In a previous column I gave some advice, from a psychological point of view, on how animal rights advocates can more effectively communicate their message. Here I follow up with some additional comments.
Historically, theorists argued that political ideology is not meaningful in our day-to-day lives. But the psychological record now demonstrates that ideology matters a great deal to our personal and social lives. In fact, some might argue that it now matters too much, influencing our basic perception and decision-making.
In a past post I discussed bias against asexuals (those without enduring sexual attraction directed toward men or women). Here I discuss a newly validated scale that captures prejudice toward asexuals, providing a more nuanced understanding of biases against sexual minorities and the challenges such individuals face.
Psychologists often study the up-side of humor (well-being, social bonding). But what are the implications of passing off derogatory communications, such as jokes or chants, as harmless and thus not to be judged seriously?
Psychologists are presently very interested in understanding factors that predict political ideology. A recent series of studies asks whether White Americans, when facing the future as a minority group, shift politically to the right.
With noticeable declines in the numbers of heterosexual marriages, marriages between gay couples can boost the economy among businesses linked to the wedding industry. By similarly tuning self-interests toward economic strategies that cut carbon emissions, can psychology help save the planet?
It is widely held that violent video games produce negative outcomes (e.g., aggression). This might be true, but can these virtual environments also allow us to play out intergroup situations in ways that could reduce prejudice?
Sometimes prejudices concern open expressions of disliking a group. But sometimes people claim to feel “torn,” “mixed,” or “ambivalent” about a group or their rights. Do such assertions genuinely represent subjectively ambivalent feelings, or might they mask darker attitudes?
In a world where we eat animals, wear animals, and amuse ourselves by watching animals perform tricks for us, advancing animal rights represents a clear minority position. What does psychology teach us about influencing others, particularly when advocating a minority position?
Laypeople and theorists have long pondered whether homophobes (those openly expressing anti-gay attitudes) secretly possess attraction toward same-sex partners. In other words, do we “hate” what we secretly crave? A new study uses an implicit sexual-attraction measure to finally test this hypothesis.
Everything these days, from healthcare to climate change to nutrition, seems not only “political” but increasingly polarized in nature. In such debates, why does ideology often take a front seat to basic facts?