Sign in

mark brandt

@mjbsp.bsky.social
5.9K followers 1.5K following 1.2K posts

Social/Political Psychology @ Tilburg University | ♥ Burritos+Vinyl+ | if there aren’t typos, I didn’t write it tbslaboratory.com

PostsRepliesMedia
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 16/10/2026
A new Rorschach test for "does tech cause harm" question
Figure with estimated impact of phone bans on average grades. Significant overall effect, but 95% CI approaches zero. Subgroup analysis only finds that the effect holds among low performers (vs. high performers, no info on mid performers) and first year students (compared to 2nd, 3rd, of post graduates)
1172 17
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 02/10/2026
How do people make decisions in complex conjoint experiments of policy choices? When decomposing individual responses into different strategies, most people use a heuristic strategy. Personally, I was surprised how many people are using the rational strategy! www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
02612 26
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 21/09/2026
The Dutch NWO opens the call for the Mosaic 3.0 PhD scholarship program. This program aims to increase representation of people with a non-Western migration background in the scientific community Pre-proposals due 3 November More information, qualification criteria etc: www.nwo.nl/en/calls/mos...
Screenshot of criteria for Researchers with a migration background outside EuropeScreenshot for criteria for Researchers with a recent asylum background
121 2
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
I appreciate the editor and reviewers openness to our mixed findings. I hope our paper helps others as they plan their own work and think about how to build strong and resilient communities.
Screenshot of coda stating, "Learning how to discuss difficult topics with empathy across meaningful differences is an important skill in a pluralistic society where disagreement is inevitable. In many such cases, efforts to depolarize and maintain civility are valuable for learning others’ perspectives and identifying shared interests. However, goals related to depolarization and civility are not the only relevant goals and they may not be the best goals to pursue in some situations. For example, there is initial evidence that depolarization programs might make some people less likely to confront misinformation and racism (Blair et al., 2025a). Cultivating empathy might also be less motivating than other emotions, like moral outrage, for motivating collective action and peaceful protest in responses to injustice (e.g., Spring et al., 2018; Tager et al., 2011). Rather than seeing depolarization and civility as ultimate goals, scientists and practitioners should see these goals as one set of possible goals and tools to draw on as we seek to better society."
020 2
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
We also layered on the light touch intervention experimentally. We used a video developed by Civity (www.civity.org/services/diy...) and found to reduce affective polarization in Voelkel et al's (2024) mega-study Although the effects were in the predicted direction, they were not significant
Two-panel figure showing the video intervention's treatment effect on five outcome scales (liking, respect, empathy, moral humility, confidence). Left panel shows treatment-control residual outcome values as individual data points for control versus treatment groups. Right panel shows the treatment effect with 95% confidence intervals across four models (All Data, Preregistrations 1-3); effect sizes are small (d = 0.03 to 0.15), and most confidence intervals cross zero
130 3
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
We found that the events did appear to build empathy, increase confidence in discussing differences, and increase liking for community members who disagreed. This was with a pre-post one-group design and so needs a control group for better causal evidence.
Two-panel figure showing pre-post change across five outcome scales (empathy, confidence, liking, respect, moral humility). Left panel shows individual pre- and post-test data points with means highlighted. Right panel shows the pre-post difference with 95% confidence intervals across four models (All Data, and Preregistrations 1-3), with effect sizes ranging from d = 0.24 (moral humility) to d = 0.60 (empathy); all confidence intervals lie above zero.
110 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
Our context was the Minnesota Council of Churches Respectful Conversations program (a program that @j-rock.bsky.social stewards) Our question: Can we simply stack a light touch intervention onto their in depth program to increase the programs effectiveness?
Diagram comparing the general case to this study's intervention stack. In the general case, a less-intensive boosting intervention sits above a more-intensive existing intervention. In this study, the boosting intervention is the Civity Video Intervention (watched at home, approximately 7 minutes), and the existing intervention is the MCC Respectful Conversations Event (held at an event space, approximately 3 hours).Flowchart of the study design. Participants sign up for the Respectful Conversations Event, then complete pre-test questions (invite email sent 2-3 days before the event). They are randomly assigned to either the Civity Video Intervention or a No Video control condition. Both groups then attend the MCC Respectful Conversations Event, followed by post-test questions (reminder immediately after the event, plus a follow-up email).Table listing the steps of the MCC Respectful Conversation Event: I. Shared meal; II. Event welcome with stated purpose and framing topic; III. Video showing a humorous animation of physiological response to conflict, plus a video illustrating guiding principles with improv actors; IV. Improv actors humorously violating each principle; V. Small table groups review guiding principles and sign an agreement; VI. Small table groups have a facilitated conversation through four circle questions plus unstructured time; VII. Large group open reflection; VIII. Evaluation."Table of sample sizes for 10 events across pre-test and post-test time points, by control and treatment condition, with response rates and median post-test completion dates. Total pre-test sample is 259 (146 control, 113 treatment); total post-test sample is 209 (116 control, 93 treatment). Events are marked with superscripts indicating which preregistrations' inclusion criteria they satisfy: superscript a for Preregistration 1, a and b for Preregistration 2, and a, b, and c for Preregistration 3; unmarked events were not part of any preregistration.
111 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 17/09/2026
New paper with @j-rock.bsky.social, in press @socpsyjournal.bsky.social "Evaluating an In-Person Depolarization Program and Testing a Light-Touch Enhancement" tbslaboratory.com/files/papers...
Screenshot of abstract that reads, "We evaluated whether an in-person, multi-hour conversation intervention reduced animosity toward people with different (political) attitudes. We also experimentally tested whether stacking a brief video intervention highlighting sympathetic narratives onto the intensive intervention boosted its ability to reduce animosity. Across events (N= 209, Events k= 10), participants reported less animosity and more empathy following the events compared to before, suggesting the intervention is effective. Different than preregistered, this effectiveness was not significantly affected by the light-touch video treatment. The program improved intergroup relations, but we did not boost the intensive treatment's effects with the addition of a light-touch video treatment."
192 9
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
4. Some perspectives predict that more intuitive and rigid cognitive styles will be related to larger party cue effects. We did not find evidence for this.
100 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
3. In exploratory analyses, we do find ideological differences on some issues. Whether the cues are larger for the left or the right depends on if the issue is more salient/stronger on the left vs right. When salient/stronger, cue effects are smaller.
100 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
2. Right-wing authoritarianism is the only ideology measure where people are the right react more to party cues than those on the left. This measure might be picking out some of the more group-following conservatives.
100 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
1. We find that party cues are stronger for people on the right/conservatives in our one sample from Prolific (first fig). In our three more representative samples (from different vendors), we find similarities (e.g., second fig). We think something odd is going on with Prolific conservatives.
100 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 10/08/2026
New pub, led by Aymin Triki & in collab w/ @abbycassario.bsky.social, accepted at JESP! We found similarities in party cues among the left and the right when using representative samples of issues, although right-wing authoritarians may be an exception Other interesting findings follow!
Abstract of paper. It reads, How do people with different political ideologies process political information? Party cues are an
effect where people are more likely to support a policy position if they learn their party also
supports it, shifting their judgement in accordance with cues from their inparty and against their
outparty. This effect has been at the center of the debate over the psychological differences
between liberals and conservatives, with some scholars suggesting that differences in cognitive
styles between liberals and conservatives (e.g., rigidity, cognitive reflection) should result in
differences in party cue susceptibility. We advance this debate by measuring rigid cognitive
styles and applying a stimuli sampling approach to party cues across four preregistered
experiments (N’s per study > 1200). We found convincing evidence for ideological symmetries
in party cues in quota matched samples of Americans (Studies 1 & 2). In Studies 3 and 4, across
four measures of ideology and three self-report measures of cognitive rigidity, we found
ideological differences in self-reported rigidity in line with previous research. In Study 3, a
convenience sample, we found that conservatives were more likely to follow party cues.
However, Study 4, using a quota matched sample, found no ideological differences in cue
susceptibility, except with respect to right-wing authoritarianism. Exploratory analyses found
that when one group has greater prior awareness or stronger initial views on a topic, they show
smaller cueing effects. We conclude that while liberals and conservatives differ in cognitive
style, they largely share similar cognitive processes for interpreting and integrating political
information.
12212 22
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 09/07/2026
New paper in Political Psychology (@ispp-pops.bsky.social) tested the Social Identity Model of Collective Action during Gen Z protests in Madagascar. They show SIMCA's relevance for post-action social harmony This is also the first data exclusively from Madagascar published in the journal!
Screenshot of article title and abstract. The title is, "Navigating social change and social harmony: Testing SIMCA in Gen Z collective action in Madagascar and its role in reconciliation processes". The abstract is, "The Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA) effectively predicts collective action and social change, but has been less examined in emerging movements and non-WEIRD contexts. This research had two aims: to test SIMCA during the Gen Z mobilization in Madagascar, a largely online movement that culminated in the overthrow of the government in October 2025; and to examine how SIMCA variables relate to post-action activism and reconciliation. Study 1 (N = 959), conducted during the governmental transition, tested SIMCA—including national identification, Gen Z identification, perceived injustice, collective efficacy, and morality—on online collective action support, intention, and participation. Study 2 (N = 258), conducted post-transition, examined associations with activism intention, reconciliation, and forgiveness. Gen Z identification and morality were consistently associated with collective action and activism intention, whereas perceived injustice was primarily linked to ongoing collective action. Collective efficacy showed mixed associations. In contrast, national identification emerged as a key factor of post-action forgiveness. These findings suggest that SIMCA variables are involved not only in social change but also in post-action social harmony. They highlight the distinct roles of politicized and non-politicized identities, underscoring the importance of conceptualizing collective action as a temporally and contextually embedded process."
02810 28
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 29/06/2026
I didn’t realize latent variable modeling and football shared enough variance for this to be a good advertisement choice
A screenshot from a World Cup game. A company named MPlus is being advertised.
1140 14
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 25/06/2026
I was lucky to spend the last 5 months working at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Studies. A wonderful experience of finding community and experiences of interdisciplinary surprise and curiosity. The have open calls for applications at all career stages. I highly recommend
Photo of the NIAS front door in FebPhoto of the NIAS front door in June
2191 19
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 11/06/2026
100 packages to fix my existential dread!
Screenshot of search results of R packages for the search phrase "fix my existential dread". 100 packages were found. tidyverse and ggplot2 are the top listed.
1172 17
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
Other article types include... -Commentaries are published work - Registered Reports Author guidelines: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal...
Dialogue: In lieu of traditional book reviews, Political Psychology will publish critical dialogues. Dialogues take two main forms. The most common form involves the authors of two or three books on similar topics reviewing each others' work and, separately, writing a response. We will also consider dialogues that involve several individuals providing separate reviews of one book and the author(s) of that book providing a response. If you would like to propose a dialogue, please contact the Co-Editors-in-Chief. In your proposal, please summarize the book(s), describe why a critical dialogue is valuable for the topic, and include a proposed timeline for the dialogue. If proposing a dialogue for a single book, please include suggestions for potential participants and a justification for why the book deserves its own dialogue.
Commentary. Commentaries critique and/or supplement articles previously published in Political Psychology. The major criteria for a commentary are that it provides a new perspective on the article it is commenting on, and that this new perspective makes an important difference to the interpretation of the target article. Commentaries can include new data and/or new analyses of existing data, but they need not. Authors of commentaries should not be an author or coauthor of the article on which they are commenting. As with all of our articles, the format of commentaries at the initial submission is flexible. Commentaries should be no more than approximately 1500 words (not including references, abstract, tables, figures, and title page). We encourage authors to cite only the most relevant works, rather than aiming to be comprehensive in their citations. Commentaries should also adhere to Political Psychology’s transparency policies. The title of a commentary must begin with the word “Commentary.”

We will solicit reviews on the submitted commentary, including from the lead author of the target article. If the commentary is accepted, we will usually invite the author or authors of the target article to submit a Reply to Commentary.

Replies to commentaries allow authors of articles to formally respond to commentaries. These replies will be invitation only, and we will solicit reviews on the reply, including from the lead author of the commentary. Because of the nature of replies, the reply manuscript will not be blinded to reviewers. The acceptance of the reply is not guaranteed. It is important that the reply is directly focused on the content of the commentary and makes an important difference to the interpretation of the commentary. The same expectations regarding format, length, citation, and transparency noted above for commentaries apply to replies. The title of a reply must begin with the phrase “Reply to [title of Commentary]”.Publish a Registered Report for an early peer review of your proposed research

What are Registered Reports?

Registered Reports enhance research transparency by allowing you to pre-register your study and have your proposed methods and analyses reviewed prior to conducting the actual research. This means that a significant part of your research is peer-reviewed and published before data collection is complete. This early feedback will result in an editorial decision based on the quality and importance of your research, instead of just the outcome.

Stage 1 peer review gives researchers "in principle acceptance" for their Stage 2 article before they begin their study. That in principle acceptance is based on peer review of the study methods, to assess the importance of the research question being asked and the quality of the methods chosen to address that research question. In principle acceptance is typically contingent on sufficient study power and quality control measures that ensure results are interpretable regardless of the primary outcome of the study.

Stage 2 peer review confirms that the researchers completed their study according to their "registered" Stage 1 study design, checks that any deviations from that design are appropriate and explained, and verifies that the results are reported completely and transparently.
030 3
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 28/05/2026
The first Dialogue has just been published! James Gibson and Susan Stokes review each other's books on democratic backsliding, followed by a joint reflection by Edoardo Grillo, Zhaotian Luo, Monika Nalepa, and Carlo Prato. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
Review of The Backsliders: Why Leaders Undermine Their Own Democracies By Susan C. Stokes, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2025. $27.95.

Reviewed by James L. Gibson

Response by Susan C. Stokes

Review of Democracy's Destruction? Changing Perceptions of the Supreme Court, the Presidency, and the Senate after the 2020 Election By James L. Gibson, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2024. $42.50.

Reviewed by Susan C. Stokes

Response by James L. Gibson

Are democracies dying? Stokes and Gibson on democratic backsliding

By Edoardo Grillo, Zhaotian Luo, Monika Nalepa, and Carlo Prato.
151 5
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 06/05/2026
Here is my goofy menace that has caused more $$$ damage than any cat I’ve ever had. Yet, is also the sweetest cat I’ve ever had
A black cat with his tongue sticking out. Don’t be fooled. He is a menace.
130 3
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 21/04/2026
021 2
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 04/04/2026
A quote in the Nature news item about this suggests they will start closing the area before any Congressional action www.nature.com/articles/d41...
010 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 22/12/2025
Two screenshots with some resources. First, the list of readings about mediation shortcomings that I often share with people Second, a list of more recent than 1986 overviews of mediation analyses
061 6
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 17/12/2025
my very friendly cat named Noodles is at the vet today the vet tech shared some of the notes in his chart this will only go to his head
My cat Noodles doing a big blepNotes on my cat from the vet tech

1. BEST CAT
2. This cat is da bomb
3. Top 10 patient
0120 12
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 02/12/2025
Adding insult to injury
000 0
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 07/11/2025
110 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 17/10/2025
The light touch intervention did not significantly cause a boost (vs. control), although the effect sizes were in the "right" direction and similar to what we might expect from Voelkel, Stagnaro, @robbwiller.bsky.social & team's Strengthening Democracy Challenge. More data needed
100 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 17/10/2025
Recruitment was tricky, but we got ~200 people in our pre-post experiment In the simple (and not causally identified) one group pre-post design, the intensive intervention seemed to reduce toxic polarization
122 2
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 17/10/2025
This preprint reports on a project with @j-rock.bsky.social. We merged a light touch intervention (typical of survey experiments) w/ an intensive intervention (more typical of practitioner efforts) for reducing toxic polarization to see if we could cheaply boost 🚀 the more intensive intervention
1106 10
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 13/09/2025
Benevolent authority beliefs predict public approval in China, but not Japan. At the same time, democratic values were positively associated with public approval in Japan but negatively associated with that in China (in @ispp-pops.bsky.social) onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
062 6
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 03/09/2025
I suppose a lot of great artists have a similar story
A painting of Vincent van Gogh by Vincent van Gogh, the OG of selfies
020 2
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 19/08/2025
The Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Postdoctoral Research Fellowships at NSF are no more? But hopefully I misunderstand? www.nsf.gov/funding/oppo...
screenshot of SBE fellowship webpage with words "archive" circled in red.
346 6
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 18/08/2025
In a study of naturally occurring ostracism experiences: After experiencing ostracism, people initially prioritize withdrawal and prosocial coping responses. Prosocial responses increase overtime. Anti-social responses were relatively rare journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1...
02510 25
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 18/08/2025
New advances in the genetics of personality, with value for personality psychology, including... -Studying Personality’s Correlates with Genetic Data -Testing Causal Models of Personality www.annualreviews.org/content/jour...
030 3
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 18/08/2025
Large Language Models Do Not Simulate Human Psychology arxiv.org/pdf/2508.06950
918368 183
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 01/08/2025
Similar vibes for the role of stupidity in scientific research web.stanford.edu/~fukamit/sch...
010 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 23/07/2025
The incomparable Alice Eagly giving a guest lecture at our (w/ @theklamorgenroth.bsky.social) summer school course
1201 20
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 30/05/2025
The political slant of psych research (e.g., left vs. right) is not related to replicability, although more slant (in any direction) may be associated with less replicability journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10....
1275 27
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 24/05/2025
There are a lot of promising tools being developed to help avoid the costs of credulity for common sense knowledge and science skepticism onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.... onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.... onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
210 2
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 24/05/2025
Populist attitudes may be a key contributor here as people with more populist perspectives tend to have an increased sense of credulity onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
110 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 24/05/2025
People use scientific skepticism selectively to discredit science that conflicts with their point of view onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
120 2
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 24/05/2025
The defense of commonsense knowledge against scientific expertise is used as a political weapon across countries onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.... #AcademicSky #Psychology #SocialPsychology #polpsy #Polisky
11911 19
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 02/04/2025
Despite all the upheavals, some bright spots! Yesterday, @shreevallabha.bsky.social successfully defended her dissertation; approved with no revisions! 🎉 Dr. Vallabha’s dissertation work is the most comprehensive study of moral humility to date 👀
Photo of Dr. Vallabha in front of her power point slides
2294 29
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 30/01/2025
010 1
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 25/01/2025
People in social networks made up of others with similar views were more resistant to attitude change than people in heterogeneous social networks pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15598106/
Paper titled, "Attitudes in the Social Context: The Impact of Social Network Composition on Individual-Level Attitude Strength". The abstract reads "Four studies, using both experimental and correlational designs, explored the implications of being embedded within attitudinally congruent versus attitudinally heterogeneous social networks for individual-level attitude strength. Individuals embedded within congruent social networks (i.e., made up of others with similar views) were more resistant to attitude change than were individuals embedded within heterogeneous social networks (i.e., made up of others with a range of views). Mediational evidence suggests that attitudinally congruous social networks may increase attitude strength by decreasing attitudinal ambivalence and perhaps by increasing the certainty with which people hold their attitudes. These results suggest that features of the social context in which an attitude is held have important implications for individual-level attitude strength."
34419 44
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 23/01/2025
Over the 2020 US and NZ elections, antidemocratic attitudes preceded conspiracy beliefs, rather than conspiracy beliefs fostering antidemocratic attitudes by @lindaskitka.bsky.social & many others in @ispp-pops.bsky.social #socpsych #polisky #polpsych onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10....
Screenshot of paper title which reads "Conspiracy beliefs and democratic backsliding: Longitudinal effects of election conspiracy beliefs on criticism of democracy and support for authoritarianism during political contests". Paper abstract that reads, "There are widespread concerns that conspiracy theories undermine democracies. But do conspiracy beliefs increase criticism of democracy and/or support for authoritarianism? Or are antidemocratic people more likely to endorse conspiracy beliefs? To answer these important questions, we collected longitudinal data during two concurrent democratic elections—the 2020 US Presidential Election (N = 609) and the 2020 General Election in New Zealand (N = 603). Random intercept cross-lagged panel models tested whether conspiracy beliefs affect criticism of democracy in general, as well as support for authoritarianism, and both direct and representative democracy, specifically. There was little evidence that conspiracy beliefs temporally preceded changes in attitudes toward democracy or support for any specific form of government. Instead, people who supported authoritarianism more subsequently endorsed stronger conspiracy beliefs. The results suggested that, in the context of electoral contests (e.g., elections), antidemocratic people are more likely to endorse conspiracy beliefs rather than conspiracy beliefs fostering antidemocratic views."
113355 133
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 13/01/2025
Students will sign consent forms will absurd requirements (96%!). I doubt this is just a consent form issue; this is all contracts papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
1123 12
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 02/01/2025
Following the implementation of policies that were the "extreme version far beyond mainstream conservative positions" people in Israel shifted to the left on issues onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.... #socpsyc #polisky
Abstract for a paper that reads, How does the rise of ideologically extreme leaders affect attitudes and beliefs among their supporters? Previous research on paradoxical thinking suggests that when individuals are exposed to a radicalized version of their held beliefs, they moderate them in response. However, it is yet unknown whether, how, and among whom, such moderation occurs in response to radicalization of individuals' favored leaders. The proposed study examines how an unfolding real-world manifestation of a paradoxical thinking intervention—that is, the radical and extreme policies carried out by the newly elected Israeli government—affects the political attitudes of the government's supporters. Using a longitudinal design, we examined how pre-election attitudes (N = 589 government supporters) moderate, radicalize, or remain unchanged following the announcement and implementation of radical policies. Over four time points, we also examine the psychological mechanisms mediating the policies' moderating impact, to disentangle the reciprocal or paradoxical effects of radicalization among leaders on the public.
2134 13
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 19/12/2024
Based on the note (screenshotted in this post), I think they are constrained to be equal
120 2
mark brandt @mjbsp.bsky.social · 19/12/2024
Participation in collective action moralizes people’s attitudes because it politicizes their identity, enrages them, and/or empowers them to achieve social change (by @alleal.bsky.social & co) psycnet.apa.org/record/2025-... #polpsych #socpsyc #polisky
Paper abstract: Although much is known about why people engage in collective action participation (e.g., politicized identity, group-based anger), little is known about the psychological consequences of such participation. For example, can participation in collective action facilitate attitude moralization (e.g., moralize their attitudes on the topic)? Based on the idea that collective action contexts often involve a strong social movement fighting against an immoral adversary, we propose that participating in collective action facilitates attitude moralization over time. By integrating the moralization and collective action literatures, we hypothesized that participation in collective action moralizes individuals’ attitudes over time because it politicizes their identity, enrages them vis-a-vis the outgroup, and/or empowers them to achieve social change. We tested these hypotheses in a 2-year, five-wave longitudinal study (N = 1,214) in the contentious context of the Chilean student movement. We examined within-person (and between-person) changes over time and consistently found that participation in collective action predicted individual changes in moral conviction over time through politicized identification and group-based anger toward the outgroup. Furthermore, moral conviction predicted participation in collective action over time—an effect consistently explained by politicized identification. These findings are the first to show that (a) participation in collective action moralizes individuals’ attitudes because it politicizes their identity and enrages them vis-a-vis the (immoral) outgroup and that (b) moralization in turn helps to better understand sustained movement participation. Theoretical implications for the literature on moralization and collective action are discussed.
2456 45