Conservatism predicts lapses from vegetarian/vegan diets to meat consumption (through lower social justice concerns and social support).

Lapses from vegetarian and vegan (i.e., veg*n) food choices to meat consumption are very common, suggesting that sustaining veg*nism is challenging. But little is known about why people return to eating animals after initially deciding to avoid meat consumption. Several potential explanatory factors include personal inconvenience, meat cravings, awkwardness in social settings, or health/nutrition concerns. Here we test the degree to which political ideology predicts lapsing to meat consumption. Past research demonstrates that political ideology predicts present levels of meat consumption, whereby those higher in right-wing ideologies eat more animals, even after controlling for their hedonistic liking of meat (e.g., Dhont & Hodson, 2014). To what extent might political ideology predict whether one has lapsed from veg*n foods back to meat consumption? In a largely representative US community sample (N = 1313) of current and former veg*ns, those higher (vs. lower) in conservatism exhibited significantly greater odds of being a former than current veg*n, even after controlling for age, education, and gender. This ideology-lapsing relation was mediated (i.e., explained) by those higher (vs. lower) in conservatism: (a) adopting a veg*n diet for reasons less centered in justice concerns (animal rights, environment, feeding the poor); and (b) feeling socially unsupported in their endeavor. In contrast, factors such as differential meat craving or lifestyle inconvenience played little mediational role. These findings demonstrate that ideology and justice concerns are particularly relevant to understanding resilience in maintaining veg*n food choices. Implications for understanding why people eat meat, and how to develop intervention strategies, are discussed.

News media impact on sociopolitical attitudes.

In the present project we assessed whether partisan news affects consumers' views on polarizing issues. In Study 1 nationally representative cross-sectional data (N = 4249) reveals that right-leaning news consumption is associated with more right-leaning attitudes, and left-leaning news consumption is associated with more left-leaning attitudes. Additional three-wave longitudinal data (N = 484) in Study 2 reveals that right-leaning news is positively (and left-leaning news is negatively) associated with right-leaning issue stances three months later, even after controlling for prior issue stances. In a third (supplemental) study (N = 305), random assignment to right-leaning (but not left-leaning) news (vs. control) experimentally fostered more right-leaning stances, regardless of participants' previously held political ideology. These findings suggest that partisan news, and particularly right-leaning news, can polarize consumers in their sociopolitical positions, sharpen political divides, and shape public policy.

Compliance with COVID-19 safety measures: A test of an objectification theory model.

In the present paper, we tested an objectification theory model including compliance with COVID-19 safety measures as an outcome. Safety measures recommended by governments and health organizations include monitoring one's body and interpersonal and social distance from others. We contend that the diffuse safety anxiety stemming from sexual and self-objectification encourages targets to broadly adopt behaviors that protect against body-based dangers, including COVID-19. Accordingly, safety anxiety should predict greater compliance with COVID-19 safety measures. U.S. residents (N = 501) were recruited online and completed measures of sexual objectification, self-objectification, safety anxiety, appearance anxiety, and COVID-19 safety compliance. Two-step mediation analyses revealed a positive indirect effect of sexual objectification on safety anxiety through internalization of observers' perspectives (self-objectification Factor 1); in turn, there was a positive indirect effect of internalized others on COVID-19 body-based safety compliance through safety anxiety. Moreover, women (vs. men) reported higher levels of sexual objectification, internalization of observers' perspectives, safety anxiety, appearance anxiety, and COVID-19 safety measure compliance. Not only is safety anxiety relevant to cautionary behaviors protective against sexual objectification threat, but it also predicts compliance with measures that reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19. Implications for objectification theory are discussed.

A multilevel analysis of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights support across 77 countries: The role of contact and country laws.

Although intergroup contact reduces prejudice generally, there are growing calls to examine contextual factors in conjunction with contact. Such an approach benefits from more sophisticated analytic approaches, such as multilevel modelling, that take both the individual (Level-1) and their environment (Level-2) into account. Using this approach, we go beyond attitudes to assess both individual and contextual predictors of support for gay/lesbian and transgender rights. Using a sample of participants across 77 countries, results revealed that personal gay/lesbian contact (Level-1) and living in a country with more gay/lesbian rights (Level-2) predicted greater support for gay/lesbian rights (n = 71,991). Likewise, transgender contact and living in a country with more transgender rights predicted more support for transgender rights (n = 70,056). Cross-level interactions are also presented and discussed. Overall, findings highlight the importance of both individual and contextual factors in predicting support for LGBT communities.

Questioning white losses and anti-white discrimination in the United States.

Political polarization and far-right movements across the West are thought to be partly driven by beliefs that white people face discrimination in societies that supposedly favour non-white people. We compared perceptions of racial discrimination with reported discrimination experiences in large, US national samples to shed light on the veracity of such beliefs. Regarding experiences, we find that white people consistently experienced less discrimination than black people, and that declines in anti-black discrimination have not coincided with increases in anti-white discrimination. Regarding perceptions, respondents overall did not express zero-sum discrimination beliefs. Moreover, black respondents and Democrats perceived that black people face much more discrimination than white people, whereas white respondents and Republicans perceived a smaller discrimination gap between black and white people, relative to reported discrimination experiences. Overall, improvements for black people do not seem to coincide with disadvantages for white people, and discrimination perceptions differ from reported discrimination experiences. Implications for racial attitudes, political polarization and voting behaviour are discussed.

Intergroup Contact as an Agent of Cognitive Liberalization.

Intergroup contact is widely recognized as one of the most validated methods of improving attitudes toward out-groups. Yet what is intergroup contact "good for" beyond this function? To answer this question we take a panoramic view of the literature, beginning with the recognition that contact is multifaceted in both form (e.g., face-to-face, indirect, simulated) and outcome (e.g., attitudes, cognition, behavior). Taking this highly inclusive view of what contact is and what contact does suggests that it plays a fundamental role in the shaping of human cognition. An increasingly diverse body of research demonstrates that contact exerts a generalizing reaction across target out-groups, making respondents less inward looking and more open to experiences. Contact shapes ideology regarding how the world ought to operate (i.e., ideologies about social hierarchy or regulation); over time, it can promote new ways of problem-solving, enhance cognitive flexibility, and foster creativity. For these reasons, we believe that contact is a key liberalizing agent that shapes human cognition and experience; consequently, contact theory should now share the stage with other prominent theories (e.g., cognitive dissonance) that speak to a broader understanding of human nature.