Psychological variables underlying political orientations in an old and a new democracy: A comparative study between Sweden and Latvia.

This study examines in detail the psychological variables underlying ideological political orientation, and structure and contents of this orientation, in Sweden and Latvia. Individual political orientation is conceptualized on two dimensions: acceptance vs. rejection of social change and acceptance vs. rejection of inequality. Swedish (N = 320) and Latvian (N = 264) participants completed measures of political orientation, Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), self vs. other orientation, tolerance for ambiguity, humanism and normativism, core political values, system justification, as well as moral foundations questionnaire and portrait values questionnaire. The results showed that the relation among the measured variables was similar in both samples. Swedish participants showed stronger endorsement of egalitarian attitudes and social values, whereas we found more self-enhancing and socially conservative values and attitudes among the Latvian participants.

An improved method for evaluating ideal standards in self-perception and mate preferences.

The aim of the study was to improve the methodology for measuring ideals of self-perception and mate preferences. The Ideal Standards Model (ISM; Fletcher, Simpson, Thomas & Giles, 1999) was used as a basis for development of the scale. It was further modified by adding a number of items from previous studies. Data were collected from 223 participants, aged 19 to 27 years. The results suggested that a modified five-factor version of the ISM is an appropriate method for evaluation of ideal characteristics. The five factors are warmth/ trustworthiness, status/ resources, intelligence, social skills and physical attractiveness.

High economic inequality is linked to greater moralization.

Throughout the 21st century, economic inequality is predicted to increase as we face new challenges, from changes in the technological landscape to the growing climate crisis. It is crucial we understand how these changes in inequality may affect how people think and behave. We propose that economic inequality threatens the social fabric of society, in turn increasing moralization-that is, the greater tendency to employ or emphasize morality in everyday life-as an attempt to restore order and control. Using longitudinal data from X, formerly known as Twitter, our first study demonstrates that high economic inequality is associated with greater use of moral language online (e.g. the use of words such as "disgust", "hurt", and "respect'). Study 2 then examined data from 41 regions around the world, generally showing that higher inequality has a small association with harsher moral judgments of people's everyday actions. Together these findings demonstrate that economic inequality is linked to the tendency to see the world through a moral lens.

Evaluation of misinformation among pro-Ukrainian Latvians - the role of prior attitude, analytical thinking, and emotions.

In this exploratory study with a community sample (N = 115), we look at the perception of pro-Russia and pro-Ukraine misinformation, mimicking content shared by naive Facebook users, and the factors related to it among pro-Ukraine Latvians. Our results support the integrative model in the perception of misinformation-we found strong evidence of myside bias, as pro-Russia misinformation was judged to be significantly less accurate than pro-Ukraine misinformation. Analytical thinking, measured with the seven-item cognitive reflection test, was associated with lower levels of pro-Ukraine misinformation accuracy judgments and lower overall misinformation accuracy judgments; however, there was no correlation between analytical thinking and pro-Russian misinformation accuracy judgments. Pro-Ukrainian misinformation accuracy judgments were positively related to positive emotions elicited by misinformation, the level of support for Ukraine, and the participant's age. In addition, participants indicated a higher likelihood of engaging with misinformation if they came across it online, trusted the information, and if it elicited positive emotions. Thus, our findings emphasize the role of one's attitude, analytical thinking, and emotions in one's perception, evaluation, and engagement with congruent and incongruent misinformation.

Perceiving societal pressure to be happy is linked to poor well-being, especially in happy nations.

Happiness is a valuable experience, and societies want their citizens to be happy. Although this societal commitment seems laudable, overly emphasizing positivity (versus negativity) may create an unattainable emotion norm that ironically compromises individual well-being. In this multi-national study (40 countries; 7443 participants), we investigate how societal pressure to be happy and not sad predicts emotional, cognitive and clinical indicators of well-being around the world, and examine how these relations differ as a function of countries' national happiness levels (collected from the World Happiness Report). Although detrimental well-being associations manifest for an average country, the strength of these relations varies across countries. People's felt societal pressure to be happy and not sad is particularly linked to poor well-being in countries with a higher World Happiness Index. Although the cross-sectional nature of our work prohibits causal conclusions, our findings highlight the correlational link between social emotion valuation and individual well-being, and suggest that high national happiness levels may have downsides for some.

Social mindfulness predicts concern for nature and immigrants across 36 nations.

People cooperate every day in ways that range from largescale contributions that mitigate climate change to simple actions such as leaving another individual with choice - known as social mindfulness. It is not yet clear whether and how these complex and more simple forms of cooperation relate. Prior work has found that countries with individuals who made more socially mindful choices were linked to a higher country environmental performance - a proxy for complex cooperation. Here we replicated this initial finding in 41 samples around the world, demonstrating the robustness of the association between social mindfulness and environmental performance, and substantially built on it to show this relationship extended to a wide range of complex cooperative indices, tied closely to many current societal issues. We found that greater social mindfulness expressed by an individual was related to living in countries with more social capital, more community participation and reduced prejudice towards immigrants. Our findings speak to the symbiotic relationship between simple and more complex forms of cooperation in societies.

Differentiating explanations of attitude-consistent behavior: the role of perspectives and mode of perspective taking.

We examined whether participants could differentiate between explanations of attitude-consistent behavior related to EU membership given from two perspectives (EU supporter and EU opponent) by means of three perspective taking modes (the explainer's own perspective, imagined in-group members' perspective, and imagined out-group members' perspective). Participants were presented with explanations provided from different perspectives and perspective taking modes, and they were asked to judge the extent to which they agreed with each explanation, to guess the attitude of the provider of each explanation, and to rate the quality of each explanation in various respects. Participants could not differentiate between explanations given by in-group members and out-group members who imagined the same perspective. They responded more favorably to explanations given from own perspective than from the imagined perspectives. The results suggest that there exists a shared understanding about how both sides should explain attitude-consistent behavior, but this understanding is measurably different from the actual explanations.

Differentiating in-group favoritism from shared reality in intergroup perception.

Two basic factors influence mutual ratings of social groups: in-group favoritism (related to the evaluative aspects of a rating) and the perception of shared reality (related to the descriptive aspects). In two studies, we examine the usefulness of Peabody's (1968) method of separating evaluative and descriptive aspects of rating in intergroup judgments. In Study 1, Latvian and Russian students made different evaluations of both groups, but the same groups agreed on the descriptive ratings. In Study 2, male and female psychology students rated each other from own, in-group, and out-group perspectives. The participants did not show any in-group favoritism in their own ratings, but they expected their fellow students to be in-group biased. The participants agreed on the descriptive ratings of both groups. The results demonstrate that shared reality influences intergroup ratings, despite differences in evaluations.