"More support, less distress?": Examining the role of social norms in alleviating practitioners' psychological distress in the context of assisted dying services.

This study explores how providing assisted dying services affects the psychological distress of practitioners. It investigates the influence of professional norms that endorse such services within their field. Study 1 included veterinarians (N = 137, 75.2% female, Mage = 43.1 years, SDage = 12.7 years), and Study 2 health practitioner students (N = 386, 71.0% female, Mage = 21.0 years, SDage = 14.4 years). In both studies, participants indicated their degree of psychological distress following exposure to scenarios depicting assisted dying services that were relevant to their respective situations. In Study 1, we found that higher willingness to perform animal euthanasia was associated with lower distress, as were supportive norms. In Study 2, a negative association between a greater willingness to perform euthanasia and lower psychological distress occurred only when the provision of such services was supported by professional norms. In conclusion, psychological distress is buffered by supportive professional norms.

Using Latent Profile Analysis to Understand Health Practitioners' Attitudes Toward Voluntary Assisted Dying.

Prior work has documented considerable diversity among health practitioners regarding their support for voluntary assisted dying (VAD). We examined whether their attitudes are characterised by different combinations of personal support, normative support by other health practitioners, and whether they are predisposed to vicariously experience others' emotions (i.e., empathy). We also examined whether these profiles experienced different mental health outcomes (i.e., burnout and posttraumatic stress) in relation to VAD. To test this, 104 Australian health practitioners were surveyed after VAD was legalised in Victoria, Australia in 2019. Results indicated that practitioners' attitudes were characterised by three profiles: 1) strong personal and normative support (strong VAD supporters), 2) moderate personal and normative support (moderate VAD supporters), and 3) lower personal and normative support (apprehensive practitioners). However, each profile reported similar mental health outcomes. Findings suggest that the normative environments in which health practitioners operate may explain their diverse attitudes on VAD.

Attitudes Toward and Experience With Assisted-Death Services and Psychological Implications for Health Practitioners: A Narrative Systematic Review.

A narrative systematic review was conducted to review studies that examine mental health implications of involvement in assisted-death services among health practitioners. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included to understand health practitioners' attitudes and experiences with assisted dying services, as well as to identify the mental health consequences. We identified 18 articles from 1591 articles drawn from seven major scientific databases (i.e., PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus). Two raters independently evaluated the exclusion and inclusion decisions of the articles and examined methodological flaws in the selected articles. We found that engagement in assisted death services were not reliably associated with mental health outcomes such as anxiety and moral distress. Both positive and negative outcomes were reported, and psychological outcomes for practitioners were shown to vary based on factors including social support for health practitioners' views; their perceived capacity to care for the patients; and legislation.

How Collective-Action Failure Shapes Group Heterogeneity and Engagement in Conventional and Radical Action Over Time.

Extensive research has identified factors influencing collective-action participation. However, less is known about how collective-action outcomes (i.e., success and failure) shape engagement in social movements over time. Using data collected before and after the 2017 marriage-equality debate in Australia, we conducted a latent profile analysis that indicated that success unified supporters of change (n = 420), whereas failure created subgroups among opponents (n = 419), reflecting four divergent responses: disengagement (resigned acceptors), moderate disengagement and continued investment (moderates), and renewed commitment to the cause using similar strategies (stay-the-course opponents) or new strategies (innovators). Resigned acceptors were least inclined to act following failure, whereas innovators were generally more likely to engage in conventional action and justify using radical action relative to the other profiles. These divergent reactions were predicted by differing baseline levels of social identification, group efficacy, and anger. Collective-action outcomes dynamically shape participation in social movements; this is an important direction for future research.

Motivations to engage in collective action: A latent profile analysis of refugee supporters.

What motivates people to participate in collective action? Some actions such as symbolic or online actions are often critiqued as performative allyship, motivated by personal gain rather than genuine concern for the cause. We aim to adjudicate this argument by examining the quality of motivations for acting, drawing on the insights of self-determination theory and the social identity approach. Using latent profile analysis, we examined whether there are different types of supporters of refugees based on their underlying motives. In Study 1, we surveyed supporters of Syrian refugees from six nations (N = 936) and measured autonomous and controlled motivation, pro-refugee identification and collective action. In Study 2 (N = 1994), we surveyed supporters of Ukrainian refugees in Romania, Hungary and the UK. We found 4-5 profiles in each sample and consistently found that supporters with high autonomous motivation take more action than disengaged or ambivalent supporters (low/neutral on all motives). However, contrary to the tenets of self-determination theory, those high in both autonomous and controlled motives were the most engaged. We conclude that the most committed supporters are those with multiple motives, but further research is needed on the role of controlled motivation.

Do conspiracy beliefs fuel support for reactionary social movements? Effects of misbeliefs on actions to oppose lockdown and to "stop the steal".

Pundits have speculated that the spread of conspiracies and misinformation (termed "misbeliefs") is leading to a resurgence of right-wing, reactionary movements. However, the current empirical picture regarding the relationship between misbeliefs and collective action is mixed. We help clarify these associations by using two waves of data collected during the COVID-19 Pandemic (in Australia, N = 519, and the United States, N = 510) and democratic elections (in New Zealand N = 603, and the United States N = 609) to examine the effects of misbeliefs on support for reactionary movements (e.g., anti-lockdown protests, Study 1; anti-election protests, Study 2). Results reveal that within-person changes in misbeliefs correlate positively with support for reactionary collective action both directly (Studies 1-2) and indirectly by shaping the legitimacy of the authority (Study 1b). The relationship between misbelief and legitimacy is, however, conditioned by the stance of the authority in question: the association is positive when authorities endorse misbeliefs (Study 1a) and negative when they do not (Study 1b). Thus, the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and action hinges upon the alignment of the content of the conspiracy and the goals of the collective action.

Rage donations and mobilization: Understanding the effects of advocacy on collective giving responses.

Advocacy is intended to change people's attitudes and behavior. Yet the psychological and behavioral consequences of advocacy have rarely been considered. Across 3 experiments (combined N = 934) in the contexts of debates around racial discrimination and abortion, we investigated if and how exposure to advocacy can influence collective giving responses: self-reported willingness to make donations congruent with one's beliefs on the issue and actual giving behavior. Reading tweets from one's own side of a contentious debate sometimes indirectly mobilized collective giving responses by enhancing perceptions of efficacy and ensuring people empathized and identified with highlighted victim groups. Simultaneously, however, supporting advocacy sometimes inadvertently suppressed action by reducing anger and perceived injustice. Results therefore show that advocacy can simultaneously mobilize and demobilize support. However, effects were not found consistently across contexts and donation measures. Overall, mobilization pathways were stronger, especially on donation behavior and in the context of the abortion debate. Results suggest advocacy can work broadly as intended: by influencing the attitudes and behaviors of audience members. Online advocacy exposure in social media echo chambers may therefore be contributing to political polarization. Finally, results also demonstrate that charitable giving can be a form of collective action.