Cybersecurity has become a major problem for organizations, which have responded with employee-facing policies such as security trainings, firewalls, and rules about new technologies. These policies work best when employees believe the threat they address is real. Across six experiments (total N = 2,893), we identify two routes through which organizational policy decisions can undermine this belief, and show that each can be attenuated. When solutions are imposed in restrictive ways, employees experience psychological reactance and deny that the threat is serious: a firewall that blocks popular apps (versus an education policy; Study 1) and a boss mandating training attendance (versus offering a choice; Study 2) both increased denial through heightened reactance. Yet preserving autonomy within a mandate, letting employees choose how to complete a required training rather than dictating it, reduced both reactance and denial (Study 3). When policies are removed, employees infer that the organization has concluded the threat is not serious and adopt that verdict themselves: employees recalling a lifted (versus kept) cybersecurity policy (Study 4) and participants imagining a company lifting a generative AI ban (Study 5) reported greater denial. Yet reaffirming that the risk remained serious while lifting the ban weakened this inference and reduced denial (Study 6). We discuss how organizations can impose, and sunset, risk-management policies without teaching employees to dismiss the threat.

Mirroring the increasingly pervasive impact of politics in everyday life, research on politics, ideology, and partisanship in the workplace has escalated in recent years across a variety of domains germane to the organizational sciences. But for as many new insights as these lines of inquiry have produced—ranging from interpersonal interactions to employee behaviors to the organizational implications of top executives’ political leanings—there are just as many (if not more) compelling questions that remain unanswered. In this article, we offer our perspectives on the literatures involving politics, ideology, and partisanship in organizations, including an overview of research in the area and some particularly encouraging future directions. We also invite submissions for a new special issue that solicits scholarship on the topic across myriad disciplines, traditions, and empirical approaches. In the process, we delineate the nature of this special issue, introduce its associate editors, and offer guidelines for submissions—which we are accepting starting at this very moment.

Growing income inequality has led to many important social and economic issues. Despite this, many people prefer social hierarchies and tend to resist egalitarian principles. Traditional perspectives attribute this preference to individuals' conservative political orientation and subjective social status. In this article, we suggest an overlooked factor that may contribute to antiegalitarianism: trait reactance, defined as the chronic tendency to perceive freedom threat and resist against it. Two theoretical perspectives explain why trait reactance might cause antiegalitarianism: First, the broad cultural push for reducing inequality in all spheres of everyday life might lead those with high levels of reactance to perceive this as a threat to their freedom, leading to resistance. Second, because social hierarchy may offer inherent benefits, such as feelings of power and influence, those more chronically attuned to preserving their personal freedom may be drawn to ideologies that preserve hierarchy. We explain both theoretical perspectives in detail and offer preliminary evidence through an internal meta-analysis of 18 studies we have conducted that include both measures of trait reactance and social dominance orientation (the most widely used measure of antiegalitarianism). This analysis reveals a positive correlation between trait reactance and social dominance orientation, which remains robust to several known predictors of antiegalitarianism, participants' subjective positions on the inequality spectrum, and across two distinct cultures (United States and China). We conclude with suggestions for empirical directions that can further elucidate the contours, mechanisms, and causal direction of the relation between reactance and antiegalitarianism.

Recent research has focused on understanding ideological and affective political polarization in the United States; however, the polarization of issue salience-defined as personal beliefs about how important or concerning an issue is, and how much attention or priority it deserves-has garnered less attention, especially regarding its underlying causes. We propose that issue salience polarization, particularly that of ideologically neutral issues, is driven in part by two psychological processes: solution aversion (denying problem severity when solutions are introduced that conflict with political beliefs) and solution attraction (exaggerating problem severity when solutions are introduced that align with political beliefs). If this is so, we should be able to observe issues that are nonpolarized at baseline become suddenly polarized when paired with solutions that are consistent with a specific ideological position (liberal or conservative). Consistent with this prediction, four experimental studies demonstrate the emergence of issue salience polarization arising from solution aversion and solution attraction (Studies 1-4). Results also demonstrate support for the role of zero-sum beliefs, or the belief that one political party's gains must come at the expense of the other party, in driving this process (Study 3).

Employment transitions necessitate a degree of uncertainty and lack of control, which may present a challenge to succeeding and belonging at a new organization. The present research tests ideas derived from compensatory control theory which posits that people may seek external structure to help exert control over their lives when they experience a lack of control in an important life domain - and that this can aid in their goal pursuit. Across three studies, we explore whether the perception of a higher degree of organizational structure can help employees compensate for uncertainty and lack of control and facilitate transitioning employees' occupation self-efficacy and sense of belonging in a new work environment. This research focuses on military veterans, who face significant challenges during their separation from military service and transition to civilian employment, as an exemplar of the people experiencing employment transitions more generally, and compares them (in two studies) with civilian participants. Across three studies, two using simple correlational methods, one using an experimental methodology with veterans and civilians, we find consistent evidence that when transitioning employees perceive greater structure at their organization, this facilitates increased feelings of occupational self-efficacy which, in turn, promotes greater feelings of belonging at work. When people perceive greater structure in their environment, people feel more efficacious and a greater sense that they belong at work. The results are discussed in the context of compensatory control theory, addressing the challenges of transitioning employees, and in particular, transitioning military veterans.

Across eight studies (and two additional supplemental studies), we investigate possible bidirectional causal links between dehumanization and exploitation (total N = 5923). Participants were less opposed to the exploitation of mechanistically dehumanized workers - i.e., workers perceived to lack traits central to human nature like emotionality and warmth - than other workers (Studies 1-5). The effects of mechanistic dehumanization on exploitation judgments were statistically explained by perceptions that mechanistically dehumanized workers are more capable of enduring experiences that typically elicit suffering and hardship (Studies 2-4). We also found evidence against several other possible explanations for the effects of mechanistic dehumanization on exploitation judgments (i.e., competence, dependability, likeability; Studies 2-4). In addition, we found consistent evidence for the reverse causal pathway: Workers who are exploited - relative to workers who are not exploited - are more likely to be attributed qualities indicative of mechanistic dehumanization (Studies 6-8; Supplemental Studies 1-2). The effects across studies were invariant to job type, the perceived race/ethnicity and gender of the target worker, and the specific case of exploitation. In addition, the relationships between dehumanization and exploitation judgments were specific to the mechanistic form of dehumanization and not the animalistic form - i. e., perceiving others as lacking traits that distinguish humans from animals like self-control, rationality, civility. These bidirectional causal relations between mechanistic dehumanization and exploitation have the potential to create a vicious cycle of suffering and unfair treatment for certain workers.

Understanding how initiatives to support Black-owned businesses are received, and why, has important social and economic implications. To address this, we designed three experiments to investigate the role of antiegalitarian versus egalitarian ideologies among White American adults. In Study 1 (N = 199), antiegalitarianism (vs. egalitarianism) predicted viewing initiatives supporting a Black-owned business as less fair, but only when the business was competing with other (presumably White-owned) businesses. In Study 2 (N = 801), antiegalitarianism predicted applying survival-of-the-fittest market beliefs, particularly to Black-owned businesses. Antiegalitarianism also predicted viewing initiatives supporting Black-owned businesses as less fair than initiatives that targeted other (presumably White-owned) businesses, especially for tangible (vs. symbolic) support that directly impacts the success of a business. In Study 3 (N = 590), antiegalitarianism predicted rejecting a program investing in Black-owned businesses. These insights demonstrate how antiegalitarian ideology can have the effect of maintaining race-based inequality, hindering programs designed to reduce that inequality.

While the majority of Americans today endorse meritocracy as fair, we suggest that these perceptions can be shaped by whether or not people learn about the presence of socioeconomic advantages and disadvantages in others' lives. Across five studies (N = 3,318), we find that people are able to attach socioeconomic inequalities in applicants' backgrounds to their evaluation of the fairness of specific merit-based selection processes and outcomes. Learning that one applicant grew up advantaged-while the other grew up disadvantaged-leads both liberals and conservatives to believe that otherwise identical merit-based procedures and outcomes are significantly less fair. Importantly, learning about starting inequalities leads to greater support for policies that promote socioeconomic diversity in organizations.

The hero label has become a pervasive positive stereotype applied to many different groups and occupations, such as nurses, teachers, and members of the military. Although meant to show support, appreciation, and even admiration, we suggest that attaching this label to groups and occupations may actually have problematic consequences. Specifically, we theorize that the hero label may affect beliefs about the internal motivations of these group members that make them more vulnerable to exploitation. These ideas are tested and supported across nine preregistered studies using complementary materials and experimental paradigms. In these studies, we find that: (a) heroization strengthens expectations that teachers, nurses, and military personnel would willingly volunteer for their own exploitation; (b) the hero label and its consequences follow workers even after they transition to a new career (e.g., participants expected a military veteran-relative to a matched nonveteran-to be more willing to volunteer for his own exploitation at his subsequent civilian job, because the veteran was perceived to be more heroic than the matched nonveteran); and (c) occupational heroization-likely because of its impact on beliefs regarding what heroized workers would freely choose to do-reduces opposition to exploitative policies. In short, our studies show that heroization ultimately promotes worse treatment of the very groups that it is meant to venerate. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Scholars warn that partisan divisions in the mass public threaten the health of American democracy. We conducted a megastudy ( n = 32,059 participants) testing 25 treatments designed by academics and practitioners to reduce Americans’ partisan animosity and antidemocratic attitudes. We find that many treatments reduced partisan animosity, most strongly by highlighting relatable sympathetic individuals with different political beliefs or by emphasizing common identities shared by rival partisans. We also identify several treatments that reduced support for undemocratic practices—most strongly by correcting misperceptions of rival partisans’ views or highlighting the threat of democratic collapse—which shows that antidemocratic attitudes are not intractable. Taken together, the study’s findings identify promising general strategies for reducing partisan division and improving democratic attitudes, shedding theoretical light on challenges facing American democracy.

Compensatory control theory (CCT) provides a framework for understanding the mechanisms at play when ones personal control is challenged. The model suggests that believing the world is a structured and predictable place is fundamental, insofar as it provides the foundation upon which people can believe they are able to exert control over their environment and act agentically towards goals. Because of this, CCT suggests, when personal control is threatened people try to reaffirm the more foundational belief in structure/predictability in the world, so that they then have a strong foundation to reestablish feelings of personal control and pursue their goals. This review seeks to understand how the basic assumptions of these compensatory control processes unfold in different cultural contexts. Drawing on research and theorizing from cultural psychology, we propose that cultural models of self and agency, culturally prevalent modes of control, and culture-specific motivations all have implications for compensatory control processes. Culture determines, in part, whether or not personal control deprivation is experienced as a threat to perceiving an orderly world, how/whether individuals respond to low personal control, and the function that responses to restore a sense of order in the world serve. A theoretical model of compensatory control processes across cultures is proposed that has implications for how people cope with a wide range of personal and societal events that potentially threaten their personal control.

a URL, doi, or other permanent path for accessing the specified information in a public, openaccess repository, and the specified information must be provided in a format that is time-stamped, immutable, and permanent.Qualifying public, open-access repositories are committed to preserving data, materials, and/or registered analysis plans and keeping them publicly accessible via the web in perpetuity.Examples include the Open Science Framework (OSF) and the various Dataverse networks.Hundreds of other qualifying data/materials repositories are listed at http://re3data.org/.Preregistration of an analysis plan must take place via a publicly accessible registry system (e.g., OSF, ClinicalTrials.govor other trial registries in the WHO Registry Network, institutional registration systems).Personal websites and most departmental websites do not qualify as repositories.

Healthy democratic polities feature competing visions of a good society. They also require tolerance, trust, and cooperation to avoid toxic polarization that puts democracy itself at risk. In the U.S., liberal-leftists and conservative-rightists differ in many attitudes, values, and personality traits, as well as tendencies to justify the unequal status quo and embrace authoritarian aggression and group-based dominance. Some of these differences imply that conflict between liberal-leftists and conservative-rightists is tantamount to a struggle for and against democratic ideals. However, these political and psychological differences between the left and the right do not necessarily mean that Americans are forever doomed to intergroup hatred and intractable political conflict. Some modest basis for optimism emerges from recent experimental interventions, including one that encourages people to identify with and justify the system of liberal democracy in the U.S.

In recent years, much of the American public has venerated military veterans as heroes. Despite overwhelmingly positive public attitudes toward veterans, veterans have experienced higher rates of unemployment and underemployment than their nonveteran peers. The current research leverages theory and research on positive stereotypes to shed light on this seeming inconsistency between the heroization of veterans and their heightened rates of unemployment and underemployment. We conceptualize the hero label as a pervasive positive stereotype, and we employ complementary methods and designs (correlational, quasi-experimental, experimental, and mediational) to investigate the consequences and implications of attaching this label to military veterans. We then extend our theorizing to other heroized groups (e.g., firefighters, paramedics, teachers, and social workers). The results across studies suggest that heroization leads the American public to funnel heroized individuals and groups into a limited set of lower paying jobs, organizations, and careers associated with selflessness. This research not only offers insights into an important real-world problem but also offers a first experimental investigation of the consequences and implications of labeling a group of people as heroes. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Much research has examined the link between (anti-)egalitarian ideology and motivated social cognition. However, this research is typically framed around anti-egalitarianism, with the other end of this ideological pole, egalitarianism, often ignored altogether or treated as merely the absence of anti-egalitarian-motivated cognition. We integrate long-standing ideas from social dominance theory with contemporary models of motivated social cognition and a recent wave of empirical findings to argue that egalitarian ideology also drives social cognition in meaningful ways. We discuss why pursuing this avenue of research is important and outline several unanswered questions for future research.

Western culture idealizes an autonomous self-a self that strives for independence and freedom from the influence and control of others. We explored how the value placed on autonomy in Western culture intersects with the normative trait expectations experienced by men and women. While trait expectations placed on men (i.e., to be confident and assertive) affirm an autonomous sense of self, trait expectations placed on women (i.e., to be caring and understanding) conflict with an autonomous sense of self. We theorized that this conflict contributes to women's resentment toward positive gender stereotypes that emphasize women's interdependent qualities. Six preregistered studies (N = 2,094) demonstrated that U.S. women experienced more anger in response to positive-gendered trait expectations and less motivation to comply with them compared to U.S. men. We found that these effects were partially attributable to stereotypically feminine communal expectations affirming autonomy less than stereotypically masculine agentic expectations. Cross-cultural comparisons between the U.S. (a Western context) and India (a non-Western context) further indicated that the conflict between communal expectations placed on women and Western prioritization of autonomy contributes to U.S. women's anger toward positive gender stereotypes: Although traits expected of women in both the U.S. and India oriented women away from feeling autonomous more than traits expected of men, this diminished sense of being autonomous only elicited anger in a U.S. context. For Western societies, findings illuminate the uniquely frustrating nature of stereotyped expectations that demand interdependence and thus the unequal psychological burden placed on those who must contend with them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Liberals and conservatives currently struggle to reach political agreement on policy proposals. While political polarization is closely associated with this phenomenon, the precise psychological mechanisms via which polarization works to affect political compromise remain to be fully explored. Across five studies (N = 1236; 2126 total individual observations), we uncover one such mechanism by exploring a novel and robust bias that emerges at the crossroads of policy trade-offs and partisanship. We call it the Partisan Trade-off Bias. When interpreting policy trade-offs, both Democrats and Republicans view the unintended but unavoidable side effects of policies proposed by contrapartisans as wanted and intended. Yet they do not attribute intentionality to the very same types of side effects of policies proposed by copartisans. We provide evidence for this bias across four types of policy trade-offs, including taxes, environmental regulation, gun control, and voting rights. Importantly, we show that the partisan trade-off bias is a unique contributor to decreased willingness to accept policy deals from contrapartisans, thus reducing the chances of reaching political agreement. Our studies suggest that the partisan trade-off bias is a product of the lack of trust in contrapartisans. In an experimental study, we manipulate trust and decrease the magnitude of this bias, showing evidence for our proposed mechanism and revealing a potential intervention to foster political compromise.

Across eight studies, we investigated why so many people across different cultures and religious traditions ground morality and God, and why beliefs in God as a supreme moral authority increase in response to perceived injustices in the world. We found consistent correlational evidence that the dispositional need for structure in everyday life is positively related to belief in God as a moral authority (Studies 1, 2, 3a, 3b, and 6), especially among those individuals who are more certain that God is infallible (Studies 3a and 3b). While divine morality was consistently related to the need for structure, beliefs about other possible moral authorities (parents, the U.S. Constitution) were not (Study 2). Using experimental manipulations (Studies 4a, 4b, and 5), we found that grounding morality in God can serve a compensatory function in the face of perceived injustice, such that believing that God is a moral authority increases upon exposure to injustice. This particular supernatural belief may restore impressions of structure and order in the world (Study 5). We discuss the implications of our findings for psychological theories of structure-seeking, how people cope with injustice, and religious and moral beliefs more broadly.

According to the theory of mutual constitution of culture and psyche, just as culture shapes people, individuals' psychological states can influence culture. We build on compensatory control theory, which suggests that low personal control can lead people to prefer societal systems that impose order, to examine the mutual constitution of personal control and cultural tightness. Specifically, we tested whether individuals' lack of personal control increases their preference for tighter cultures as a means of restoring order and predictability, and whether tighter cultures in turn reduce people's feelings of personal control. Seven studies (five preregistered) with participants from the United States, Singapore, and China examine this cycle of mutual constitution. Specifically, documenting the correlational link between person and culture, we found that Americans lower on personal control preferred to live in tighter states (Study 1). Chinese employees lower on personal control also desired more structure and preferred a tighter organizational culture (Study 2). Employing an experimental causal chain design, Studies 3-5 provided causal evidence for our claim that lack of control increases desire for tighter cultures via the need for structure. Finally, tracing the link back from culture to person, Studies 6a and 6b found that whereas tighter cultures decreased perceptions of individual personal control, they increased people's sense of collective control. Overall, the findings document the process of mutual constitution of culture and psyche: lack of personal control leads people to seek more structured, tighter cultures, and that tighter cultures, in turn, decrease people's sense of personal control but increase their sense of collective control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Long-standing structural features of the military have created a culture and society that is dramatically different and disconnected from civilian society. Thus, veterans transitioning to civilian society face a number of challenges related to fulfilling basic psychological needs (e.g., need for structure and order, belonging) and civilians' reliance on stereotypes to understand military veterans. In an attempt to enrich the understanding of these challenges, we integrate social psychological theories and insights with research from sociology, clinical psychology, military psychology, and organizational behavior. Theories of compensatory control, stereotype threat, and stereotyping are drawn on to help explain the psychological challenges that veterans may encounter during their transition to civilian society. We present recent research that leverages these theories to understand issues veterans face. This theoretical integration illustrates the opportunity and potential for psychological researchers to conduct basic and applied research in the context of veterans and for clinicians and managers to draw on basic theory to inform programs and interventions.