The current research examines the relationship between psychological distance and system justification through the lens of the Construal Level Theory. In three experimental studies, we investigated whether and how psychological distance shapes the salience of different levels of social identity relevant to system-justifying tendencies. In Study 1, we investigated the moderating effect of psychological distance on the relationship between membership in different gender-based groups and system justification in the context of gender inequality. In Study 2, we investigated the influence of psychological distance on the extent to which individuals with opposing political ideologies justify the system. Finally, Study 3 deepened Studies 1-2 by comparing the impact of lower- vs. higher-level identity threats as a function of psychological distance. Results suggest that psychological distance reduces system justification among typically high-justifying groups, leading to greater convergence across status and ideological divides. Implications, limitations and future directions are discussed.

This research explores whether utilitarianism and deontology can be understood within the Construal Level Theory framework. We explore whether utilitarianism (vs. deontology), focused on the "greater good for the greatest number" as its objective, aligns with a high (vs. low) level of construal, focused on primary features and the goal of an event. We conducted an experimental study (N = 890) in which the level of construal was manipulated through social distance (high vs. low). Then measured the reported probability of participants taking utilitarian actions in three moral dilemmas and their perception of morality and appropriateness of the act itself. Although our manipulation did not affect the likelihood of taking action, a high construal level led to a more positive evaluation of morality and appropriateness of taking action. These findings add new knowledge to the role of construal level in influencing moral decision-making and moral judgments.

In recent years, researchers have investigated the relationship between the tendency to justify the system and the collective action intentions; in particular, justifying the status quo has a detrimental effect on the intentions to undertake progressive collective action. In the present research, we explore this relationship, hypothesizing a possible role of empathic concern and prosocial orientation as key factors in explaining why justifying the system may lead people to avoid participating in collective actions. We explored the role of empathic concern (Studies 1-3) and prosocial orientation (Study 4) in the relationship between system justification and collective action intentions in different social domains (i.e., migrants and LGBTQ+ rights, economic inequalities, and gender pay gap). Results from these studies support our hypothesis: justifying the system seems to be indirectly associated with lower intentions to participate in collective actions by lowering empathic concern and prosocial orientation. Implications, limits, and future directions are discussed.

The present paper investigates the relationship between trait mindfulness, behavioural inhibition system (BIS) sensitivity, and collective action against economic inequality. Specifically, we investigate whether mindfulness was associated with collective action through emotional regulatory mechanisms. In Study 1 (N = 675), a simple mediation analysis showed that higher levels of mindfulness were associated with lower BIS sensitivity which, in turn, was correlated with stronger intentions to participate in collective action. Trait mindfulness was thus indirectly related to collective action through reduced BIS sensitivity. Study 2 (N = 504) further explored these findings by testing a serial mediation model including negative emotions. Results indicated that trait mindfulness was negatively associated with collective action via a sequential reduction in both BIS sensitivity and negative affect. These findings highlight the nuanced and complex role of mindfulness in shaping interpersonal and collective behaviours and contribute to a clearer understanding of how emotion regulation influences collective responses to economic inequality.

Construal-level theory (CLT) proposes that psychological distance influences the level of abstraction at which something is mentally construed: Things perceived as less probable (likelihood) or further away from the here (spatial distance), now (temporal distance), or self (social distance) are thought about more abstractly. In this international multilab study, we tested four basic hypotheses derived from core assumptions of CLT and explore potential moderators and boundary conditions of the effects. Participants ( N = 11,775) from 27 countries and regions were randomly assigned to one of four experimental protocols focused on different types of psychological distance (temporal, spatial, social, or likelihood), and each experiment manipulated psychological distance (close vs. distant). The protocols for temporal distance ( n = 2,941) and spatial distance ( n = 2,973) were direct replications of Liberman and Trope (Study 1) and Fujita et al. (Study 1), respectively. The remaining two protocols were paradigmatic replications, applying to social distance ( n = 2,926) and likelihood ( n = 2,936). The effects of psychological distance on construal level for the four present studies were as follows (positive effects are consistent with hypotheses): temporal, d = 0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.003, 0.16] (effect in original study: d = 0.92); spatial, d = 0.04, 95% CI = [−0.03, 0.11] (effect in original study: d = 0.55); social, d = −0.27, 95% CI = [−0.34, −0.19]; and likelihood, d = 0.03, 95% CI = [−0.05, 0.11]. Pretests indicated that valence and abstraction were confounded in response options on the outcome measure. Controlling for this confound eliminated the hypothesis-inconsistent effect of social distance, d = 0.006, 95% CI = [−0.05, 0.07]. These findings provide limited evidence for the predictions of the theory and present a critical challenge for CLT.

Silent treatment represents a subtle yet harmful form of ostracism, often accompanied by emotional distress and ambiguity regarding the reasons for exclusion. This research investigated the emotional responses of individuals exposed to silent treatment, with a particular focus on the role of guilt. Study 1 involved participants recalling episodes of silent treatment and neglect, allowing for a comparison of the emotions elicited in these relational contexts. Results indicated that guilt, sadness, and fear were more pronounced during silent treatment, while the source was perceived as expressing greater anger and disgust. Study 2 employed an experimental design to explore the specific nature of guilt, distinguishing between altruistic and deontological guilt. Findings revealed that silent treatment is associated with heightened deontological guilt, which is linked to violations of moral norms and uncertainty. These studies provide a contribution to the understanding of silent treatment and its implications for relational and emotional well-being.

The research explored the role of outgroup identification and empathic concern in reducing perceived outgroup threat and favoring collective action against social inequality. We implemented two distinct correlational Studies focused on the issue of the racial pay gap in Italy. Study 1 (N = 604) highlighted that Italian natives' identification with immigrants related to a reduced perceived immigrant threat through enhanced empathic concern toward the immigrants' disadvantaged condition. Study 2 (N = 656) replicated this pattern of indirect association, adding that it may be crucial to favor the natives' willingness to engage in collective action and support immigrants' collective action.

Recent times are characterized by increased participation in collective action that either supports or opposes greater equality for LGBTQ+ individuals. In this research, we focus on the Italian context, where both forms of collective action are highly present, and examine the role of LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs (i.e., beliefs that a powerful LGBTQ+ lobby exist that operates secretly to pursue its plans against cis-heterosexual people and spread homosexuality in society) in (de)motivating heterosexual cisgender individuals' mobilization. We conducted two correlational studies (N = 1266) and tested whether participants who endorse LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs would be less motivated to mobilize in support of LGBTQ+ rights, through decreased identification with LGBTQ+ people, lower anger for LGBTQ+ inequality, and lower group efficacy to achieve LGBTQ+ equality (Studies 1 and 2). In addition, we tested whether participants who endorse LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs would be more motivated to mobilize against LGBTQ+ rights, through increased identification with heterosexual people, higher anger for LGBTQ+ equality, and higher group efficacy to contrast LGBTQ+ equality (Study 2). Results of mediation analyses supported these predictions, indicating conspiracy beliefs about the LGBTQ+ community as a social-cognitive obstacle to the achievement of LGBTQ+ equality. Implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed. These studies can have a significant impact in understanding what underlies some people's lack of progressive political engagement to support LGBTQ+ rights, while at the same time understanding more deeply the motives of those who mobilize to obstruct civil rights for LGBTQ+ people. Specifically, our findings showed that LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs can play a key role in such processes, impacting on people's perception of in(out)group identification, anger feelings, and group efficacy, that in turn influence people's collective action intentions.

Conspiracy theories about the LGBTQ+ community are gaining increasing popularity and resulting in negative attitudes and discriminatory behaviours. Traditional and conservative views about gender are also highly associated with such negative consequences for sexual minorities, as a higher endorsement of anti-LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs (CBs). We conducted two studies among Italian cis heterosexual men and women to explore the relationships among the variables of interest. In Study 1 (N = 493), we investigated whether the relationship between conformity to traditional gender norms and denial of LGBTQ+ discrimination might be mediated by antiLGBTQ+ CBs. In Study 2 (N = 1419), we experimentally manipulated conformity to traditional gender norms and included the emotional response to the manipulation as another significant mediator to investigate the abovementioned relationship further. Through a mediation analysis, we found that anti-LGBTQ+ CBs mediate the positive relationship between conformity to traditional gender norms and denial of LGBTQ+ discrimination. Moreover, we found that confirming participants' adherence to traditional gender norms is associated with lower denial through lower negative emotions and lower anti-LGBTQ+ CBs. Results show how anti-LGBTQ+ CBs may be part of the psychological mechanism explaining how traditional and conservative worldviews might translate as harmful consequences for the LGBTQ+ community.

The present work tested the idea that interpersonal objectification—the objectification of the other and the objectification of the relation itself—is a key psychological mechanism translating pro-self motivations into competitive behaviors. This idea was verified through four studies (overall valid N = 1625), that assessed (Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2, 3 4) people’s pro-self (vs. pro-social) motives, and measured participants’ competitive behaviors within experimental economic games (i.e., ultimatum/dictator game, Study 1 4) or expected face-to-face negotiations (Study 2 3). Overall, obtained findings consistently revealed that both the objectification of the other and of the relation are relevant dimensions in explaining the relation between social motives and competitive behaviors. However, the objectification of the other emerged as a potential mediator especially when social desirability concerns were limited, that is by implicitly measuring it (Study 3) or when interactions with a specific target were not expected (Study 1 4). We conclude by discussing the theoretical and empirical implications for literature on social motivations and objectification.

IntroductionAccording to the theoretical model of Schema Therapy, each human being has basic needs that require natural satisfaction from childhood. When these emotional needs are frustrated, early maladaptive schemas (EMS) develop, leading to coping styles that are strategies to manage the pain caused by activated EMS. The study validates and standardizes the Schema Coping Inventory in the Italian population and evaluates correlations between psychological variables and the SCI.MethodsWe analysed data from a community sample of 602 Italian adults, aged between 18 and 69 years, who endorsed a structured questionnaire, involving demographic information, the Italian version of the SCI, and an array of theoretically related psychological constructs.Results and discussionConfirmative factor analysis corroborated the tridimensional structure of the SCI (Surrender, Avoidance, Overcompensation), both in terms of the overall goodness-of-fit of the model and the single items’ factor loading in the corresponding factors. The internal consistency turned out to be satisfactory. Construct validity was assessed through convergent and divergent (positive and negative) correlations with other coping style measures and psychopathological scales. Mean values and mean standard deviations are reported for the general population, for psychopathological clinical and non-pathological samples.

Previous literature on conspiracy beliefs has an important gap, as it has almost completely excluded conspiracy beliefs relating to LGBTQ+ people. The purpose of the present research was to develop and validate a specific tool to measure the Gender Ideology and LGBTQ+ Lobby Conspiracies Beliefs: the GILC scale. Two independent data collections (Ntot  = 1.908) were run involving both heterosexual and gay, lesbian and bisexual people. We expected a mono-factorial structure of the tool, with high levels of internal reliability, invariant by respondents' gender, sexual orientation and previous knowledge or hearsay of gender ideology. Furthermore, we expected that GILC scale manages to measure a differentiated construct: (a) compared to other specific and general conspiracy contents; (b) compared to a generic disposition to engage in conspiratorial mentality; (c) compared to existing measures of sexual prejudice, stereotypes and negative attitudes towards sexual minority people. In relation to criterion validity, we expected that several psychosocial and socio-political ideology variables (i.e. RWA and SDO), would associate with high levels in GILC scale. The results confirmed our expectations, showing that GILC scale is a short tool which include nine items with a mono-factorial structure and with excellent psychometric properties. Limitations and further research directions are discussed.

Introduction Conspiracy theories and beliefs (CTBs) about LGBTQ+ people are often used as arguments in political debate in Italy and across Europe to hinder the passing of protective laws and negatively affect popular consensus regarding the promotion of anti-discrimination policies and the advancement of civil rights. Method We conducted two correlational studies in Italy starting the data collection at the end of 2022. In Study 1 ( N = 589), we investigated which ideological profile was more associated with LGBTQ+ CTBs, between the two profiles identified by Duckitt et al.’s model ( Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (1), 75–93, 2002 ): path A ) high vision of the world as a competitive jungle and consequent high social dominance orientation; path B ) high vision of the world as dangerous and consequent high right-wing authoritarianism. In Study 2 ( N = 1581), we have also included three potential outcomes associated with LGBTQ+ CTBs in the model. Results Through a mediational path model, we found that path B was the strongest associated with LGBTQ+ CTBs. We found that LGBTQ+ CTBs mediated the relationships between the two ideological dispositions and (a) lower support to LGBTQ+ civil rights; (b) lower LGBTQ+ collective action intentions; and (c) higher adherence to economic myths about LGBTQ+ people. Conclusions Socio-psychological research on LGBTQ+ CTBs may inform social policies that work to lessen the harm these beliefs do and advance a more welcoming and inclusive society. Policy Implications Such results offer several insights to change and improve the actual debate in political, scientific, and cultural domains, contributing to producing new policies which might increase the self-determination of all LGBTQ+ people.

Why are people with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) susceptible to deontological (vs. altruistic) guilt? The present research addresses this question by examining the association of OC tendencies with deontological rather than altruistic guilt. Specifically, we conducted two correlational studies in which we examined whether and how the perceived instability of the moral sense of self (i.e., instability of morality) is associated with OC tendencies and deontological (vs. altruistic) guilt. As predicted, the results of path analysis models showed that the susceptibility to deontological (vs. altruistic) guilt typical of individuals with OC traits is primarily associated with the perceived instability of morality relative to the perceived status of morality (Study 1) and instability of extraversion (Study 2). These results suggest that deontological guilt and its association with OC traits can be understood better when the instability of the moral sense of self and vulnerability to sudden changes in moral status are considered. We discuss how these results contribute to theory, research, and clinical practice on OCD, morality, and guilt.

Worldviews characterizing conspiracy theories and populism present similar core beliefs suggesting shared psychological features. Both are expressed through simplified narratives with two morally well-defined sides. Populism articulates narratives implying stark oppositions of internally homogeneous groups ("People" and "élite") and a Manichean view of these groups (élite = evil). Conspiracy ideation is defined as a general propensity to explain impactful geopolitical events through conspiracy theories, concocted by malevolent élites to the detriment of ordinary people. The present chapter provides a literature review highlighting that individual endorsement of populist attitudes and conspiracy beliefs emerge as psychological responses to threatened basic needs. Both conspiracist and populist narratives offer the alienated masses a renewed sense of certainty and control over reality, self-or-ingroup image. Furthermore, the chapter reports empirical findings about links between conspiracy beliefs and populist attitudes with ideological belief systems such as system justification, social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism. Results show positive associations of both phenomena with authoritarianism, weak or lacking associations with social dominance orientation, and negative robust relations with system-justifying tendencies. Overall, the chapter provides an integrated perspective of the shared psychosocial roots of the endorsement of political populism and conspiracy beliefs and moves around their potential applied implications.

The present research proposes that dispositional mindfulness may play a key role in our understanding of romantic jealousy, conceptualized as a multidimensional construct consisting of three components: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. All three components involve experiencing an outside threat, but diverse aspects of the experience are implied: cognitive jealousy entails thoughts and suspicions, emotional jealousy entails affective responses, and behavioral jealousy entails surveillance behaviors. Across five studies (N = 3275), using non-dyadic and dyadic data, different measurement scales for mindfulness, and different indicators of relationship functioning (couple satisfaction, relationship quality, occurrence of conflicts), we consistently found that mindfulness is negatively related to cognitive and behavioral jealousy. This is explained by increased self-esteem characterizing mindful individuals. In turn, decreased cognitive and behavioral jealousy resulted positively related to couple satisfaction and relationship quality, whereas negatively to occurrence of conflicts. We did not find significant relations between mindfulness, self-esteem, emotional jealousy, and relationship functioning. These results provided evidence, which was also confirmed by a mini meta-analysis, that mindfulness may constitute a protective factor against detrimental cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) romantic jealousy. We discuss how these results advance literature and open new research avenues for both theoretical and applied purposes.

Previous research has demonstrated that low social dominance orientation (social equality orientation) promotes empathy with disadvantaged group members. In three studies, we tested a model relating preference for egalitarianism to positive attitudes towards immigrants through emotional experiences (pride, guilt, moral anger/ anger, disgust). Studies 1 and 2 showed that social equality orientation was positively related to proimmigrant attitudes through increased pride in helping immigrants, controlling for participants' gender, age, and political orientation. Such a preference for egalitarianism was unrelated to proimmigrant attitudes through guilt for not helping immigrants and moral anger concerning mistreatment of immigrants. By focusing on emotional experience concerning proimmigrant national initiatives (e.g., integrating immigrants into the labor market), Study 3 corroborated the indirect effect of social equality orientation on proimmigrant attitudes through increased pride, controlling for participants' gender, age, political orientation, as well as competitive jungle and dangerous world beliefs. Although much weaker, we also found a positive association between social equality orientation and proimmigrant attitudes through reduced anger, while no significant association through guilt and disgust was found. Results suggest that, relative to guilt, anger, and disgust, pride is the key channel through which preference for egalitarianism is related to positive attitudes towards immigrants. Implications and future directions for research are discussed.

The present work proposes that the relation of employment conditions (i.e., unemployment and precarious work vs. permanent employment) with participation in collective action and satisfaction with life depends on the extent to which acceptance of inequality is high or low, and that collective action mediates the association between employment conditions and satisfaction with life. We analyzed data from the European Social Survey (Round 8, 2016) and found that (1) when acceptance of inequality is low (vs. high), employment disadvantage is positively related to engagement in collective action and, in turn, satisfaction with life; (2) employment disadvantage is negatively related to satisfaction with life, and this relation increases when acceptance of inequality is low (vs. high). This study generates findings of interest to inequality researchers by showing the relevance of acceptance of inequality for collective action and life satisfaction in the context of employment.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents an event that unsettled the social and economic life of many people. When individuals are faced with shocking events, they may need to find plausible explanations for such events to restore control and make sense of reality. The adoption of conspiracy beliefs may represent a functional strategy for this purpose. The present study investigated whether the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs may be associated with the degree to which an upsetting event (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic) is perceived as incoherent with individuals’ general set of expectations about the world functioning (i.e., the natural order of things). Analyzing data from a community sample of 565 Italian participants, a path analysis model highlighted a mediation pattern where the natural order of things was negatively related to the adoption of conspiracy beliefs and, thus, was indirectly and positively related to support for the norms aimed at containing the spread of COVID-19, feelings of guilt about neglecting such norms, and intentions to be compliant with COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, the natural order of things was indirectly and negatively related to attitudes focused on economic issues rather than public health and to negative attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines through reduced beliefs in conspiracies.