Social psychology and peace: An introductory overview

This paper begins by giving an overview of why and in which ways social psychological research can be relevant to peace. Galtung's (1969) distinction between negative peace (the absence of direct violence) and positive peace (the absence of structural violence, or the presence of social justice) is crossed with a focus on factors that are detrimental (obstacles) to peace versus factors that are conducive to peace (catalysts), yielding a two-by-two classification of social psychological contributions to peace, Research falling into these four classes is cited in brief, with a particular focus on four exemplary topics: support for military interventions as an obstacle to negative peace; antiwar activism as a catalyst of negative peace; ideologies legitimizing social inequality as an obstacle to positive peace; and commitment to human rights as a catalyst of positive peace. Based on this conceptual framework, the remaining six articles of the special issue

The structure of the Statistics Anxiety Rating Scale: A confirmatory factor analysis using UK psychology students

This study aimed to examine the structure of the statistics anxiety rating scale. Responses from 650 undergraduate psychology students throughout the UK were collected through an on-line study. Based on previous research three different models were specified and estimated using confirmatory factor analysis. Fit indices were used to determine if the model fitted the data and a likelihood ratio difference test was used to determine the best fitting model. The original six factor model was the best explanation of the data. All six subscales were intercorrelated and internally consistent. It was concluded that the statistics anxiety rating scale was found to measure the six subscales it was designed to assess in a UK population.

Inter- and intrapersonal processes underlying authoritarianism: The role of social conformity and personal need for structure

Several personality constructs have been theorised to underlie right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). In samples from New Zealand and Germany (Ns = 218, 259), we tested whether these constructs can account for specific variance in RWA. In both samples, social conformity and personal need for structure were independent predictors of RWA. In Sample 2, where also openness to experience was measured, social conformity and personal need for structure fully mediated the impact of the higher-order factor of openness on RWA. Our results contribute to the integration of current approaches to the personality basis of authoritarianism. and suggest that two distinct personality processes contribute to RWA: An interpersonal process related to social conformity and an intrapersonal process related to rigid cognitive style. Copyright (C) 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups

This research rests on the assumption that individual differences approaches to prejudice benefit from all integration of intergroup factors. Following Duckitt (2001), we assumed that two prominent individual differences variables, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), would differentially predict majority members' levels of ethnic prejudice depending on specific factors of the intergroup context: RWA as all index of motivational concerns about social cohesion, stability and security should drive prejudice against outgroups perceived as socially threatening, and SDO as an index of concerns about ingroup superiority and dominance should predict prejudice against outgroups perceived as potential competitors for power-status. Across two studies (Ns = 82, 176), using between-participants and within-participants experimental designs, the effects of RWA on prejudice were particularly powerful when the outgroup was manipulated to be socially threatening, but the effects of SDO on prejudice appeared not to increase when the outgroup was manipulated to be competitive. In Study 2, presenting the outgroup as having low status also increased the effect of RWA, but not the effect of SDO. These results support the differential prediction assumption for RWA, but not for SDO. Implications for the conceptualisation of RWA and SDO are discussed. Copyright (C) 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.