Chris M. Federico

ISPP President, University of Minnesota

Presidential Address – Making Sense of the Link(s) Between the Psychological and the Political: An Extended Belief-Systems Approach 

How can we make sense of the enormous volume of research on the links between psychological variables and political preferences that has accumulated in recent years? In particular, how does ideology – or political preferences more generally – relate to psychological variables that reflect a tendency to be open versus closed? Answers to this question in political psychology have been varied. On one hand, much evidence suggests that individual difference variables that reflect high (versus low) needs for security and certainty predict conservative (versus liberal) preferences. On the other hand, some evidence suggests an extremism model: individuals on both the right and the left become defensive and rigid when the validity of their established commitments are threatened are challenged. 

In an effort to reconcile these divergent sets of findings, I offer an extended belief systems approach to the relationship between psychological variables and political preferences in this talk. This approach suggests two principles. First, self-reported needs, traits, and motives (understood as individual differences) can become political belief-system elements (like ideological labels, partisan affiliations, issue positions, and value commitments)— which are governed by belief-systems principles. Second, belief systems, once formed, become central to the self and are thus valued and defended. The extended belief-systems approach argues that multiple processes link (different kinds of) psychological variables and political preferences. These include both (1) individual-difference factors or processes govern the formation of symbolic political identifications and preference formation and (2) more-situational processes that reflect the defensive consequences of holding preferences that are central to the self-concept. After describing some general principles of this approach, I review current evidence and point toward unresolved questions that researchers interested in link between psychological processes and political preferences need to attend to more carefully in future research.

Anna Kende

ELTE, Eotvos Lorand University

Fragile Identities in Politically Unstable Societies 

Social and political psychology often considers social relations within stable and long-standing democracies as a “default” context for human existence. However, for most people worldwide, especially in our turbulent era, reality is shaped by social and political tensions. These include nationalism, homophobia, prejudice against indigenous and immigrant communities, and the rise of populist, authoritarian, and illiberal politics that exploit these divisions. Political instability—characterized by low social cohesion and trust, lack of solidarity among citizens, and an inability to resist destabilization—may thus be a more common context of existence than stable liberal democracies.

Political instability can both result from and contribute to fragile collective identities. These identities arise from individual and collective historical experiences of conflict, structural inequalities, and the inability to reconcile with difficult collective memories. They are driven by a need for control in unpredictable social, political, and economic circumstances. As such, fragile identities play a critical role in fueling societal tensions and intergroup conflicts.This talk will explore the dual impact of social, political, and historical contexts, as well as fragile identities, on intergroup relations, including attitudes, conciliatory preferences, collective action, and solidarity. It will draw on studies investigating the structural oppression of Roma people in Europe, intergroup conflicts in post-colonial societies, and the conditionality of solidarity with refugees in contexts characterized by political instability. These studies highlight the potential of social psychological research that considers the normative and contextual dimensions of intergroup relations, rather than focusing on individualistic solutions to collective problems.

Martina Klicperova-Baker

Institute of Psychology, Czech Academy of Sciences

Psychology of Democracy: A Matter of Life and Death

Elections have consequences. Political regimes matter. Our world is speckled with zones of democracy and zones of dictatorship. They predetermine to a great degree our chances to live either civil, fulfilling, rich, and long life in a trustworthy community or a life which will likely be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,” to quote T. Hobbes. Democracies increase chances for peace (Pax democratica); it can be applied both internationally and nationally: a) on the international level, the empirical law suggests that real democracies do not wage wars with each other; b) on the national level, it has been documented that democratic countries kill fewer of their own citizens than autocracies. Should not psychology be more involved in these matters? Let us search for ways to explain the mechanisms of democratic peace, analyze the many paradoxes of democracy, assess democratic political culture, create a network of “Psychology of Democracy,” and search for additional ways how to  make a difference.