U.S.-based research suggests conservatism is linked with less concern about contracting coronavirus and less preventative behaviors to avoid infection. Here, we investigate whether these tendencies are partly attributable to distrust in scientific information, and evaluate whether they generalize outside the U.S., using public data and recruited representative samples across three studies (Ntotal = 34,710). In Studies 1 and 2, we examine these relationships in the U.S., yielding converging evidence for a sequential indirect effect of conservatism on compliance through scientific (dis)trust and infection concern. In Study 3, we compare these relationships across 19 distinct countries. Although the relationships between trust in scientific information about the coronavirus, concern about coronavirus infection, and compliance are consistent cross-nationally, the relationships between conservatism and trust in scientific information are not. These relationships are strongest in North America. Consequently, the indirect effects observed in Studies 1–2 only replicate in North America (the U.S. and Canada) and in Indonesia. Study 3 also found parallel direct and indirect effects on support for lockdown restrictions. These associations suggest not only that relationships between conservatism and compliance are not universal, but localized to particular countries where conservatism is more strongly related to trust in scientific information about the coronavirus pandemic.

Conflict narratives are cornerstones of group identity, but often facilitate violence by framing the group’s actions in ways that foster defensive forms of group identification (i.e., glorification). Three experiments tested whether alternative narratives inclusive of the ingroup’s and the adversarial group’s suffering can reduce glorification. Israeli Jews (Study 1) and Americans (Study 2) reported less glorification after reading inclusive narratives rather than narratives that dismiss the outgroup’s suffering. Study 3 found that through reducing glorification, inclusive narratives indirectly weakened support for retributive justice and militaristic policies and strengthened support for reconciliation. These effects were specific to people high in both (preexisting) glorification and attachment—people identified by prior research as the strongest supporters of violent approaches to conflict. These findings suggest that alternative narratives can reduce glorification by challenging the myopic focus of traditional conflict narratives on ingroup victimization, helping societies move beyond intractable conflict toward lasting peace.

No abstract

No abstract

Social media has been integral for the organization and success of right-wing populist movements in the United States and Europe. Within online communities, discussions take place in which ideologies are formulated, iterated upon, and disseminated. One particular forum, hosted on the popular website reddit.com, r/The_Donald, has received media attention for its political influence. Despite the influence of online spaces in populist, far-right movements, relatively little attention has been paid to qualitative content of discussions that take place within such spaces, including r/The_Donald. Guided by a social representations approach, we analyzed how discussions on r/The_Donald represent sociopolitical groups. We focused on discussions of political affiliations, race relations, immigration, and culture. From a dataset of 8,198 posts, we selected 1,292 segments from 883 unique Reddit usernames and analyzed them using qualitative content analysis. The results showed that the majority of posts discussed liberals, race relations, and conspiracy theories, and in these posts, liberals and liberal ideas were delegitimized and mocked through their representations. These posts represented conservatives through antinomic contrast and comparison to liberals and liberal policies. The meanings of those representations in intergroup relations are discussed.