Psychological well-being in Europe after the outbreak of war in Ukraine

The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, has had devastating effects on the Ukrainian population and the global economy, environment, and political order. However, little is known about the psychological states surrounding the outbreak of war, particularly the mental well-being of individuals outside Ukraine. Here, we present a longitudinal experience-sampling study of a convenience sample from 17 European countries (total participants = 1,341, total assessments = 44,894, countries with >100 participants = 5) that allows us to track well-being levels across countries during the weeks surrounding the outbreak of war. Our data show a significant decline in well-being on the day of the Russian invasion. Recovery over the following weeks was associated with an individual's personality but was not statistically significantly associated with their age, gender, subjective social status, and political orientation. In general, well-being was lower on days when the war was more salient on social media. Our results demonstrate the need to consider the psychological implications of the Russo-Ukrainian war next to its humanitarian, economic, and ecological consequences.

Intergroup contact is reliably associated with reduced prejudice, even in the face of group threat and discrimination

Intergroup contact provides a reliable means of reducing prejudice. Yet, critics suggested that its efficacy is undermined, even eliminated, under certain conditions. Specifically, contact may be ineffective in the face of threat, especially to (historically) advantaged groups, and discrimination, experienced especially by (historically) disadvantaged groups. We considered perceived intergroup threat and perceived discrimination as potential moderators of the effect of contact on prejudice. Two meta-analyses of correlational data from 34 studies (totaling 63,945 respondents-drawn from 67 subsamples across 19 countries) showed that contact was associated with decreased prejudice and increased out-group positivity, in cross-sectional and longitudinal designs, among advantaged and disadvantaged group members, and in both Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) and non-WEIRD contexts. Both perceived threat and perceived discrimination moderated the contact-attitude association, but in an unanticipated direction. Indeed, contact's beneficial effects were at least as strong among individuals high (r = .19) as among individuals low (r = .18) in perceived threat. Similarly, the effects of contact were at least as strong among those high (r = .23) as among those low (r = .20) in perceived discrimination. We conclude that contact is effective for promoting tolerant societies because it is effective even among subpopulations where achieving that goal might be most challenging. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Does threat trigger prosociality? The relation between basic individual values, threat appraisals, and prosocial helping intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic

Prosociality is often considered as quintessential in coping with the threats of health emergencies. As previous research has suggested, prosocial behaviors are shaped by both dispositional factors and situational cues about the helping situation. In the present research, we investigated whether "bonding" types of prosociality, helping directed towards close others within one's social network, and "bridging" types of prosociality, helping directed towards vulnerable people across group boundaries, are predicted by basic individual values and threat appraisals concerning COVID-19. During the pandemic, we conducted a cross-sectional study in the US and India (Ntotal = 954), using the Schwartz value inventory and a multifaceted measure of threat assessment to predict prosocial helping intentions. After controlling for other value and threat facets, self-transcendence values and threat for vulnerable groups uniquely predicted both bonding and bridging types of prosociality. Furthermore, threat for vulnerable groups partially mediated the effect of self-transcendence on prosocial helping intentions: People who endorsed self-transcendent values were particularly concerned by the effect of the pandemic on vulnerable groups, and thus willing to engage in prosocial behaviours to help those in need. Our findings support the idea that prosociality is stimulated by empathic concerns towards others in need and underline the importance for future research to consider the broad spectrum of threats appraised by people during health emergencies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04829-1.

Trust is in the eye of the beholder: How perceptions of local diversity and segregation shape social cohesion

A more nuanced understanding of the complex relationship between ethnic diversity and social cohesion is needed. Ever since Robert Putnam (2007) has put forward the highly contested constrict claim holding that diversity is related to less trust and more social withdrawing, hundreds of follow-up studies across the globe have been conducted. In the present contribution, we investigated the association between diversity and "hunkering down" in the Netherlands, hereby taking into account the role of segregation. Indeed, Uslaner (2012) pointed to local segregation as the true motor of the so-called diversity effects on intergroup relations in general, and trust in others in particular. We did not only investigate objective indicators of diversity and segregation, but also added an "eye of the beholder" perspective by probing into the subjective perceptions of these variables. Specifically, in a stratified community sample of 680 Dutch ethnic-cultural majority members (52% male, mean age 51), we assessed the additive and interactive effects of four variables (objective diversity, perceived diversity, objective segregation, and perceived segregation) at the municipal level in the prediction of three outcomes (generalized trust, ingroup trust, and outgroup trust). The results revealed three interesting patterns. First, neither of the objective indicators of diversity and segregation, nor their interaction effect significantly predicted any type of trust. Second, higher perceptions of diversity and higher perceptions of segregation were negatively associated with outgroup trust (but not with generalized and ingroup trust). Third, and most importantly, there was a significant interaction effect between perceived diversity and perceived segregation, indicating that simultaneous perceptions of high levels of diversity and high levels of segregation were related to the lowest levels of trust in other ethnic-cultural groups. These findings shed a more nuanced light on the diversity debate, showing that perceptions of segregation shape diversity effects. In sum, the present study shows that perceived rather than objective indicators of diversity and segregation matter, and that both diversity and segregation should be taken into account when it comes to social cohesion in general, and trust in particular.

Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty

This study explores how researchers' analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers' expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team's workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers' results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.

Can Identity Buffer Against the Detrimental Effects of Threat? The Case of the Qatar Blockade

In 2017, the blockade of Qatar Gulf states caused a plethora of effects on the country. This paper sought to examine the resulting threat effects of this blockade in terms of lowered self-esteem and well-being, and the potential buffering effects of an overarching identity. Using self-report questionnaire data from Qatari secondary school students (N = 1,410), multiple moderated mediation models investigated the predictive effects of youngsters' perceived threat, via self-esteem, on their well-being, and the mitigating roles herein of, respectively, national, Gulf region, and Arab identity. Perceived threat was indeed related to lower well-being via lower self-esteem, and this relationship was equally strong for those low and high in social identity. In terms of the three facets of identity, the overarching Gulf identity seems the most predictive, and it even (marginally significantly) buffers the negative relationship between threat and reduced self-esteem.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Majority Population, Ethno-Racial Minorities, and Immigrants

Abstract. The COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an unprecedented threat for individuals and societies, revealing stark inequalities in preparedness, exposure, and consequences. The present systematic literature review complements extant knowledge on disasters and pandemic diseases with programmatic research on the COVID-19 pandemic. Building upon an integrative definition of threat, we merge intra-personal threat regulation with group dynamics and inter-group relations. Via streamlined methods of knowledge synthesis, we first map out a broad taxonomy of threats, as appraised by the majority population and ethno-racial and immigrant minorities. Second, we delve into research linking threat appraisals with either conflict or prosociality within and across group boundaries. To conclude, we propose some guidelines for researchers to involve ethno-racial and immigrant minorities actively and for societies to cope cohesively with the impact of COVID-19.

Religion and Prejudice Across Cultures: A Test of the Threat-Constraint Model

The present set of studies investigated the role of being religious in the prediction of various forms of prejudice. Following the threat-constraint model, we predicted that contexts characterized by high threat attenuate—or constrain—the relationship between individual differences in being religious on the one hand and antigay prejudice and sexism on the other. A worldwide investigation of these regional constraints was conducted in the Americas Barometer (125,984 individuals nested in 20 countries; Study 1), the World Values Survey (69,798 individuals nested in 45 countries; Study 2), and the European Social Survey (44,386 individuals nested in 274 Nomenclature des Unités Territoriales Statistiques regions; Study 3). Results identify a key moderating role of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, revealing strong associations between religion and prejudice in regions low in power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity, and collectivism, whereas the religion–prejudice association is constrained (i.e., weaker and often absent) in regions high on those cultural dimensions.

No man is an island: Psychological underpinnings of prosociality in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak

In response to the COVID-19 outbreak, sustainable forms of collective resilience help societies coping cohesively with unprecedented challenges. In our empirical contribution, we framed collective resilience and cohesion in terms of prosociality. A study carried out in the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK (N = 399) articulated basic individual values, ideological orientations (i.e., authoritarianism and social dominance orientation), and core political values in a comprehensive framework to predict bonding and bridging forms of prosocial intentions, and prosocial behaviors directed towards vulnerable groups. According to our findings, people whose worldview incorporates collective and collaborative principles cared more about others' welfare. Jointly, self-transcendence, equality, and accepting immigrants predicted more prosociality, whereas social dominance orientation predicted less prosociality. Over and beyond all other predictors, self-transcendence uniquely predicted prosocial intentions and behaviors alike. To conclude, we suggest interventions to promote and sustain prosociality among people motivated by a larger array of life goals and worldviews.

Utilitarianism in minimal-group decision making is less common than equality-based morality, mostly harm-oriented, and rarely impartial

In the study of utilitarian morality, the sacrificial dilemma paradigm has been the dominant approach for years. However, to address some of the most pressing issues in the current research literature, the present studies adopt an alternative approach by using a minimal group paradigm in which participants have to make decisions about the allocation of resources. This approach allows not only to pit utilitarianism against equality-based morality, but also to study these modes of morality for both harm and benefit, and to directly address the role of group identity affecting the (im)partial nature of ‘utilitarian’ (i.e., outcome maximizing) decisions. In our experiments, across four different samples (total N = 946), we demonstrate that although participants generally prefer equality-based allocations over maximizing distributions, outcome maximizing choices become more prevalent when they served to minimize harm compared to maximizing benefit. Furthermore, reducing the objective value of the equal distribution outcomes further prompts participants to adopt a more utilitarian approach in situations involving harm, but has little effect in situations where benefits have to be distributed. Finally, the introduction of (minimal) group identity consistently demonstrates that decisions that maximize the overall outcome are more likely if they also serve the ingroup compared to when they rather serve the outgroup. We discuss how these findings have meaningful implications that may be especially relevant for recent movements that advocate a utilitarian approach to charity, and for our understanding of (im)partiality in lay people’s ‘utilitarian’ decision making.

To punish or to assist? Divergent reactions to ingroup and outgroup members disobeying social distancing

In response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, societies face the formidable challenge of developing sustainable forms of sociability‐cumsocial‐distancing – enduring social life while containing the virus and preventing new outbreaks. Accordant public policies often balance between retributive (punishment‐based) and assistance (solidarity‐based) measures to foster responsible behaviour. Yet, the uncontrolled spreading of the disease has divided public opinion about which measures are best suited, and it has made salient group disparities in behaviour, potentially straining intergroup relations, elevating heated emotions, and undercutting coordinated international responses. In a 2 × 2 between‐subjects experiment, British citizens (N = 377) read about national in‐group or outgroup members (categorical differentiation), who were either conforming to or deviating from the corona regulations (normative differentiation). Participants then reported moral emotions towards the target national group and indicated support for public policies. In general, support for assistance policies outweighed support for retributive measures. Second, however, norm deviation was associated with less positive and more negative moral emotions, the latter category further relating to more punitiveness and less assistance support. Finally, respondents who read about norm‐violating outgroup members especially reported support for retributive measures, indicating that people might use norm deviation to justify outgroup derogation. We discuss implications for policymakers and formulate future research avenues.

Can Psychological Interventions Improve Intergroup Attitudes Post Terror Attacks?

This research concurrently investigated the effectiveness of three established bias-reducing interventions (i.e., positive affirmation, secure attachment, and cognitive dissonance) in the wake of the Paris and Brussels terror attacks. Using frequentist and Bayesian analyses, Study 1 ( N = 1,676), launched within days of the attacks, found that compared to a control condition, the interventions did not significantly improve intergroup attitudes. Instead, the data showed strong support of the null hypotheses that there were no intervention effects. Proximity to the attacks did not moderate the effect. Study 2 ( N = 285) reexamined the effects of the three interventions 2.5 years after the attacks, generally replicating the pattern of findings in Study 1. Together, this research highlights the challenge of intergroup bias reduction following terror attacks. We conclude by discussing several recommendations for how psychological interventions could play a more impactful role in contexts of heightened conflict.

Diverse Reactions to Ethnic Diversity: The Role of Individual Differences in Authoritarianism

Issues related to ethnic-cultural diversity often make the news headlines in popular media and have attracted extensive attention in the political arena, as well as in academic research in psychology, political sciences, and sociology. Political scientist Robert Putnam reported that increased diversity is associated with a range of negative outcomes, including less trust, a decreased sense of community, more prejudice, and more cynicism and mistrust toward politics and politicians. Yet given that follow-up studies have often revealed mixed results, a novel approach to understanding the effects of diversity is needed. Here, we address the impact of diversity from a Person × Context interaction perspective, demonstrating that diversity aggravates the negative attitudes that already exist among certain individuals. Specifically, we review the accumulated evidence showing that people high in authoritarian attitudes are particularly sensitive to diversity and prone to react with increased negativity to out-groups, politicians, the political system, and democracy.

Ethnic Diversity and Support for Populist Parties

Abstract. Putnam’s (2007) constrict claim states that ethnic diversity has serious consequences for social cohesion, making people distrustful and leery. The present contribution extends this claim by including political cynicism and trust as side effects of diversity. Moreover, we nuance this claim by considering citizens’ social-ideological attitudes as moderators of diversity effects. Using a Dutch nationally stratified sample (N = 628), we showed that both objective and perceived diversity were associated with more political cynicism and less trust, but only for those high in right-wing attitudes (i.e., social dominance orientation and particularly authoritarianism). Furthermore, only political cynicism was a unique predictor of greater populist party support. Implications for the ongoing debates on the rise in diversity and populist parties are discussed.

The Diversity Challenge for High and Low Authoritarians: Multilevel and Longitudinal Effects Through Intergroup Contact and Threat

The current studies integrate different frameworks on the positive and negative consequences of ethnic diversity for intergroup relations. Using a nationally stratified sample of Dutch majority members ( N = 680) from 50 cities in the Netherlands, Study 1 demonstrated that objective diversity was indirectly related to prejudice and to generalized, ingroup, and outgroup trust, through more positive and more negative contact. These indirect effects tended to be stronger for high versus low authoritarians. Furthermore, perceived diversity was indirectly related to less trust and greater prejudice, via more negative contact and threat. Again, these associations were more pronounced among high authoritarians. Study 2, using a representative sample of German majority members ( N = 412) nested within 237 districts, replicated the cross-sectional results regarding objective diversity and prejudice. In addition, longitudinal analyses indicated that objective diversity predicted more positive and more negative contact 2 years later, though only among moderate and high authoritarians.

Are the benefits of autonomy satisfaction and the costs of autonomy frustration dependent on individuals' autonomy strength?

OBJECTIVE

From a self-determination theory perspective, individuals are assumed to benefit and suffer from, respectively, the satisfaction and frustration of the psychological need for autonomy, even if they score low on autonomy strength. Yet, previous studies on need strength are scarce, operationalized need strength differently, and produced inconsistent findings.

METHOD

In two studies among 224 South African adults (M_age  = 24.13, SD = 4.25; 54.0% male) and 156 Belgian prisoners (M_age  = 38.60, SD = 11.68; 88.5% male), we investigated the moderating role of autonomy valuation and desire in the relations of autonomy satisfaction and frustration with a variety of well-being and ill-being indicators.

RESULTS

Study 1 provided some evidence for the moderating role of mostly explicit autonomy desire (rather than explicit autonomy valuation). In Study 2, neither explicit nor implicit autonomy desire played a consistent moderating role.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, these findings are congruent with a moderate (albeit not with a strong) interpretation of the universality claim made within self-determination theory, provide initial evidence for a differentiation between deficit-based and growth-oriented interpersonal differences in need strength, and indicate that the potential moderating role of need strength deserves continued attention before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

Intergroup Reconciliation between Flemings and Walloons: The Predictive Value of Cognitive Style, Authoritarian Ideology, and Intergroup Emotions

Testifying to the gap in fundamental research on positive intergroup outcomes, we investigated reconciliation attitudes in a non-violent intergroup context (i.e., the linguistic conflict in Belgium). By incorporating both important predictors of negative outgroup attitudes (i.e., individual differences in rigid cognitive styles and authoritarian ideologies), and important predictors of reconciliation (i.e., intergroup emotions), we aimed to contribute to a more comprehensive theoretical framework for the analysis of intergroup relations. We recruited one Flemish (N = 310) and one Walloon (N = 365) undergraduate students sample to test the proposed model. Structural equation analyses with maximum likelihood estimation were conducted using the Lavaan package. In both samples, similar patterns were found. More in particular, the need for cognitive closure appeared to be the basic predictor of right-wing attitudes (i.e., right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation) and essentialist thinking, which were then associated with less outgroup empathy and trust, and more outgroup anger. Furthermore, outgroup trust and empathy were positively related to reconciliation. Interestingly, some differences between the Flemish and Walloon sample were found, such as the direct effects of need for closure and social dominance orientation in the first sample, and the non-significant effects of essentialism in the latter sample. Considering the ongoing public and political debate about the linguistic conflict in Belgium, these findings shed a new light on how individual differences relate to specific outgroup emotions, and how these are associated with important intergroup outcomes in the face of intergroup conflict.

When the Heat Is On: The Effect of Temperature on Voter Behavior in Presidential Elections

Hot temperatures lead to heightened arousal. According to excitation transfer theory, arousal can increase both antisocial and prosocial behavior, depending on the context. Although many studies have shown that hot temperatures can increase antisocial behavior, very few studies have investigated the relationship between temperature and prosocial behavior. One important prosocial behavior is voting. We analyzed state-level data from the United States presidential elections (N = 761). Consistent with excitation transfer theory, which proposes that heat-induced arousal can transfer to other activities and strengthen those activities, changes in temperature and voter turnout were positively related. Moreover, a positive change in temperature was related to a positive change in votes for the incumbent party. These findings add to the literature on the importance of non-ideological and non-rational factors that influence voting behavior.

Need for Closure Effects on Affective and Cognitive Responses to Culture Fusion

This research examined how affective and cognitive responses to culture fusion, a specific type of culture mixing that features the blending of different cultures or parts thereof into a new entity, are influenced by individual differences in Need for Closure (NFC). Two studies showed that individuals high (vs. low) in NFC felt less favorable toward culture fusion (i.e., the affective response), both at an abstract level (i.e., society structure models; Study 1, N = 191) and at a more concrete level (i.e., food stimuli; Study 2, N = 257). In addition, high NFC individuals tended to assign culturally fused stimuli to one discrete culture, rather than acknowledging them as culturally hybrid (i.e., the cognitive response). Furthermore, mediation analyses showed that the relationships between NFC and responses toward culture fusion were mediated by Right-Wing Authoritarianism. These findings are interpreted in terms of the threat to epistemic security needs posed by culture fusion.

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.