The role of climate in human aggression and violence: Towards a broader conception.

The psychological processes that predict aggressive behaviour are also typically associated with violent self-harm (e.g., poor self-control). Yet, although human violence (towards others) appears to increase with proximity to the equator, suicide rates tend to decrease. In the light of this empirical puzzle, I argue that Van Lange et al.'s CLASH model would benefit from a broader conceptualization of human aggression.

Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: evidence from a randomized experiment.

BACKGROUND: A substantial minority of American adults continue to hold influential misperceptions about childhood vaccine safety. Growing public concern and refusal to vaccinate poses a serious public health risk. Evaluations of recent pro-vaccine health communication interventions have revealed mixed results (at best). This study investigated whether highlighting consensus among medical scientists about childhood vaccine safety can lower public concern, reduce key misperceptions about the discredited autism-vaccine link and promote overall support for vaccines. METHODS: American adults (N = 206) were invited participate in an online survey experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to either a control group or to one of three treatment interventions. The treatment messages were based on expert-consensus estimates and either normatively described or prescribed the extant medical consensus: "90 % of medical scientists agree that vaccines are safe and that all parents should be required to vaccinate their children". RESULTS: Compared to the control group, the consensus-messages significantly reduced vaccine concern (M = 3.51 vs. M = 2.93, p < 0.01) and belief in the vaccine-autism-link (M = 3.07 vs M = 2.15, p < 0.01) while increasing perceived consensus about vaccine safety (M = 83.93 vs M = 89.80, p < 0.01) and public support for vaccines (M = 5.66 vs M = 6.22, p < 0.01). Mediation analysis further revealed that the public's understanding of the level of scientific agreement acts as an important "gateway" belief by promoting public attitudes and policy support for vaccines directly as well as indirectly by reducing endorsement of the discredited autism-vaccine link. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that emphasizing the medical consensus about (childhood) vaccine safety is likely to be an effective pro-vaccine message that could help prevent current immunization rates from declining. We recommend that clinicians and public health officials highlight and communicate the high degree of medical consensus on (childhood) vaccine safety when possible.

The Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale: A Measure to Distinguish Narcissistic Grandiosity From High Self-Esteem.

Measures of self-esteem frequently conflate two independent constructs: high self-esteem (a normative positive sense of self) and narcissistic grandiosity (a nonnormative sense of superiority). Confusion stems from the inability of self-report self-esteem scales to adequately distinguish between high self-esteem and narcissistic grandiosity. The Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale (NGS) was developed to clarify this distinction by providing a measure of narcissistic grandiosity. In this research, we refined the NGS and demonstrated that NGS scores exhibit good convergent, discriminant, and concurrent validity relative to scores on theoretically relevant measures. NGS scores, when used as simultaneous predictors with scores on a self-esteem measure, related more strongly to phenomena linked to narcissistic grandiosity (e.g., competitiveness, overestimating one's attractiveness, lack of shame), whereas self-esteem scores related more strongly to phenomena crucial to individuals' well-being (e.g., higher levels of optimism and satisfaction with life, and lower levels of depression, worthlessness, and hostility). The NGS provides researchers with a measure to help clarify the distinctions between narcissistic grandiosity and high self-esteem, as well as other facets of narcissism, both in theory and as predictors of important real-life characteristics.

The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence.

There is currently widespread public misunderstanding about the degree of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, both in the US as well as internationally. Moreover, previous research has identified important associations between public perceptions of the scientific consensus, belief in climate change and support for climate policy. This paper extends this line of research by advancing and providing experimental evidence for a "gateway belief model" (GBM). Using national data (N = 1104) from a consensus-message experiment, we find that increasing public perceptions of the scientific consensus is significantly and causally associated with an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, human-caused and a worrisome threat. In turn, changes in these key beliefs are predictive of increased support for public action. In short, we find that perceived scientific agreement is an important gateway belief, ultimately influencing public responses to climate change.