Search

Prior research has examined the relationship between ethnic outgroup-size at the neighbourhood level and Brexit support, yet there is a lack of understanding on the factors that moderate these effects. This paper critically extends prior debate by focusing on how personality traits moderate not only the extent to which the levels (2011) of ethnic outgroup-size in individuals' residential neighbourhoods but also the increase thereof (2001-2011) are associated with individuals' preferences about the 2016 Brexit referendum. Using data from Understanding Society, we find that two personality traits, agreeableness and openness, are key moderators affecting the above-mentioned relationship. High-agreeable and high-open individuals are less likely than low-agreeable and low-open individuals to support Brexit. However, while the gap between low and highly agreeable individuals shrinks as ethnic outgroup-size increases, the gap widens between those higher vs. lower in openness. Our findings highlight the multifaceted role of personality traits as a driver of heterogeneous effects on political behaviour. In sum, this paper shows that analysing the complex and intertwined nature of both contextual and individual factors is fundamental for a better understanding, not only of the Brexit referendum but, more broadly, of anti-immigrant sentiment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a collection of papers and presentations from a symposium on the decolonial turn and the future of psychology education. The symposium discusses the problems with Western-centric psychology and the harm it causes to marginalized communities. It calls for the inclusion of locally grounded knowledge and the dismantling of colonial hegemony in psychology. The papers cover topics such as the criminalization of LGBTQ+ identities, the construction of knowledge in textbooks, teaching decolonially in India, and the impact of colonialism on psychology education in the Caribbean. The symposium emphasizes the importance of inclusivity, critical thinking, and pluralism in the future of psychology. Another paper explores the relationship between dietary choices, justice sensitivity, and aggression permissiveness. It suggests that individuals who follow a plant-based diet and have a high sensitivity to justice are less likely to tolerate aggression. The study highlights the need to consider both dietary choices and justice sensitivity in understanding aggression. Additionally, a study examines the decision-making process of forced Ukrainian migrants in choosing temporary asylum. It defines implicit competence as the ability to solve problems under uncertainty and sheds light on the factors influencing migrants' choices. Lastly, a study analyzes how the Philippine government communicates about the COVID-19 pandemic. It finds that the government uses anchoring, objectification, and metaphors to convey the seriousness of the situation and encourage compliance with protocols. The study emphasizes how those in power shape discourses to support their interests. [Extracted from the article]

Are elections becoming personality contests? A growing literature is concerned about the increasing personalization of politics and its democratic consequences. This paper argues that part of the phenomenon is due to voters using politicians' personalities to infer their party and valence and that voters of populist parties are especially able in this inferential task. Using a varying conjoint experiment in Spain, the author certainly finds evidence that the importance of personality decreases when voters learn both about candidates' party and valence and that this mediating effect is especially relevant for Vox and UP voters. These results dispel concerns about the irrationality of today's politics by showing that the independent effect of personality is minimal and suggesting that populist voters efficiently use the personality of politicians to infer classical vote determinants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does perceived discrimination and exclusion promote or hinder support for democracy among immigrants? While many studies investigate the drivers of prejudice and discrimination toward immigrants, relatively less is known about the impact of discrimination on immigrants' political attitudes. In this paper, we assess whether perceived discrimination is associated with higher levels of support for democracy among Muslim immigrants using the EURISLAM survey dataset, which includes data from immigrants from Muslim-majority countries residing in four European countries. We find that in particular, perceived discrimination toward the ethnic or religious in-group is associated with increased support for democracy. These results are robust to alternative control variables, model specification, matching procedures and coefficient stability analysis. Our findings make an important contribution to understanding the implications of discriminatory experiences for immigrants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In January of 2015 Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan hosted the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the newly built extravagant and highly controversial presidential palace. Sixteen warriors representing all of the former Turkic empires in full costume were present at the welcoming ceremony. This paper uses Volkan's psycho‐political framework to understand state‐led efforts of historical revisionism which manifest itself in historical glories and nostalgia for the Ottoman Empire. The central argument posits that grandiose or mega projects strategically serve historical revisionism in Turkey, amplifying selected glories of Turkish society to bolster support for authentic and national narrative, known as "yerli ve milli (domestic and national)" [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Politicians' ways of speaking and dressing, how they address other leaders and the masses, and even the kind of gestures they use are all evaluated in detail by the media, commentators, and the electorate. Of the above, however, of particular interest to the media is when they openly cry in public. Public weeping is often regarded as a sign of weakness, and even irrationality; however, a political leader doing so publicly may be able to build a connection with the people in some instances. In this paper, I analyse whether public weeping can affect a leader's public approval. Known for his tearfulness, Turkish President Erdogan has wept publicly twenty-seven times between 2014–2022. Based on time-series data and the autoregressive distributed lag model, it does, in fact, seem that public weeping has significantly increased President Erdogan's public approval rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the limitations of the paper "The Dilemma of Compliance" and its focus on institutional coercion and violence. The author aims to raise awareness among providers about the harm that can occur in institutional settings and encourages them to become self-conscious observers of compliance systems. The paper neglects other dimensions, such as the positive role of rules in organizing communities and the efforts of some mental health institutions to create safe and healing environments. The author argues that the fields of psychology, psychiatry, and mental health need to be cautious about institutions, rules, and coercion. The article also explores the broader problem of coercion within human relationships and communities, highlighting the need for safe spaces for healing. The author references Geel as an example of a convivial institution that facilitates community and relationships. However, the author notes that Geel is struggling while mainstream behavioral health clinics continue to grow, suggesting the manipulative tendencies of many mental health institutions. The article also discusses the epistemological aspects of psychology and the link between manipulative institutions and forms of social control. The author's overall project is to develop a political account of psychology and mental health, challenging the medicalization of society and emphasizing the political nature of human suffering. [Extracted from the article]

A large literature contends that conservatives differ from liberals in their dispositional sensitivity to threat and needs for social order and security. Thus, a puzzle emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic when American conservatives, despite their purported threat sensitivity, responded to the pandemic in ways that evinced little concern toward the risks posed by COVID-19. Threat tolerant liberals present an equally interesting case, having fervently masked, isolated, and advocated for stringent public health restrictions when facing down COVID-19. Why did so many Americans adopt health behaviors and policy preferences at odds with their dispositional orientations toward threat and needs for security during the COVID-19 pandemic? In this paper, I analyze three national surveys to evaluate how psychological dispositions affected Americans' responses to COVID-19. I find that authoritarianism, a common measure of dispositional threat sensitivity and needs for security, conditionally affected Americans' responses to the pandemic. Directly, authoritarianism was associated with greater concern over COVID-19 and, in turn, increased willingness to engage in protective health behaviors, support restrictive public health measures, and support economic interventions amidst the pandemic-induced downturn. Indirectly, however, authoritarianism promoted identification with and cue-taking from right-wing elites who frequently downplayed the severity of COVID-19; attention to such rhetoric reduced politically engaged authoritarians' concern over COVID-19 and, in turn, their willingness to adopt protective health behaviors and support public health restrictions or economic interventionism. Attention to political discourse thus appears to have countervailed Americans' dispositional orientations toward threat and security during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A growing literature links experiences of armed conflict with postwar political behavior. This paper examines how legacies of wartime violence shape dynamics of protest in twenty-first-century Iraq. We argue that experiences of shared violence against civilians generate strong social and organizational ties, as individuals turn to neighbors, friends, and communal organizations or social groups to help them cope. These strengthened social networks endure beyond the end of the conflict, forming important vehicles that can facilitate the organization of protest when new grievances or opportunities arise. Further, we posit that these effects will be strongest when the perpetrator of wartime violence is a clear out-group—e.g., a foreign army or non-coethnic militia—which facilitates network strengthening by creating a sense of collective victimization and in-group solidarity. We support these arguments using an original database of Iraqi protests from 2010 to 2012 and data on civilian casualties during Iraq's 2004–2009 conflict. We further test our argument with geo-referenced Arab Barometer surveys. We leverage a case study of Fallujah, based on original interviews and other qualitative data, to unpack mechanisms of network strengthening, endurance, and reactivation during the Iraqi protest wave of 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When advocating for policy change, coalitions rely on various elements and strategies of policy narratives, including emotions. However, past research on the Narrative Policy Framework, and more broadly on the policy process, has largely ignored the role of emotions. This paper argues that emotions, such as anger and fear, are central to how coalitions advocate for policy change. It explores the role of anger and fear in policy narratives by examining the oral testimony (n = 474) given over four legislative committee hearings in March 2019 concerning Colorado Senate Bill 19‐181. This bill changed the mission of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to prioritize protecting the environment and public health over oil and gas development. This research finds the coalition that successfully supported the bill used anger towards the oil and gas industry, while those that opposed the bill relied more on fear of the uncertain consequences of the bill. It also finds the coalition that opposed the bill relied on self‐characterization as heroes and victims, which was a failed strategy. The implications for this research on the Narrative Policy Framework and, more broadly, for the policy process and advocacy are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

First appeared in the Red Book (W.W. Norton & Co.) B C.G. Jung Institute 75th Anniversary Conference b B Deadline: February 28, 2022 b Announcing a 3-day international and interdisciplinary conference to be held June 30-July 2, 2023, at the C.G. Jung Institute, Zurich, Küsnacht, in celebration of the institute's 75th anniversary. B "I Feel, Therefore I Am" b Graph: Foundation of the Works of C.G. Jung © 2007, Zürich. Submissions should be in English and/or German and attached as a Word document in an email sent to 2023conference@junginstitut.ch. [Extracted from the article]

Identity is among of the most common explanations for political outcomes. Despite this, studies of politics often fail to clearly conceptualize or define identity, leading to tremendous variation in the use and application of the concept, much of which is at odds with fundamental tenets of research on the topic. Decades of research in psychology, sociology, and political psychology inform a family of related theories referred to as "Social Identity Theory" (SIT) which demonstrates that identity requires three conditions in order to affect attitudes and behavior: cognitive classification, psychological attachment to the group, and a social context that causes a group identity to become salient. In this paper, we build on these conditions to develop a typology to help identify when and for whom identity should be politically consequential. Using national election data from 2012, 2016 and 2020 we show that failing to differentiate between these concepts, particularly what we call Descriptive and Substantive identity, can lead to mistaken inferences about the behavior of identity groups in politics. Applying insights from SIT also promises to help advance an improved understanding of questions of race, representation, and intersectionality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior research demonstrates that acculturated co-ethnics of immigrant groups adopt restrictive immigration policy preferences akin to that of host country dominant groups. However, acculturated U.S. Latinxs still maintain relatively open immigration policy preferences despite their distance from the canonical immigrant archetype (e.g., Spanish-speaking, immigrant). To answer the puzzle, I draw on sociological perspectives and theorize that the increased societal integration of undocumented immigrants in tandem with an expanding interior immigration enforcement apparatus generates rebuff against Anglo political norms among acculturated Latinxs. Using 6 national Latinx surveys, I corroborate my theory and find perceptibly threatening immigration enforcement contexts forestall the adoption of restrictive immigration policy preferences via acculturation. Absent deportation threat, acculturated Latinxs adopt immigration preferences similar to white Anglos. I also replicate these findings for attitudinal dimensions outside immigration policy preferences. This paper suggests political assimilation is not preordained among acculturated immigrant co-ethnics in light of an unreceptive host society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political accountability requires that voters understand the distribution of policy outcome responsibility among their vote choice options. Research on partisan‐motivated reasoning suggests that voters do not meet this requirement. The problem is that voters condition their attributions of responsibility to the government on their party identification. Government identifiers credit the government for desirable outcomes and blame external forces such as the global economy for undesirable outcomes. This paper draws a more optimistic conclusion. It argues that focusing on the perceived responsibility of the government and external forces is not sufficient for understanding whether voters meet the responsibility attribution requirement. It is also necessary to compare the perceived responsibility of government parties to the perceived responsibility of opposition parties because those are the options that voters get to choose from. This party distribution of perceived responsibility is analyzed with original survey data from Denmark and the United Kingdom. The results demonstrate that while party identification does indeed condition voters' responsibility attributions, both government identifiers and independents attribute systematically more responsibility to the government than to the opposition regardless of the desirability of the outcome. This suggests that voters tend to meet the responsibility attribution requirement of accountability despite the presence of partisan‐motivated reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various research have been directed towards investigating the behaviour of political parties engaging in attacks. However, this topic has predominantly been studied in campaigning venues while focusing only on the attacker (parties that are attacking). This study contributes to the existing literature by (i) studying attack behaviour in the parliamentary venue, and (ii) analysing the interactions between both the attacker and the target. To this end, this paper uses longitudinal data on attacks during question time sessions in the parliaments (2010 to 2020) of Belgium, Croatia and the United Kingdom. More specifically, I investigate the conditions that make parties engage in mutual attacks. These conditions can be characterised along three dimensions: time (proximity to elections), status (government vs. opposition), and ideology (close vs. distant). The results confirm the overarching argument that: (i) more attacks in parliaments happen closer to election day; (ii) opposing parties are more likely to attack the government rather than vice‐versa; (iii) governing parties equally attack the opposition and themselves; and finally, (iv) the larger the ideological distance between parties, the more likely attacks happen (with mainstream parties engaging equally in attack behaviour compared to radical parties). As such, these findings contribute to our understanding of attack strategies between parties in regular day‐to‐day politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The main objective of this paper is to study some questions that we consider fundamental about the methodological position of Jerome Bruner in relation to research, production and communication of knowledge in the field of Psychology and its interrelations with other social sciences, based on the consideration of human phenomena as inherently psychological, social, cultural and historical. For this purpose, we resorted to an analytical-comparative hermeneutic method taking as a documentary basis articles and books written by the author in the period between 1960 - 2015. In these texts we believe we find his most important critical elaborations on positivism and his methodological proposal of overcoming it, which here, we only attempt a first approximation. It is an interpretation, a recapitulation and a rewriting of some of the knowledge bequeathed by Bruner on how to approach "the proper study of man" (Bruner, 1991) in order to continue along the path taken under the challenge that he himself proposed to us: to go beyond the information received. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"The Strange Epicycles of Political Psychology: A Response to Commentaries" is a response to feedback on the authors' previous paper. The authors clarify that their approach, Alliance Theory, does not deny the importance of morality but suggests that morality plays a different role in politics. They explain that their goal is to understand how political beliefs function to mobilize support for allies and opposition to rivals. Alliance Theory proposes that political beliefs are shaped by group allegiances and interests, and that ideological labels and partisan labels are markers of these allegiances. The theory also predicts that values attributed to political rivals will be negatively distorted as a propagandistic tactic. The authors argue that political beliefs serve the function of mobilizing support in conflicts, and criticize the lack of attention to the adaptive function of political beliefs in political psychology. They conclude by emphasizing the importance of understanding the function of political beliefs and the potential for moral progress through impartial norms of conduct. [Extracted from the article]

What explains the contents of political belief systems? A widespread view is that they derive from abstract values, like equality, tolerance, and authority. Here, we challenge this view, arguing instead that belief systems derive from political alliance structures that vary across nations and time periods. When partisans mobilize support for their political allies, they generate patchwork narratives that appeal to ad-hoc, and often incompatible, moral principles. In the first part of the paper, we explain how people choose their allies, and how they support their allies using propagandistic tactics. In the second part, we show how these choices and tactics give rise to political alliance structures, with their strange bedfellows, and the idiosyncratic contents of belief systems. If Alliance Theory is correct, then we need a radically different approach to political psychology—one in which belief systems arise not from deep-seated moral values, but from ever-shifting alliances and rivalries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we identify and compare the arguments offered by two leading Ottoman public intellectuals in the nineteenth century, Namık Kemal and Ziya Gökalp, on why Western institutions are compatible with those of their own society. We argue that these arguments exemplify patterns of reasoning, identified by cognitive social psychologists, which purport to resolve inconsistencies that arise in individuals' belief structures. We draw two conclusions from this analysis. Our first conclusion is that the ideas of Ottoman political thinkers, like those of their Western counterparts, constitute a domain of evidence for research in cognitive social psychology. We secondly conclude that political theories have resources to overcome ideological conflicts in a society without resorting to partisanship or utopianism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper makes a novel contribution by examining the puzzle of one Southeast Asian nation, Myanmar, and its dramatic shift of 'fortune' in its international status and the domestic consequences of that shift during the decade of 2010–2020. It highlights how the country's changing international relations affected its domestic political decision-making process. It puts forth the argument that the amount of international attention the country received since 2011 as the target of competitive courtship between China, United States, and the West in general, and the consequent feeling of being valued as a geostrategic asset, created strong conditions for overconfidence on part of Myanmar's government and military. This favorable international environment also coincided with perceived progress in democratization domestically. Similar to its past patterns of behavior toward ethnic minorities, the Myanmar military and the government overestimated their likelihood of success in dealing with the Rohingya minority while underestimating the likelihood of punishment by the international community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article traces the presence and absence of Frantz Fanon in the field of social and political psychology. Our work is guided by an assemblage of methods— a critical analysis of mainstream scholarship, a collective interrogation with a transnational gathering of colleagues and friends, and a deep reading of Fanon's texts on struggle, internalized oppression, violence and a new humanism. Through this, our paper is a call for radical disciplinary reflection on why Fanon has been ruthlessly exiled from social/political psychology, the potential his writings hold for courses, scholarship, and struggle, and how we might more boldly theorize, as he did, from within the fire of struggles for justice and liberation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study of political polarization, in both its ideological and its affective expressions, has garnered significantly more interest over the last years. But despite recent research on the conceptualization, measurement, causes, and consequences of this socio‐political phenomenon, and some tentative interventions to mitigate it, relevant new avenues remain surprisingly underdeveloped. Indeed, scholarship in the field of political polarization, mainly in the case of affective polarization, frequently uses cognitivist approaches to make sense of the growing antipathy between different social and political groups. However, the bulk of this work seems to overlook valuable insights into the psychology of intergroup conflict, stereotyping, prejudice reduction, and discourse studies. The aim of this paper is to underline the main gaps in the political polarization literature, to subsequently argue how knowledge linked to the tradition of critical social psychology can help in filling them. Ultimately, the article aims to contribute to the psychosocial study of political polarization and to the design, if necessary, of interventions to counter its detrimental consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper addresses the ongoing challenges to academic freedom in Turkey, site of the 2011 ISPP meeting and a then‐burgeoning cadre of political psychologists working to build the discipline in Turkey. In January 2016, the Academics for Peace signed a petition challenging the government's policies towards the Kurds, following which the government began to purge both signatories and other academics. The purge gained traction after the July 2016 attempted coup, which the government put down. Academics and others were dismissed by decree (KHK) and barred from working in any occupation. This paper, a revised version of the 2019 ISPP Presidential Address, discusses the scope of the attack on academic freedom in Turkey and reports on a survey of both dismissed and nondismissed academics in Turkey to discuss the implications of being unexpectedly torn from a position that is as much a calling as it is a job. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For a generation now, the future development of psychoanalysis has been awaiting a proper absorption of the spiritual dimension into the fabric of meta-theory and therapeutic practice. This paper proposes self psychology as a paradigm capable of making a unique contribution to the study of the spiritual dimension in human psyche, and in the encounter between a human and her/his Other. The feasibility of a spiritual psychoanalytic thinking originated in the conceptual passage from the Guilty man and the Tragic man to the Mystic man, and it springs from the shift from a psychoanalysis based on an orientation of separateness towards a psychoanalysis anchored in unified worldview. Four crucial contributions make self psychology a pioneering pathfinder in systematic theorization of the spiritual in psychoanalysis: A. the 'self' as flow-concept between the experience of structured psyche and the being of unstructured spirit; B. the absolute and the individual's ability to reside in it via the contextual web of selfobject matrix; C. the transformation of a human's evolution from emergence into individual existence, to the human's dissolving into transcendent being of supra-individual existence of participation in the world; and D. therapeutic change, that is not satisfied merely with change-making within existing materials but dares to aspire to the creation of as-yet non-existing spiritual states of mind which deserve to come into being. The essay concludes with an examination of the spiritual dimension ingrained in self-psychology and its application to the political field and the unsolved riddle of leadership. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Theories of belief system structure and dynamics assume that belief systems are a person-level construct. However, measures of belief system structure do not measure the structure of person-level belief systems and instead measure aggregated belief system structure (e.g., the belief system in a particular country). In this paper, I show that a measure of conceptual similarity between attitudes and identities of a belief system works as a valid, reliable, flexible, and efficient measure of person-level belief system structure in the United States. In Studies 1 (N = 387), 2 (N = 389), and 3 (N = 598), I show conceptual similarity judgments are reliable and are related to measures of political engagement, political knowledge, attitude consistency, and preference congruence as predicted by computational models of belief system dynamics. In Studies 4 (N = 981) and 5 (N = 983), I show that conceptual similarity judgments are affected by partisan frames and that changes in conceptual similarity judgments are associated with attitude change as predicted by computational models of belief system dynamics. Conceptual similarity judgments can be used with a variety of attitudes and identities in easy to administer studies. It provides a tool to fill an empirical gap identified by theories of belief system dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Work in political psychology has found that the two major political parties are sorted based on individual's group attachments. This sorting has resulted in the Democratic Party's electorate and elites being made up of members from various racial, religious, and social groups. Given this heterogeneity, how do social group identities impact voter preferences in the Democratic primary? Based on social identity theory, I hypothesize that an individual's feelings toward racial or gender groups should be associated with their candidate preference in the primary election, but only when a candidate's group identities are known. Using the 2018 American National Elections Studies (ANES) pilot and a nationally diverse survey of 2020 Democratic primary voters, I find that the strength of sentiments toward racial or gender identities is associated with candidate preference and this association is conditioned by the ability to link the candidates to racial or gender groups. This paper shows that the effects of group identity extend beyond simply sorting individuals into one of the two major parties and have the potential to create group-based divisions within the "big tent" of the Democratic Party. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political scientists often criticize psychological approaches to the study of politics on the grounds that many psychological theories were developed on convenience samples of college students or members of the mass public, whereas many of the most important decisions in politics are made by elites, who are presumed to differ systematically from ordinary citizens. This paper proposes an overarching framework for thinking about differences between elites and masses, presenting the results of a meta‐analysis of 162 paired treatments from paired experiments on political elites and mass publics, as well as an analysis of 12 waves of historical elite and mass public opinion data on foreign policy issues over a 43 year period. It finds political scientists both overstate the magnitude of elite‐public gaps in decision‐making, and misunderstand the determinants of elite‐public gaps in political attitudes, many of which are due to basic compositional differences rather than to elites' domain‐specific expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As related research in political psychology shows, election results affect the emotions of individuals, although most studies report about a short-term effect that disappears in one or two weeks. This paper investigates whether election results influence the general mood, the happiness of individuals in the long run. The analysis uses the European Social Survey data from 30 European countries between 2002 and 2015. Regression models suggest that voting for and being attached to an incumbent party increases happiness, while ideological closeness to the government does not. Moreover, the interaction effects show that the closer people feel to their preferred party, the larger the happiness gap becomes between government and opposition supporters. This trend, however, does not hold in case of opposition supporters, whose happiness level is not alternated by the closeness of the attachment. These results prove that partisan motivations are in action in the non-political sphere of life too, and they complement former evidence about an intense short-term effect of winning the elections on voters' happiness. By testing and confirming the effects of the most widely used explanatory variables of happiness on a large cross-national sample, the paper contributes to general happiness research as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper discusses the family as a site of geopolitics. Bridging scholarship in feminist geopolitics, political psychology and sociology, we explore the psycho-social dynamics of family life and theorise the family as a multi-scalar, relational site of security. Original data collected with ethnic and religious minority youth in Scotland are presented alongside an analysis of how family relations, at interconnected scales, mitigate against and/or re-inscribe broad geopolitical narratives of security. We employ the concept of ontological security (OS) to analyse the role of the family, and the relationships within it, on shaping youth securities. We discuss (1) how family histories and intergenerational experience shape young people's sense of security; (2) how young people negotiate and resist family norms and values that reproduce securitizing geopolitical narratives; and (3) how young people find security when family is absent or indeterminate. In each case, we analyse how geopolitics operates through family life. The paper makes two key contributions: first, we use original empirical data to theorise ethnic and religious minority youth securities; second, we show the value of OS as a conceptual tool for understanding psycho-social dimensions of familial geopolitics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many philosophers have claimed that relying on the testimony of others in normative questions is in some way problematic. In this paper, I consider whether we should be troubled by deference in democratic politics. I argue that (i) deference is less problematic in impure cases of political deference, and (ii) most non-ideal cases of political deference are impure. To establish the second point, I rely on empirical research from political psychology. I also outline two principled reasons why we should expect political deference to be untroubling: political problems are difficult and require a division of epistemic labour; furthermore, there is value in exercising epistemic solidarity with those one shares an identity or interests with. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some artificial intelligence (AI) systems can display algorithmic bias, i.e. they may produce outputs that unfairly discriminate against people based on their social identity. Much research on this topic focuses on algorithmic bias that disadvantages people based on their gender or racial identity. The related ethical problems are significant and well known. Algorithmic bias against other aspects of people’s social identity, for instance, their political orientation, remains largely unexplored. This paper argues that algorithmic bias against people’s political orientation can arise in some of the same ways in which algorithmic gender and racial biases emerge. However, it differs importantly from them because there are (in a democratic society) strong social norms against gender and racial biases. This does not hold to the same extent for political biases. Political biases can thus more powerfully influence people, which increases the chances that these biases become embedded in algorithms and makes algorithmic political biases harder to detect and eradicate than gender and racial biases even though they all can produce similar harm. Since some algorithms can now also easily identify people’s political orientations against their will, these problems are exacerbated. Algorithmic political bias thus raises substantial and distinctive risks that the AI community should be aware of and examine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper analyses almost fifteen years of Croatian parliamentary debates and identifies a discourse of war legacies. Using the latest advancements in natural language processing, the paper utilizes models based on latent semantic analysis and discusses how politicians talk about war in terms of common narratives and shared frameworks. Using a complex vector representation of war-related concepts, the paper specifically focuses on their framing in the context of right-wing authoritarianism. The results show a negative trend of pushing the most frequent war-related concepts to more extreme framing as a potential reflection of their political abuse and ongoing mythologization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fifty years ago and still relevant today, C.P. Snow argued that the university is divided into two cultures, with humanities on the one side and the sciences on the other. This paper proposes a model of mutuality to overcome this ongoing divide as applied specifically to political philosophy and its cognate scientific disciplines of political science and political psychology. On the model of mutuality, not only can political philosophy inform theorizing and hypothesis-formation in political science and psychology, the latter fields also serve as data for political philosophy. More importantly, collaboration between philosophers and scientists can inform a conceptual dialectic that significantly benefits both areas of inquiry. The second half of the paper develops the example of democratic virtues as a case study. Capitalizing on existing work in philosophical virtue theory and related areas of psychology, I propose that the topic of democratic and not merely civic virtues is a novel area of inquiry that would profit from mutual engagement between political philosophers and political scientists and psychologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychoanalysis has no shortage of theorists who see psychoanalysis as unique and who regard efforts to draw from academic disciplines as fanciful. Contemporary self psychology has been comparatively more receptive to adjacent disciplines. This paper discusses what self psychology can learn from the field of literary criticism about addressing the experience of political and social otherness. Using the debates arising from the 2017 Brisbane Literary Festival, it will explore how social, political, and cultural identities might affect our ability to understand the lives of those whose identities we do not share. It explores the historical reluctance of psychoanalysis to address issues of identity and otherness in theory and clinical practice, as well as the importance of the "relational turn" in overcoming these theoretical limitations. The paper will explore aspects of self psychology, including the empathic listening stance and specificity theory, that help the mental health profession avoid the central literary challenges raised in the Brisbane debates and will suggest that some of Kohut's central ideas about selfobject experience may need to be revised or elaborated more fully to address the clinical and policy implications of engaging with political, social, and cultural otherness especially when it entails devaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Australian governments have a long and inglorious record of establishing valuable, valued and successful science-based initiatives that address issues of major continuing importance, only to later abolish them. The results are loss of focus, loss of group knowledge, loss of expertise, loss of analytical capability, wasted effort and resources, wasted expenditure - and most of all, wasted opportunity and wasted priceless time. There are so many instances of this highly destructive political behaviour over so many years, committed by governments of both major political persuasions at both national and state level, that it should be recognised as an ingrained political behaviour and a basic endemic flaw in the Australian political system - a flaw that urgently needs correction, if Australia is to achieve a peaceful, sustainable future. This paper presents a necessarily incomplete account of nine science-based bodies that met premature and unnecessary deaths at the hands of politicians - the Commission for the Future (CFF), the Resource Assessment Commission (RAC), Land & Water Australia (LWA), Queensland's Regional Open Space System (ROSS), the National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA), the Sustainable Rivers Audit (SRA), the Native Fish Strategy (NFS), the National Water Commission (NWC) and the Climate Commission (CC). It describes some of their successes and some of the deleterious consequences of their abolition, the political reasons for their axing and the rationales used to justify the executions. The paper calls for academic study of (and insider perspectives on) these and other valuable science-based initiatives killed off by Australian state and federal governments, so that the worth of these endeavours is recognised and remembered by the scientific community and by society at large. It concludes with a discussion of how this destructive political silencing of scientists might perhaps be reduced in frequency and significance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper presents the contemporary concepts of information and psychological operation in the contemporary environment. The concepts were presented through general theoretical considerations by presenting leading theorists from the US, Russian Federation and the PR China. The concepts explain the goals, content and methods of acting on potential groups and individuals, and the means of information and psychological operation. The goal of the paper is to show that the research problem is not important exclusively for political and military systems, but that groups and individuals are particularly exposed to the challenges and threats in the contemporary environment. Various means of information and psychological activity in the contemporary environment (rumors, fake news) and their consequences such as changing attitudes and behavior of people in political and social processes are presented. An empirical account showing the importance of this topic is an analysis of the European institutions‟ activities in counteracting fake news during important political processes and elections for the European Parliament. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why is migration unpopular? A vast literature argues that voters oppose immigration because of threatened interests and prejudice. This paper is among the first studies of opposition to emigration – the other side of the issue salient in many countries. Departing from existing public opinion research, I develop a number of tests comparing emigration and immigration attitudes and then exploit relevant survey data from 30 countries, as well as original experimental and qualitative evidence. Overall, I document high opposition to both emigration and immigration in many countries and show that respondents are unlikely to confuse these issues. I then show that individual emigration and immigration attitudes are significantly correlated and have similar predictors, which is reflected in respondents' own open-ended explanations. While consistent with sociotropic accounts, this new evidence suggests that many natives may exhibit an aversion to human mobility between countries in general, not immigration or emigration in particular. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 crisis highlighted issues of trust in government and experts, as citizens were asked to accept restrictions on liberties in order to slow the spread of the virus. Based on a survey of 1992 Australians conducted in May 2020, this paper reports on the attitudes of Australians toward the responses of their State and Federal governments to the pandemic. Unsurprisingly, we found support for government responses differed with partisan alignment. However, when we controlled for values differences, we found that values predicted social distancing attitudes and behaviour. This oppugns the common conclusion in political psychology that party alignment is a proxy for values. Scientists were trusted more than political institutions or actors for accurate COVID-19 information, and likewise, traditional media were preferred to online sources. These findings have implications for policy communication when individual action is required to address collective goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]