Human societies are not static; they exhibit constant change in customs, norms, and deep-seated psychological tendencies. Whereas social psychology often makes claims about such changes, these are chiefly based on static, cross-sectional inferences. This chapter reviews our program of research on understanding cultural change, arguing that robust theories demand empirical testing with time-series data. We challenge the static nature of the field, demonstrating how societal shifts in individualism, gender equality, and fertility rates can be understood as adaptive responses to changing physical and social ecological conditions. We then situate this ecological framework in relation to other major theories of cultural change. Building on this framework, we explore the impact of the emerging “digital ecology” on cultural transmission and the importance of culture-ecology feedback loops. Finally, we discuss the new frontiers of a predictive science of cultural dynamics, including efforts to forecast the future, “retrodict” the past, and develop new tools, such as AI-based Historical Large Language Models, for the study of cultural dynamics.
People vary in their tendency to believe that powerful, hidden elites orchestrate major events—a disposition known as conspiracy mentality. This mindset has been linked to important social outcomes, including political behavior and health-related decisions. This chapter reviews and contrasts existing methods for measuring conspiracy beliefs, discussing their conceptual and methodological implications. It also introduces a novel perspective that conceptualizes conspiracy mentality as composed of distinct, interrelated facets. The chapter examines the distribution of conspiracy mentality across demographic groups, as well as its stability and potential for change. Finally, it reviews key explanatory frameworks that account for individual differences, including unmet psychological needs, experiential learning, and cognitive abilities. The chapter concludes by outlining future research directions to better understand and address conspiracy thinking in society.
Collective narcissism and ingroup satisfaction are distinct aspect of positive ingroup evaluation. Collective narcissism - the belief that the ingroup is exceptional but not sufficiently recognized by others - is linked to behaviors that escalate intergroup conflicts, reinforce social injustice and inequality, undermine rationality and challenge democratic principles. In contrast, ingroup satisfaction—the belief that the ingroup is of a high value—may be a remedy against them. Clarifying the distinction and relationships between collective narcissism and ingroup satisfaction may be essential for constraining the negative outcomes of collective narcissism. This chapter builds on recent developments in self-evaluation research to propose a theoretical framework that integrates existing findings in collective narcissism research and outlines future directions for empirical inquiry.
On the back of concerns that society is entering a post-truth, “anti-enlightenment” phase, the last decade has seen an explosion of research on the psychology of science rejection. Traditional understandings of this phenomenon have relied on so-called deficit models: that rejection of science is underpinned by lack of exposure to information or an inability to process scientific information. In this chapter we discuss two recent approaches that supplement this understanding: (1) the Attitude Roots model, which focuses on the role of ideologies, worldviews, identities and fears in shaping science beliefs, and (2) the Psychological Distance to Science model, which views science rejection as a downstream consequence of people perceiving science as detached from the self in the here and now. By building bridges across these approaches, we hope to pave the way for future research efforts aimed at uncovering a more complete understanding of the causes of science rejection across domains. This understanding is important for further theory development, and is a key ingredient for crafting strategies and interventions to defuse the myriad problems associated with science rejection.
Emotions are core to the human experience, with questions about what they are going back millennia. Most psychological theorists agree that emotions involve responses in multiple systems (experience, behavior, and physiology). However, theorists disagree regarding how these responses relate to one another. Here, we propose an integrative view that predicts some coherence exists but that the degree of coherence and its benefits vary across types of coherence, people, emotions, and contexts. We begin by addressing the theoretical underpinnings of coherence, and how their implications for coherence can be integrated. Then, we outline methodological considerations for empirically testing the predictions of this integrative view. Next, we review research from the past two decades that speaks to—and generally supports—these predictions, and discuss its theoretical and well-being implications. We close by discussing directions for future research on coherence that will further advance this area of profound theoretical and practical importance.
This chapter analyzes how the environment affects human behavior by presenting a model that delineates four important pathways addressed through diverse research on inner speech, priming, persuasion, behavioral economics, and public policy. According to this model, the environment can shape human behavior in subtle or forceful ways by (a) framing a decision through the activation of inner questions that produce individualized responses, (b) priming a directional concept that activates goals, (c) introducing propositional information in support of behavioral recommendations (e.g., persuasive communications), and (d) directly changing the environment through policies that mandate or facilitate behavior. We review meta-analytic and experimental research on these psychological influences, address the robustness of two phenomena that had been the subject of contemporary controversies (i.e., priming and default effects), and make recommendations for future research.
Creativity is part and parcel of human history and enables (groups of) individuals to adapt to and shape their natural and social surroundings. Here we identify (1) core functions of creativity (“what is it for?”) in terms of its ability to solve ill-defined problems of survival and prosperity and, (2) the neurocognitive mechanisms (“how does it work?”) underlying creative production in terms of cognitive persistence and flexibility. We summarize experimental support for this Dual Pathway to Creativity Model (DPCM) from our own laboratory and that of others, and review work implicating the dopamine-innervated fronto-striatal circuitry in achieving a balance between cognitive flexibility on the one hand, and persistence on the other. We use DPCM to analyze how creativity emerges and develops across the lifespan. We show (3) how personalities and psychopathologies marked by approach (avoidance) motivation link to creativity because of enhanced capacity for flexibility (persistence), and (4) how socio-cultural factors, including psychological safety, diversity, and leadership, condition individual and group creativity. We conclude with open questions for future research, including how (5) individuals and groups move from generating to implementing creative ideas, insights, and problem solutions.
People have a rich understanding of the social world within which they are embedded. How do they organize this social knowledge? And to what end? We suggest that these two questions are intimately linked. We review a burgeoning literature which shows how the social mind organizes different layers of social knowledge—including knowledge of actions, mental states, personality traits, situations, and relationships—into parsimonious low-dimensional maps. By distilling much of the complexity of the social world down to coordinates on a few key psychological dimensions, people construct a highly efficient representation of the social world. We go on to review recent research showing that these maps facilitate accurate, automatic prediction of real-world social dynamics. Specifically, the placement of stimuli within these maps implicitly encodes predictions about the social future, both within the same layer of social knowledge, and across different layers. Moreover, the ability of these maps to predict the social future is no coincidence: increasing evidence suggests that the goal of prediction actively shapes the way people organize social knowledge. We conclude by discussing challenges and future directions for studying the predictive social mind.
Victimhood drives morality and politics. Morality evolved to protect from victimization, and today morality still revolves around concerns about victimhood and harm. Unfortunately, liberals and conservatives often identify different victims, creating political division. In this review of the psychology of perceived victimhood, we demonstrate its power and complexity. First, we look at evolution to explore why victimhood is so powerful, highlighting one neglected fact about human nature: humans are more prey than predator. Second, we examine three different definitions of what victimhood is based on understandings of individuals, groups, and morality, and how these definitions of victimhood can set the stage for conflict. Third, we explore how victimhood matters in judgments of others. It forms the core of moral judgments: people condemn acts based on how much these acts seem to victimize others. People also typecast others as victims or victimizers. Fourth, we review when people see themselves as a victim, and how this licenses selfishness. Finally, we show how victimhood inflames moral and political division, but also how it can bridge divides through sharing and acknowledging experiences of suffering.
This chapter presents a goal systemic analysis to risk behavior and applies it to a wide variety of behaviors including substance use, overeating, drinking and driving, violence, extreme sports. We suggest that risk behavior should be approached in the context of people's multiple goals and means that serve them. In this context, risk behavior has functional value and follows the general principles underlying any purposeful behavior. Specifically, risk behavior: (1) is enacted when it is perceived as an instrumental means to the person's salient and important goals; (2) its perceived instrumentality is the consequence of motivational and structural properties of goals and means; (3) it requires negotiation of multiple goals and mobilization of resources. We discuss how these basic principles of goal pursuit apply to understand when people switch from risk aversion to risk taking, how risk taking becomes the preferred means to fulfill one's goals, how it is implemented despite potentially negative consequences, as well as how risk behavior may be perpetuated, prevented, and/or changed. In doing so, we highlight how this perspective integrates previously unrelated concepts, accounts for a wide body of findings, addresses previously unanswered questions, and generates new theoretical and practical implications.
