力感影响主体道德判断的功利论倾向与道义论倾向展开,且研究观点尚未达成共识。由于传统两难困境范式的局限性,研究者开发了道德判断CNI模型探究权力感对道德判断的影响,该模型为两者之间的关系提供了新的解释路径。未来研究可关注CNI模型视角下不同类型权力感对道德判断的影响以及探讨特质性权力感与情境性权力感对个体道德判断差异的联合作用。     

Aggression-consistent, -inconsistent,and -irrelevant priming effects on selective exposure to media violence

Priming with aggressive concepts increases males' attraction to media violence. It was hypothesized that priming with schema-irrelevant concepts would decrease interest relative to the effects of schema-relevant concepts, whether or not the schema-relevant concepts were also schema-consistent. Thirty male undergraduates used lists including aggressive (schema-consistent and schema-relevant), positive or prosocial (schema-inconsistent yet relevant), or entirely neutral (schema-irrelevant) words to write short stories (priming task), then received an opportunity to select videotaped film clips for viewing. Subjects primed by aggressive word lists included more aggression, anger, fear, and violence in their stories than did those in the aggression-inconsistent and aggression-irrelevant conditions, whereas aggression-inconsistent priming yielded more fun, helping, and joy than did other conditions. Aggressively primed subjects expressed more interest in films containing violence and hostility than did neutrally primed subjects, whereas aggression-inconsistent priming did not differ significantly from either aggressive (schema-consistent) or neutral (schema-irrelevant) priming. Findings indicate that the aggressive priming activates aggressive concepts that make violence and hostility more salient to individuals. Because male undergraduates typically express interest in violence, enhanced salience leads to increased interest. © 1992 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

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.     

权力感对炫耀性亲社会行为的影响

基于高成本价值信号理论, 本文探究了权力感对炫耀性亲社会行为的影响。5个实验的结果表明：权力感促使个体更愿意从事炫耀性亲社会行为, 高(vs. 低)权力感个体更倾向购买炫耀性亲社会产品, 更愿意进行炫耀性捐赠且捐赠金额较高, 也更愿意参与炫耀性善行, 其机制在于高权力感者具有较高的自我矫饰动机。本文对理解权力感对个体行为的影响、丰富权力感与亲社会行为的研究文献有理论贡献, 对有效引导高权力感者从事亲社会行为具有实践价值。     

COVID-19 and Religious Ethics

The editors of the JRE solicited short essays on the COVID-19 pandemic from a group of scholars of religious ethics that reflected on how the field might help them make sense of the complex religious, cultural, ethical, and political implications of the pandemic, and on how the pandemic might shape the future of religious ethics.