This article examines whether and how moral convictions, defined as strong and absolute stances on moralized issues, motivate advantaged group members to challenge social inequality. Specifically, we propose that violations of moral convictions against social inequality motivate collective action against it by increasing identification with the victims of social inequality. Such identification links the current work with the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA; Van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008 , in press ), which predicts that individuals’ motivation to challenge social inequality requires a relevant social identity in which group-based anger and group efficacy beliefs motivate collective action. For the advantaged, moral convictions are therefore powerful motivators of collective action against social inequality. Two studies, conducted in the Netherlands and Hong Kong, replicated empirical support for this line of thought. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of our findings for collective action among the advantaged.

The version presented here may differ from the published version or, version of record, if you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the 'permanent WRAP url' above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

The worldwide spread of a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) since December 2019 has posed a severe threat to individuals’ well-being. While the world at large is waiting that the released vaccines immunize most citizens, public health experts suggest that, in the meantime, it is only through behavior change that the spread of COVID-19 can be controlled. Importantly, the required behaviors are aimed not only at safeguarding one’s own health. Instead, individuals are asked to adapt their behaviors to protect the community at large. This raises the question of which social concerns and moral principles make people willing to do so. We considered in 23 countries (N = 6948) individuals’ willingness to engage in prescribed and discretionary behaviors, as well as country-level and individual-level factors that might drive such behavioral intentions. Results from multilevel multiple regressions, with country as the nesting variable, showed that publicized number of infections were not significantly related to individual intentions to comply with the prescribed measures and intentions to engage in discretionary prosocial behaviors. Instead, psychological differences in terms of trust in government, citizens, and in particular toward science predicted individuals’ behavioral intentions across countries. The more people endorsed moral principles of fairness and care (vs. loyalty and authority), the more they were inclined to report trust in science, which, in turn, statistically predicted prescribed and discretionary behavioral intentions. Results have implications for the type of intervention and public communication strategies that should be most effective to induce the behavioral changes that are needed to control the COVID-19 outbreak.

Objective: Theories about how couples help each other to cope with stress, such as the systemic transactional model of dyadic coping, suggest that the cultural context in which couples live influences how their coping behavior affects their relationship satisfaction. In contrast to the theoretical assumptions, a recent meta-analysis provides evidence that neither culture, nor gender, influences the association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction, at least based on their samples of couples living in North America and West Europe. Thus, it is an open questions whether the theoretical assumptions of cultural influences are false or whether cultural influences on couple behavior just occur in cultures outside of the Western world.Method: In order to examine the cultural influence, using a sample of married individuals (N = 7973) from 35 nations, we used multilevel modeling to test whether the positive association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction varies across nations and whether gender might moderate the association.Results: Results reveal that the association between dyadic coping and relationship satisfaction varies between nations. In addition, results show that in some nations the association is higher for men and in other nations it is higher for women.Conclusions: Cultural and gender differences across the globe influence how couples' coping behavior affects relationship outcomes. This crucial finding indicates that couple relationship education programs and interventions need to be culturally adapted, as skill trainings such as dyadic coping lead to differential effects on relationship satisfaction based on the culture in which couples live.

On the one hand, neoliberalism, originally an economic theory, has evolved into a sociopolitical ideology and extended its hegemonic influence to all areas of life, including the production of psychological knowledge in academia and the practice of psychology in various domains. On the other hand, neoliberalism has been criticized as the root of all problems in contemporary societies. Widespread discontent with neoliberalism is seen as the catalyst for the rising popularity of populism, the election of Donald Trump in the United States, and the Brexit referendum. The discontent with neoliberalism has also inspired imaginations of what a postneoliberal society may be like, as evidenced by the rise of neosocialists such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the United States or Jeremy Corbyn in the United Kingdom. In this issue, we have gathered multidisciplinary insights to answer questions that would constitute a preliminary agenda of a social psychology of neoliberalism. These questions include: how neoliberalism can be studied social psychologically? What are the neoliberalist constraints on knowledge creation and social practices? How can social psychology shed light on the psychological responses to the hegemonic impact of neoliberalism and contribute to the imagination of a postneoliberal world? In short, is social psychology of neoliberalism a feasible and useful intellectual project for producing actionable social knowledge?What is social about social psychology? This question invites social psychologists to reflect on their discipline's defining attributes. This question has also challenged social psychologists to make their research socially relevant.