It's (a) Shame: Why Poverty Leads to Support for Authoritarianism

The literature has widely discussed and supported the relationship between poverty and support for authoritarian leaders and regimes. However, there are different claims about the mediating mechanism and a lack of empirical tests. We hypothesize that the effect of poverty on support for authoritarianism is mediated by shame: People living in poverty frequently experience social exclusion and devaluation, which is reflected in feelings of shame. Such shame, in turn, is likely to increase support for authoritarianism, mainly due to the promise of social re-inclusion. We support our hypothesis in two controlled experiments and a large-scale field study while empirically ruling out the two main alternative explanations offered in the literature: stress and anxiety. Finally, we discuss how the present findings can support policymakers in efficiently addressing the negative political consequences of poverty.

Conservatives Are Happier than Liberals: the Mediating Role of Perceived Goal Progress and Flow Experience — a Pilot Study

Authors presume that conservatives would be happier than liberals because they would develop better mental adjustment especially under contextual threat. The present study aimed at examining whether self-regulatory factors (i.e., dispositional self-control, perception of goal progress, dispositional flow, and dispositional neurotic self-attentiveness) could mediate the link between conservatism and subjective well-being (SWB). It also aimed at testing the view that contextual threat (operationalized through undesired unemployment) may moderate the relationship between conservatism and the mediators under study. In order to examine this, 418 North-American participants from the United States (66.7% females and 33.3% males; Mage = 33.63, SDage = 11.64) answered questionnaires via an online platform, and structural equation model or path analyses were conducted. Main results revealed that: (a) conservatism positively predicted SWB, whereas undesired unemployment negatively predicted SWB; (b) perception of goal progress and dispositional flow fully mediated the conservative-SWB gap; and (c) dispositional self-control was highest in conservatives under contextual threat of undesired unemployment. Finally, this study suggests that conservatives can experience higher SWB because of adaptive cognitive adjustments. Moreover, this study suggests that the rationalization of inequality can have a self-enhancement function that bolsters self-regulation process when exposed to threatening contexts.

Social Dominance Orientation Moderates the Effects of Socioeconomic Status on Well-Being

In the current study we argue that social dominance orientation (SDO) has a moderating effect on the relationship between regional inequalities in socioeconomic status (SES) and subjective well-being (SWB). Specifically, we predicted that individuals high in SDO, from high-SES regions of the United States, would have higher levels of well-being than those from low-SES regions of the United States. This hypothesis was tested by administering a series of self-report measures of SDO, SES, and SWB to a sample of undergraduate psychology students (n = 409). The data were analyzed with hierarchical linear modeling software to explore the relationships between these variables. The results were consistent with the initial hypothesis: Participants in high-SES regions (i.e., wealthier and more educated), who also identified as high in SDO, possessed higher levels of well-being than the participants from low-SES regions. Implications of such regional inequalities are discussed.

The Happiness Gap Between Conservatives and Liberals Depends on Country-Level Threat

In the present study, we investigated the much debated “happiness gap” between conservatives and liberals, approaching the issue from a multilevel person × context perspective. More specifically, we investigated whether this relationship depends on country-level threat. We used individual-level data for right-wing attitudes and psychological well-being from 94 large, representative samples collected worldwide (total N = 137,890) and objective indicators of country-level threat as the contextual variable. Our results suggest that, especially in countries characterized by high levels of threat, individuals with right-wing attitudes experienced greater well-being than individuals with left-wing attitudes. In countries with a low level of threat, this relationship was considerably weaker or even absent. Our findings corroborate the view that right-wing attitudes may serve a self-protective function, helping individuals to manage and cope with threat.