Language ideologies and the use of French in an English-dominant context of Canada: new insights into linguistic insecurity.

Teachers play an essential role in fostering linguistic security in their classrooms. The aim of this study is to identify the language ideologies articulated by teachers in the Francophone schools of the English-dominant context of British Columbia (Canada) in order to explore how the different practices they implement to foster the use of French in their multilingual classrooms and foster linguistic security may interact and expose contradictions. The findings are based on a thematic analysis of interviews with twenty-one French-speaking high school teachers. I argue that linguistic ideologies provide a useful locus for studying the tensions produced by institutional policies and practices and the possible impact on the students' feelings of linguistic insecurity. Building on excerpts from the interviews, the findings indicate that the practices the teachers use to implement the French-language policy in their classrooms must be examined further as they might be harming the efforts they are making to increase linguistic security. This paper is intended to contribute to the ongoing conversation about the practical process of engaging with linguistic insecurity.

Walking the Talk: How to Identify Anti-Pluralist Parties.

The recent increase of democratic declines around the world - "the third wave of autocratization" - has sparked a new generation of studies on the topic. Scholars tend to agree that the main threat to contemporary democracy arises from democratically elected rulers who gradually erode democratic norms. Is it possible to identify future autocratizers before they win power in elections? Linz (1978) and Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) suggest that a lacking commitment to democratic norms reveals would-be autocratizers before they reach office. This article argues that the concept of anti-pluralism rather than populism or extreme ideology captures this. We use a new expert-coded data set on virtually all relevant political parties worldwide from 1970 to 2019 (V-Party) to create a new Anti-Pluralism Index (API) to provide the first systematic empirical test of this argument. We find substantial evidence validating that the API and Linz's litmus-test indicators signal leaders and parties that will derail democracy if and when they come into power.

Longitudinal attenuation in political polarization: Evidence from COVID-19 vaccination adherence in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: While political polarization in policy opinions, preferences, and observance is well established, little is known about whether and how such divisions evolve, and possibly attenuate, over time. Using the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil as the backdrop, we examine the longitudinal evolution of a highly relevant and polarizing policy: adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Studies 1 (N = 3346) and 2 (N = 10,214) use nationwide surveys to document initial differences and subsequent changes in vaccination adherence between conservatives ("Bolsonaristas") and non-conservatives ("non-Bolsonaristas"). Study 3 (N = 742) uses an original dataset to investigate belief changes among conservatives and their association with asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence. RESULTS: Despite substantial differences at the early stages of rollout, the gap in vaccination adherence between conservatives and non-conservatives significantly decreased with the passage of time, driven essentially by a much faster uptake among the initially most skeptic-the conservatives. Study 3 demonstrates that the asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence were associated with meaningful belief changes among the conservatives, especially about the perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines and the expected adherence of peers to the vaccination campaign. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these studies show that, in a context where the superiority of the promoted policy becomes clear over time and individuals have the opportunity to revisit prior beliefs, even intense political polarization can be attenuated.

Going beyond political ideology: A computational analysis of civic trust in science.

Numerous studies have been conducted to identify the factors that predict trust/distrust in science. However, most of these studies are based on closed-ended survey research, which does not allow researchers to gain a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon. This study integrated survey analysis conducted within the United States with computational text analysis to reveal factors previously obscured by traditional survey methodologies. Even after controlling for political ideology-which has been the most significant explanatory factor in determining trust in science within a survey framework-we found those with concerns over boundary-crossing (i.e. concerns or perceptions that science overlaps with politics, the government, and funding) were less likely to trust science than their counterparts.

Using narratives to correct politically charged health misinformation and address affective belief echoes.

BACKGROUND: In May 2020, news outlets reported misinformation about the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) related to COVID-19. Correcting misinformation about outbreaks and politics is particularly challenging. Affective belief echoes continue to influence audiences even after successful correction. Narrative and emotional flow scholarship suggest that a narrative corrective with a positive ending could reduce belief echoes. Therefore, this study investigated the efficacy of a narrative corrective with a relief ending for correcting misinformation about the CDC. METHODS: Between 29 May and 4 June 2020, we tested the effectiveness of a narrative to correct this misinformation. Participants in the United States (N = 469) were enrolled via Qualtrics panels in an online message experiment and randomized to receive a narrative corrective, a didactic corrective or no corrective. RESULTS: The narrative corrective resulted in lower endorsement of the misinformation compared with the control and the didactic corrective. The narrative corrective had a positive indirect effect on perceived CDC competence and mask wearing intentions for politically moderate and conservative participants via relief. CONCLUSIONS: Public health institutions, such as the CDC, should consider utilizing narrative messaging with positive emotion endings to correct misinformation. Narratives better address affective belief echoes, particularly for counter-attitudinal audiences.

The impact of non-stereotypical gender role endorsement in live broadcasting on consumers' purchase intention.

Introduction: Non-stereotypical gender role endorsement is becoming more common in e-commerce live broadcasting. However, there is relatively little research on this topic, and the mechanism of its impact on purchase intention is not yet clear. Based on schema theory and experimental methods, this study explores the impact of non-stereotypical gender role endorsement (compared to stereotypical gender role endorsement) on purchase intention in e-commerce live broadcasting. Besides, we take traditional gender ideology as the moderating variable. Methods: We first selected experimental materials available for formal experiments through two pre-experiments. Secondly, this study conducted experiments on male/female product groups, respectively. Participants were recruited through the Credamo platform for both experiments. Results: Experiment 1 indicates that for female product, stereotypical gender role endorsement triggers higher consumer purchase intention compared to non-stereotypical gender role endorsement. The subsequent moderating effect test results manifest that traditional gender ideology plays a moderating role in this effect. Experiment 2 shows that for male product, there is no significant difference in the impact of the two types of endorsement on consumers' purchase intention. In other words, non-stereotypical gender role endorsement does affect consumers' purchase intention, but this effect exists only in female product, and is more significant for consumers with a high level of traditional gender ideology. Discussion: This study not only has certain theoretical significance for expanding the application boundaries of schema theory and congruence between celebrities and products endorsed, but also has practical significance for brand owners and streamers to effectively adopt non-stereotypical gender role endorsement to enhance purchase intention.

Taking Stock and Looking Forward to the Future of Pathogen Politics in Light of New Insights and Recommendations: COVID-19 Threat Was Meaningfully Associated With Support for Liberal Policies in the United States.

Infectious disease outbreaks are expected to predict support for conservative policies. However, earlier studies (January-June, 2020) reached conflicting findings regarding the association between COVID-19 threat and policy preferences in the United States. We revisit this issue by analyzing five nationally representative surveys conducted during the relatively severe periods of the pandemic (August 2020-December, 2020; total N = 82,753). Using Bayesian inference, we find strong evidence that subjective (e.g., fear of infection and pandemic outrage) but not objective (e.g., local cases and deaths) threat predicted support for liberal policies (e.g., immigration and universal health care). Meta-analyses revealed that the estimates depend on the type of subjective (.05 ≥ r ≤ .60) or objective (.00 ≥ r ≤ .14) COVID-19 threat. We propose an emotion-mediated dual-process model of pathogen management suggesting that infectious disease outbreaks activate both avoidance and caregiving motives that translate, respectively, into support for right-wing and left-wing policies.

The dark side of mobile work during non-work hours: moderated mediation model of presenteeism through conservation of resources lens.

Owing to the development of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and the inevitability of telecommuting in the COVID-19 environment, the boundary between working and non-working hours has become blurred. mWork, that is, ICT-based off-hour work, which has increased through the pandemic, affects employees' work attitudes, such as presenteeism. Hence, we designed a study to investigate the antecedents and mechanisms of employee presenteeism from the perspective of the conservation of resources theory. We supported our hypothesis using a sample of 325 Korean office workers obtained through three rounds of time-delay surveys. The results show that presenteeism is higher among employees with high mWork. In addition, employees' mWork increases sleep deprivation and presenteeism, and the exchange ideology of employees reinforces the positive effect of sleep deprivation on presenteeism. Additionally, the higher the level of exchange ideology, the stronger the mediating effect of mWork on presenteeism through sleep deprivation. This study verified the conservation of resources theory by identifying the mechanism by which mWork affects an employee's life, which in turn affects their work, and provides practical implications for managing productivity loss due to presenteeism.

Sexism and Feminist Conspiracy Beliefs: Hostile Sexism Moderates the Link Between Feminist Conspiracy Beliefs and Rape Myth Acceptance.

This research examined the effect of belief in feminist conspiracy theories and sexist ideology on endorsing rape myths. Study 1 (N = 201) uncovered that the relationship between feminist conspiracy beliefs and rape myth acceptance was conditional on higher levels of hostile sexism. Study 2 (N = 552) demonstrated that for those with higher hostile sexism, exposure to feminist conspiracy theories (vs. control) increased feminist conspiracy beliefs, which were then associated with rape myths. The current research suggests that the link between feminist conspiracy beliefs and rape myths could result from such beliefs upholding a hostile sexist view of women.

An unlikely coalition to defend the nation and banish "gender ideology" from Brazilian schools.

In 2011, Jair Bolsonaro initiated a fight against the federal program proposal School without Homophobia (2009), which aimed to educate children, school staff, and parents on the respect to sexual diversity and prevention of violence against LGBTQIA + students. Bolsonaro's Gay Kit unleashed an anti-gender campaign in Brazil. The fight against "gender ideology" that follows Jair Bolsonaro initial campaign indicates a turn in the articulation and the discourse of conservative and right-wing actors. This anti-gender campaign brough together groups that historically have been divided along class, race and gender lines, such as radical Catholic, middle- and upper-class white conservative Brazilians, and Neo-Pentecostals. In this paper, I analyze the power of the anti-gender campaign unleashed since the 2010s to find a common enemy, a common language and a common interest among conservative sectors of Brazilian society. I argue that gender works as the main symbolic glue that helps right-wing actors to forge a common identity in opposition to a new common Other, namely leftists. The main factor bridging them together is the preservation of the masculinist national identity that denies any form of structural inequality and critical thinking.

Sex ratios and gender norms: why both are needed to understand sexual conflict in humans.

Sexual conflict theory has been successfully applied to predict how in non-human animal populations, sex ratios can lead to conflicting reproductive interests of females and males and affect their bargaining positions in resolving such conflicts of interests. Recently this theory has been extended to understand the resolution of sexual conflict in humans, but with mixed success. We argue that an underappreciation of the complex relationship between gender norms and sex ratios has hampered a successful understanding of sexual conflict in humans. In this paper, we review and expand upon existing theory to increase its applicability to humans, where gender norms regulate sex ratio effects on sexual conflict. Gender norms constrain who is on the marriage market and how they are valued, and may affect reproductive decision-making power. Gender norms can also directly affect sex ratios, and we hypothesize that they structure how individuals respond to market value gained or lost through biased sex ratios. Importantly, gender norms are in part a product of women's and men's sometimes conflicting reproductive interests, but these norms are also subject to other evolutionary processes. An integration of sexual conflict theory and cultural evolutionary theory is required to allow for a full understanding of sexual conflict in humans.

Who counts as diverse? The strategic broadening and narrowing of diversity.

Introduction: A large majority of US organizations profess a commitment to diversity, but their definitions of diversity can vary greatly. While previous research demonstrates a shift in diversity definitions to include fewer protected demographic groups and more non-demographic characteristics, the present research examines whether this shift might be a motivated process among dominant group members related to anti-egalitarian and colorblind belief systems. Methods: Using quantitative and qualitative methods, we explored potential underlying ideologies that may be associated with White Americans' shifting definitions of diversity. White Americans (N = 498) were asked how they define diversity, as well as who should be included in a range of diversity initiatives. Results: White participants' higher anti-egalitarian belief was associated with stronger colorblind ideology endorsement, which was then associated with shifting their definition of diversity to include fewer disadvantaged demographic groups, more advantaged demographic groups, and non-demographic groups, as well as employing a colorblind inclusion rhetoric. Discussion: Instead of only "broadening" diversity to include more characteristics than diversity's original focus, White Americans higher in anti-egalitarian and colorblind motives exhibited a simultaneous "narrowing" of diversity to include fewer protected demographic characteristics. Taken together, these findings have implications for dominant group members' definition of diversity and the subtle ways in which colorblind ideology may be enacted.

Ideological differences in COVID-19 vaccine intention: the effects of trust in the healthcare system, in complementary and alternative medicine, and perceived threat from the disease.

Introduction: Politically left-leaning individuals are more likely to get vaccinated against COVID-19, although little is known about the mechanisms underlying the ideological differences in vaccination intentions. Understanding the extent to which trust in the healthcare system, in complementary and alternative medicine, and the perceived threat from the disease contribute to these disparities is crucial, as it could inform targeted interventions to address vaccine hesitancy across the political spectrum. Methods: The present cross-sectional study conducted among adults living in Slovenia (n = 858) examined the mediating role of trust in the healthcare system, trust in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and the perceived threat from the virus on COVID-19 vaccination intention. Results: We found that leftist ideology and trust in the healthcare system positively predicted vaccination intention, whereas CAM negatively predicted this intention. In addition, left-leaning individuals expressed greater trust in the healthcare system and lower trust in CAM, resulting in higher levels of COVID-19 vaccination intention. The serial mediation model confirmed that trust in CAM was a negative predictor, while trust in the healthcare system positively predicted perceived threat. Discussion: When dealing with vaccine hesitancy among right-oriented individuals, strategies should focus on enhancing trust in the healthcare system and critically evaluating the reliance on CAM.

Raced and risky subjects: The interplay of racial and managerial ideologies as an expression of "colorblind" racism.

Contemporary manifestations of race are dynamic and elusive in the forms and shapes they take. "Colourblind" racism is effective at drawing on seemingly objective and race-neutral discourses to obfuscate racialized forms of structural exclusion. Framed by Critical Race Theory and Critical Narrative Analysis this paper presents an example from the Australian context that examines the relationships between a grassroots initiative developed by creatives from the African diaspora and two not-for-profit human services organizations, to illustrate how ideologies of race are enacted and obscured by managerialist ideologies and discourses of risk. Specifically, it shows how harmful dominant cultural narratives of deficit and danger transforms racialized Africans in Australia into "risky subjects." In a managerialist organization, risk must be controlled, and thus risk becomes the rationality for the control of racialized and risky subjects. Resistance to control by those subjects produces forms of organizational defensiveness that are mobilized through managerialist discourses and practices that work to structurally exclude. These findings illustrate the ways ideologies of race work alongside and through other ideological discourses and practices which render racialized dynamics of oppression race-neutral.

Rape or Homicide: Which Is Worse?

Some people believe rape is just as serious as homicide, or more serious, contrary to law. We examined the prevalence of this belief and whether it reflects an individual's political ideology and moral foundations. Analyses were based on a national YouGov survey of 1,125 US adults gathered in 2021. We found that only 26% of respondents believed rape was less serious than homicide. Most (61%) believed rape and homicide were equally serious, while 13% believed rape was more serious. Social progressives (particularly progressive women) were more likely than social conservatives to view rape as more serious or just as serious as homicide. However, this tendency was partially offset by the tendency of social progressives to view harm as a key factor in judging the morality of a behavior. We suggest that social progressives view rape more seriously than social conservatives because of their concern for gender inequality, but this concern is partially offset by their concern with harm.

It Was Not the Best Option: Family-Role Overload and Regret about Sacrificing Work for the Family.

We aimed to analyze whether women with higher family-role overload regret sacrificing their professional work to fulfill family responsibilities better after analyzing the costs of making the work sacrifice. In Study 1, participants (n = 218 women and men) self-reported their family-role overload, rated the costs of sacrificing their work for their family, and rated the extent to which they experienced regret about this sacrifice. In Study 2, participants (n = 285 women) reported their gender role ideology and responded to the same measures as in Study 1. In Study 3, participants (n = 180 women) reported their ideology and their partner's perceived gender role ideology and completed the same procedure as in Study 1. The main findings showed that women (but not men) with higher family-role overload perceived more costs of sacrificing their work for the family, which were associated with greater regret about making the sacrifice. Additionally, women who perceived a traditional ideology in their partner reported more family-role overload, which was associated with greater costs of making the work sacrifice, which in turn was related to greater experienced regret. These findings indicate that although women make these sacrifices based on societal expectations in accordance with their gender role, they could not have obtained the results they could have expected and consequently could regret risking their professional progress for the family. In addition, they suggest that partner involvement is also necessary to overcome this invisible gender inequality.

Myths and Reality About Confronting Anti-Gay Prejudice: Who Confronts and Why (Not)?

There are lay theories about who would confront heterosexist prejudice, with people often citing women, educated, and liberals as being more likely to speak up. However, prior work is inconclusive about such predictors of confrontation. We tested which individual-level characteristics predict bystander confrontation, and what motivates or prevents straight individuals from confronting-focusing on socio-political ideology and gender. We conducted our study among Eastern-Southeastern Europeans (N = 132), and we employed a behavioral paradigm, where participants believed they witnessed and had an opportunity to confront anti-gay discrimination. We found 24% confrontation rate, which was not predicted by age, socioeconomic status, education level, or heterosexism. Moreover, we found that women or liberals were as likely to confront as men or conservatives were, respectively, however, their motivations and obstacles differed. Opposed to our prediction, men were not discouraged from confronting because of fear of being misidentified as gay, while as predicted, women were discouraged due to concerns about their assertiveness and efficacy. We also found that as predicted, liberals were encouraged to confront for equality/intergroup-oriented reasons, and conservatives were encouraged by individual/merit-oriented reasons. We suggest that intervention programs relying on personalized messages can be utilized to motivate confronting heterosexist prejudice along ideological lines.

Blaming the unvaccinated during the COVID-19 pandemic: the roles of political ideology and risk perceptions in the USA.

Individuals unvaccinated against COVID-19 (C19) experienced prejudice and blame for the pandemic. Because people vastly overestimate C19 risks, we examined whether these negative judgements could be partially understood as a form of scapegoating (ie, blaming a group unfairly for an undesirable outcome) and whether political ideology (previously shown to shape risk perceptions in the USA) moderates scapegoating of the unvaccinated. We grounded our analyses in scapegoating literature and risk perception during C19. We obtained support for our speculations through two vignette-based studies conducted in the USA in early 2022. We varied the risk profiles (age, prior infection, comorbidities) and vaccination statuses of vignette characters (eg, vaccinated, vaccinated without recent boosters, unvaccinated, unvaccinated-recovered), while keeping all other information constant. We observed that people hold the unvaccinated (vs vaccinated) more responsible for negative pandemic outcomes and that political ideology moderated these effects: liberals (vs conservatives) were more likely to scapegoat the unvaccinated (vs vaccinated), even when presented with information challenging the culpability of the unvaccinated known at the time of data collection (eg, natural immunity, availability of vaccines, time since last vaccination). These findings support a scapegoating explanation for a specific group-based prejudice that emerged during the C19 pandemic. We encourage medical ethicists to examine the negative consequences of significant C19 risk overestimation among the public. The public needs accurate information about health issues. That may involve combating misinformation that overestimates and underestimates disease risk with similar vigilance to error.

Political ideology shapes risk and benefit judgments of COVID-19 vaccines.

In April 2021, the use of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine was paused to investigate whether it had caused serious blood clots to a small number of women (six out of 6.8 million Americans who had been administered that vaccine). As these events were unfolding, we surveyed a sample of Americans (N = 625) to assess their reactions to this news, whether they supported the pausing of the vaccine, and potential psychological factors underlying their decision. In addition, we employed automated text analyses as a supporting method to more classical quantitative measures. Results showed that political ideology influenced the support for the pausing of the vaccine; liberals were more likely to oppose it than conservatives. In addition, the effect of political ideology was mediated by the difference between perceived benefit and risk and the language style used to produce reasons in support (or against) the decision to pause the vaccine. Liberals perceived the benefit of vaccines higher than the risk, used a more analytic language style when stating their reasons, and had a more positive attitude toward the vaccine. We discuss the implications of our findings considering vaccine hesitancy and risk perception during the COVID-19 pandemic.