Research exploring the psychological differences between people supporting extreme versus moderate ideologies is growing. However, this research has rarely examined the domain of values. Here, we explore this domain by assessing the possibility that political extremists discriminate more among values compared to moderates, namely, that extremists exhibit strong commitment toward some values at the expense of other values, whereas moderates would acknowledge a multiplicity of values as equally important. First, we propose a model positing that a value discriminability parameter captures a general tendency to discriminate among values. Second, we test empirically the prediction that, compared to moderates, political extremists exhibit a higher discriminability parameter. This prediction is supported by four studies (including one based on the European Social Survey where representative samples from 29 European countries are examined) where participants reported their ideological orientation and rated the importance of basic human values (we focused on basic values because these transcend the political domain, thus highlighting general effects). Specifically, in all studies we observed a positive correlation between political extremism and residual variability in ratings, a hallmark of a higher discriminability parameter. These findings highlight the value domain as critical to understanding differences between political extremists and moderates.

A recent computational model argues that people’s beliefs arise from two basic sources: a motivation to be accurate plus other forms of motivation such as pursuing economic interests. Yet, this previous proposal has focused exclusively on the individual level of analysis, neglecting the question of how social contexts shape belief formation. The present paper addresses this by examining how group dynamics underpin the formation of beliefs. The argument is that different social groups vary in their beliefs because, at least to some degree, each group acquires different life experiences and is motivated by different incentives. At the same time, the proposal is that each group can influence other groups’ beliefs in three ways: by expressing opinions to other groups, by affecting the experiences acquired by other groups, and by setting incentives for other groups. This picture suggests that, within a community, three types of groups can often be identified: (a) the dominant groups, defined as those particularly capable of affecting other groups’ experiences and incentives; (b) the intellectual groups, regarded as those whose opinions are particularly influential; and (c) the subaltern groups, encompassing people with minimal power to affect beliefs of others. By examining influence dynamics among these groups, the paper investigates how consensus or disagreement emerge within a community. Altogether,  the paper offers insight on the interaction between social dynamics and psychological mechanisms that contribute to shape people’s beliefs.

Prior literature about shopping has focused mostly on specific aspects such as on attitudes towards specific products or shopping practices. A General Shopping Attitude (GSA), capturing how much an individual is attracted by shopping in general, has rarely been explored. In an online questionnaire study conducted in the UK, here we developed and validated a self-report scale to assess GSA. Moreover, adopting Schwartz’s theory of basic human values as framework, we explored the relationship between GSA and general value orientations. We observed that people valuing more Self-enhancement versus Self-transcendence (i.e., valuing the own social status and wellbeing versus the wellbeing of others and of the environment) reported more positive GSA. This fits with theories proposing that, in consumer societies, shopping is appealing because it allows one to achieve social status. Contrary to perspectives claiming that shopping is appealing because it enables expressing creativity and freedom, a negative relation between GSA and Self-direction (i.e., a tendency to value freedom and creativity) emerged. Rather, this observation fits with proposals viewing the appeal of shopping in its ability to enable one to conform to a reference group’s standards. These findings shed light on general value orientations underlying the appeal of shopping.

Inspired by recent Bayesian interpretations about the psychology underlying religion, the paper introduces a theory proposing that religious conversion is shaped by three factors: (i) novel relevant information, experienced in perceptual or in social form (e.g., following interaction with missionaries); (ii) changes in the utility (e.g., expressed in an opportunity to raise in social rank) associated with accepting a new religious creed; and (iii) prior beliefs, favouring religious faiths that, although new, still remain consistent with entrenched cultural views (resulting in the phenomenon of syncretism). From the theory, a multifactorial picture of conversion emerges. Based on which factor is primarily engaged in each case, a classification of different types of conversion can be derived, with a remarkable fit with empirical literature. The theory offers a description of the processes underlying religious conversion and, highlighting the links among apparently incompatible previous views, it reconciles these views within a unifying framework.