Conscientization of Social Cryptomnesia Reduces Hostile Sexism and Rejection of Feminists

This paper develops a hypothesis concerning the conscientization of social cryptomnesia, claiming that it is possible to reduce the rejection of minorities by reminding the population that a certain value has been promoted by a certain minority. Participants (N = 93) first reported their attitudes toward women's rights and feminist movements. They were then confronted with their higher appreciation of women's rights over feminists (social cryptomnesia) and blamed for it (conscientization) in a more versus less threatening manner. Results indicated that conscientization can be effective not only in inducing a more positive attitude toward feminists, but also in decreasing hostile sexism when the threat is lower. Implications for minority influence research are discussed.

When performance-approach goals predict academic achievement and when they do not: A social value approach

Research on achievement goal promotion at University has shown that performance-approach goals are perceived as a means to succeed at University (high social utility) but are not appreciated (low social desirability). We argue that such a paradox could explain why research has detected that performance-approach goals consistently predict academic grades. First-year psychology students answered a performance-approach goal scale with standard, social desirability and social utility instructions. Participants' grades were recorded at the end of the semester. Results showed that the relationship between performance-approach goals and grades was inhibited by the increase of these goals' social desirability and facilitated by the increase of their social utility, revealing that the predictive validity of performance-approach goals depend on social value.

The Social Value of Being Ambivalent: Self-Presentational Concerns in the Expression of Attitudinal Ambivalence

We tested whether individuals can exert control over the expression of attitudinal ambivalence and if this control is exerted with self-presentational concerns. Using the self-presentation paradigm, participants reported more ambivalence about Genetically Modified Organisms ("GMO") in a standard and a self-enhancement (present yourself positively) conditions than in a self-depreciation (present yourself negatively) condition, on both felt (Experiments 1a and 2a) and potential ambivalence, in its cognitive (Experiments 1b and 2b) and affective components (Experiments 1b and 2c). The role of ambivalent attitudes in conveying a positive social value was confirmed by the fact that the above effect was found on a controversial attitude object (GMOs) but the opposite appeared on a non-controversial one (e.g. tooth brushing, a truism; Experiment 3). Such a reversal was obtained by directly manipulating the perception of controversy on GMOs (Experiment 4). Attitudinal ambivalence may thus serve an adaptive function, i.e. achieving a positive social value.

How Social Dominance Orientation affects union participation: The role of union identification and perceived union instrumentality

Bridging social dominance theory and labour studies, this field study investigated the mechanisms underpinning the relationship between rejection of group-based domination and participation in union activities. Respondents (N = 135) were members of a public sector union in California, that is, a hierarchy-attenuating institution. Results revealed that union identification mediated the negative relationship between social dominance orientation and active union participation. Moreover, the mediational effect of union identification was moderated by perceived union instrumentality (i.e. outcome- and process-based benefits afforded by the union), indicating that the relationship between union identification and participation was stronger among those union members who consider that the union affects workplace justice. The findings reveal the importance of both identity-based and instrumental motivations underlying union participation. The novelty of applying social dominance theory to union behaviour is underscored.

Reliability and validity of nonverbal thin slices in social interactions

Four studies investigated the reliability and validity of thin slices of nonverbal behavior from social interactions including (1) how well individual slices of a given behavior predict other slices in the same interaction; (2) how well a slice of a given behavior represents the entirety of that behavior within an interaction; (3) how long a slice is necessary to sufficiently represent the entirety of a behavior within an interaction; (4) which slices best capture the entirety of behavior, across different behaviors; and (5) which behaviors (of six measured behaviors) are best captured by slices. Notable findings included strong reliability and validity for thin slices of gaze and nods, and that a 1.5 min slice from the start of an interaction may adequately represent some behaviors. Results provide useful information to researchers making decisions about slice measurement of behavior.

Authority relationships between obedience and disobedience

Recent episodes of public dissent (such as the demonstrations against G8 policies) raise the issue of the psychological processes triggered in obeying and disobeying the authority. Even if obedience to authority is an important aspect of social life and it plays a key role in maintaining social order, the concept of obedience has been studied in social psychology mainly in terms of its destructive aspects. Besides, most of the studies have overlooked the role of disobedience in the authority relationship. Disobedience may be conceived of as a protest that undermines the legitimacy of the authority or it can represent an instrument for controlling the legitimacy of the authority's demands, becoming a factor protecting against authoritarianism. In this article, a new perspective on the study of the relationship between the individual and the authority is put forward, considering obedience and disobedience as parallel concepts, each having constructive and destructive aspects. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In the name of democracy: Disobedience and value-oriented citizenship

Recently, some scholars have highlighted a paradoxical phenomenon existing in democratic systems:Those people who show the greatest support for democracy are also those most willing to protestagainst the authority and to question it. However, if we consider the tasks of contemporary democraticcitizenship in a social-psychological perspective, this apparent paradox becomes understandable.Obedience to authority may ensure the continuity of social and group life, but disobedience may becrucial in stopping the authority relationship from degenerating into an authoritarian one. FollowingKelman and Hamilton's analysis of legitimacy dynamics, we consider how actions of disobediencemay serve the defence of democracy. In particular, by considering the different ways in which peoplerelate to the political system, the relevance of so-called value-oriented citizens in supportingdemocracy will be considered.

Obedience-disobedience dynamic and the role of responsibility

Obedience has been thoroughly studied in social psychology, both in its positive and negative aspects. Nevertheless, in these empirical studies disobedience has been considered to be the opposite of obedience and indeed its negation. Instead, some recent studies suggest that if obedience to authority is important in ensuring the continuity of social and group life, disobedience is crucial, under some circumstances, in stopping the authority relationship from degenerating into an authoritarian relationship. In this perspective, disobedience may be conceived of as a protest undermining the legitimacy of authority, or else it can represent an instrument of the community for controlling the legitimacy of the authority's demands, becoming a factor safeguarding against authoritarianism. The aim of the present study was to empirically verify the dynamics existing between disobedience and obedience. The results show that people who attach importance to both obedience and disobedience in the relationship between the individual and society recognize the importance of democratic values and consider themselves responsible for the defence of human rights. Instead, people who only recognize the value of obedience and consider disobedience as a threat to the status quo are more authoritarian, individualistic people.