Department of Leadership and Organizational Behaviour.
Department of Psychology.
J Exp Psychol Gen. 2022 Nov;151(11):2846-2878. doi: 10.1037/xge0001219. Epub 2022 May 19.
Examining the epistemic and social-cognitive structures underlying fanaticism, radicalization, and extremism should shed light on how these harmful phenomena develop and can be prevented. In nine studies ( = 3,277), we examined whether discordant knowing-felt knowledge about something that one perceives as opposed by most others-underlies fanaticism. Across multifaceted approaches, experimentally manipulating participants' views to fall under this framework (e.g., "I am certain about X, but most other people think X is unknowable or wrong") heightened indicators of fanaticism, including aggression, determined ignorance, and wanting to join extreme groups in the service of these views. Additional analyses found that this effect occurs via threat-based mechanisms (Studies 1-7), can be intervened on to prevent fanaticism (Study 2), is conditional on the potency of opposition (Study 3), differs from effects on extremism (Study 4), and extends to mental representations of the self (Study 5). Generalizing these findings to real-world contexts, inducing participants with discordant knowledge about the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election and the morality of abortion heightened fanaticism regarding these topics (Studies 6 and 7). Additionally, antivaccine fanatics and followers of a real-world fanatical religious group exhibited greater discordant knowing than nonfanatical individuals (Studies 8 and 9). Collectively, the present studies suggest that a specific epistemic structure-discordant knowing-underlies fanaticism, and further, highlight the potential of investigating constructs like fanaticism from an epistemic social cognitive perspective. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
考察狂热主义、激进化和极端主义的认识和社会认知结构,应该能够揭示这些有害现象的发展方式,以及如何预防这些现象。在九项研究中(=3277),我们研究了人们对大多数人认为与自己观点相悖的事物的认知和感受之间的不一致是否是狂热主义的基础。通过多方面的方法,实验性地操纵参与者的观点,使其符合这一框架(例如,“我对 X 非常确定,但大多数其他人认为 X 是不可知或错误的”),这提高了狂热主义的指标,包括攻击性、顽固的无知和为了这些观点而加入极端团体的意愿。进一步的分析发现,这种效应是通过基于威胁的机制产生的(研究 1-7),可以通过干预来预防狂热主义(研究 2),取决于对立的强度(研究 3),与极端主义的影响不同(研究 4),并扩展到自我的心理表征(研究 5)。将这些发现推广到现实世界的背景中,让参与者对 2020 年美国总统选举和堕胎的道德问题产生不一致的知识,会提高他们对这些主题的狂热程度(研究 6 和 7)。此外,反疫苗狂热分子和现实世界狂热宗教团体的追随者表现出比非狂热分子更大的不一致认知(研究 8 和 9)。总的来说,这些研究表明,一种特定的认知结构——不一致认知——是狂热主义的基础,进一步强调了从认知社会认知的角度研究狂热主义等结构的潜力。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。