Статья посвящена вопросам влияния власти на поведение человека. Авторы рассматривают данные различных источников, в которых увеличение власти связывается с напористостью, а ее уменьшение - с подавленностью. Конкретно, власть ассоциируется с: а) позитивным аффектом; б) вниманием к вознаграждению и к свойствам других, удовлетворяющим личные цели; в) автоматической переработкой информации и резкими суждениями; г) расторможенным социальным поведением. Уменьшение власти, напротив, ассоциируется с: а) негативным аффектом; б) вниманием к угрозам и наказаниям, к интересам других и к тем характеристикам я, которые отвечают целям других; в) контролируемой переработкой информации и совещательным типом рассуждений; г) подавленным социальным поведением. Обсуждаются также последствия этих паттернов поведения, связанных с властью, и потенциальные модераторы.

Power, approach, and inhibition. Власть, напористость и подавленность

/pdf/social-psychology-handbook-of-basic-principles-5cncpuwpen.pdf

Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles

Tourism and COVID-19: Impacts and implications for advancing and resetting industry and research

Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age

http://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudman_moss-racusin_phelan__nauts_2012.pdf

Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders.

The authors propose that the high levels of support often observed for governmental and religious systems can be explained, in part, as a means of coping with the threat posed by chronically or situationally fluctuating levels of perceived personal control. Three experiments demonstrated a causal relation between lowered perceptions of personal control and the defense of external systems, including increased beliefs in the existence of a controlling God (Studies 1 and 2) and defense of the overarching socio-political system (Study 4). A 4th experiment (Study 5) showed the converse to be true: A challenge to the usefulness of external systems of control led to increased illusory perceptions of personal control. In addition, a cross-national data set demonstrated that lower levels of personal control are associated with higher support for governmental control (across 67 nations; Study 3). Each study identified theoretically consistent moderators and mediators of these effects. The implications of these results for understanding why a high percentage of the population believes in the existence of God, and why people so often endorse and justify their socio-political systems, are discussed.

God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems.

How powerful is the status quo in determining people's social ideals? The authors propose (a) that people engage in injunctification, that is, a motivated tendency to construe the current status quo as the most desirable and reasonable state of affairs (i.e., as the most representative of how things should be); (b) that this tendency is driven, at least in part, by people's desire to justify their sociopolitical systems; and (c) that injunctification has profound implications for the maintenance of inequality and societal change. Four studies, across a variety of domains, provided supportive evidence. When the motivation to justify the sociopolitical system was experimentally heightened, participants injunctified extant (a) political power (Study 1), (b) public funding policies (Study 2), and (c) unequal gender demographics in the political and business spheres (Studies 3 and 4, respectively). It was also demonstrated that this motivated phenomenon increased derogation of those who act counter to the status quo (Study 4). Theoretical implications for system justification theory, stereotype formation, affirmative action, and the maintenance of inequality are discussed.

https://homepage.univie.ac.at/Andreas.Olbrich/konfliktskript7.pdf

Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be.

Empirical research supporting the contention that insecure attachment is related to internalizing behaviors has been inconsistent. Across 60 studies including 5,236 families, we found a significant, small to medium effect size linking insecure attachment and internalizing behavior (observed d = .37, 95% CI [0.27, 0.46]; adjusted d = .19, 95% CI [0.09, 0.29]). Several moderator variables were associated with differences in effect size, including concurrent externalizing behavior, gender, how the disorganized category was treated, observation versus questionnaire measures of internalizing behavior, age of attachment assessment, time elapsed between attachment and internalizing measure, and year of publication. The association between avoidant attachment and internalizing behavior was also significant and small to moderate (d = .29, 95% CI [0.12, 0.45]). The effect sizes comparing resistant to secure attachment and resistant to avoidant attachment were not significant. In 20 studies with 2,679 families, we found a small effect size linking disorganized attachment and internalizing behavior (observed d = .20, 95% CI [0.09, 0.31]); however, the effect size was not significant when adjusted for probable publication bias (d = .12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23]). The existing literature supports the general notion that insecure attachment relationships in early life, particularly avoidant attachment, are associated with subsequent internalizing behaviors, although effect sizes are not strong.

Attachment and internalizing behavior in early childhood: a meta-analysis.

Despite the cultural ubiquity of ideas and images related to God, relatively little is known about the effects of exposure to God representations on behavior. Specific depictions of God differ across religions, but common to most is that God is (a) an omnipotent, controlling force and (b) an omniscient, all-knowing being. Given these 2 characteristic features, how might exposure to the concept of God influence behavior? Leveraging classic and recent theorizing on self-regulation and social cognition, we predict and test for 2 divergent effects of exposure to notions of God on self-regulatory processes. Specifically, we show that participants reminded of God (vs. neutral or positive concepts) demonstrate both decreased active goal pursuit (Studies 1, 2, and 5) and increased temptation resistance (Studies 3, 4, and 5). These findings provide the first experimental evidence that exposure to God influences goal pursuit and suggest that the ever-present cultural reminders of God can be both burden and benefit for

/pdf/divergent-effects-of-activating-thoughts-of-god-on-self-4fozqayynb.pdf

Divergent effects of activating thoughts of God on self-regulation.

Beliefs in God, or similar spiritual forces, have permeated every culture the world has seen, past or present (Atran & Norenzayan, 2004). Although there are likely many reasons why such beliefs are so strongly held (Kirkpatrick, 1998; Norenzayan & Hansen, 2006), attempts to cope with perceptions of randomness may be a key factor. Randomness is presumed to be highly aversive (Pennebaker & Stone, 2004), and people will go to considerable lengths to reaffirm order in the face of evidence to the contrary (e.g., by blaming victims of random misfortune or seeing patterns in random arrays; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Lerner, 1980; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008; also see Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006). Affirming the existence of a controlling God, therefore, may provide an excellent means for insulating oneself from the aversive arousal associated with randomness. However, no experimental test of this hypothesis exists. Park (2005) has suggested that traumatic events can strengthen belief in God because of the threat they pose to nonrandomness, but this correlational research (also see Laurin, Kay, & Moscovitch, 2008) focused only on negative events and assumed (rather than directly assessed) the role of randomness. Some research has manipulated self-conceptions that may be related to preserving beliefs in order (e.g., Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008; McGregor, Haji, Nash, & Teper, 2008), but none has investigated randomness directly, and none, crucially, has assessed the role of arousal in generating between-condition differences in belief in God. In this study, we employed a novel paradigm to test (a) whether direct manipulations designed to prime thoughts of randomness cause increased beliefs in supernatural sources of control (even when controlling for negative valence) and (b) whether this effect is due to arousal generated by thoughts of randomness. To heighten thoughts of randomness, we supraliminally primed half the participants with randomness-related words; the other half were primed with words matched in negative valence. To assess the role of arousal, we employed a misattribution paradigm (Zanna & Cooper, 1974), which involved requiring all participants to swallow a pill ostensibly containing an herbal supplement. Half the participants were told that the pill sometimes induces arousal as a side effect, and half were told that the pill has no side effects. Previous work has shown that the side-effect condition leads participants to attribute the cause of any experienced arousal to this salient source (Proulx & Heine, 2008; Zanna & Cooper, 1974). Hypothesizing that beliefs in supernatural control function, at least in part, to down-regulate the aversive arousal associated with randomness, we expected the randomness primes to increase beliefs in God, but only for those participants not given the opportunity to attribute the cause of their arousal to the ingested pill.

Kristin Laurin

Papers

God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems.

Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be.

Attachment and internalizing behavior in early childhood: a meta-analysis.

Divergent effects of activating thoughts of God on self-regulation.

Randomness, Attributions of Arousal, and Belief in God