Long Feiteng, Pliskin Ruthie, Scheepers Daan
Social, Economic and Organisational Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Psychophysiology. 2025 Sep;62(9):e70140. doi: 10.1111/psyp.70140.
People may feel stressed when engaging with contentious topics, such as migration. However, when individuals learn that their opinion-based ingroup is growing or shrinking, they may experience this stress in different ways, namely as a threat or a challenge. In a preregistered study (N = 203 Dutch university students), we examined among host society members how progressive and conservative changes (vs. stability) in public opinion on migration interacted with their political ideology to influence cardiovascular reactivity indicative of challenge and threat. Electrocardiography, impedance cardiography, and blood pressure were continuously measured during a one- to three-minute speech task in which participants reflected on the future of interethnic relations in the Netherlands. Additional self-reported outcomes, including demand and resource appraisals and prejudice towards migrants, were assessed after the speech task. As predicted, progressive change (vs. stability) in public opinion led leftists to exhibit a cardiovascular pattern indicative of relative challenge (relatively lower total peripheral resistance and higher cardiac output) and rightists to display a cardiovascular pattern indicative of relative threat (relatively higher total peripheral resistance and lower cardiac output). Additional analyses suggest that progressive change (vs. stability) increased leftists' resource appraisal regarding the speech and reduced their prejudice towards migrants, while both progressive and conservative changes (vs. stability) increased rightists' prejudice. These findings highlight that a growing opinion-based ingroup size can function as a resource for coping with the stress of forming and expressing one's opinion on a sensitive societal issue.
当人们参与有争议的话题，如移民问题时，可能会感到压力。然而，当个体得知基于观点的内群体在扩大或缩小时，他们可能会以不同方式体验这种压力，即视为一种威胁或挑战。在一项预先注册的研究（N = 203名荷兰大学生）中，我们研究了在东道国社会成员中，公众对移民问题看法的进步和保守变化（与稳定相比）如何与他们的政治意识形态相互作用，以影响表明挑战和威胁的心血管反应。在一项一到三分钟的演讲任务中，持续测量心电图、阻抗心动图和血压，参与者在该任务中思考荷兰族际关系的未来。演讲任务结束后，评估了包括需求和资源评估以及对移民的偏见等额外的自我报告结果。正如预测的那样，公众舆论的进步变化（与稳定相比）使左派表现出一种表明相对挑战的心血管模式（相对较低的总外周阻力和较高的心输出量），而右派则表现出一种表明相对威胁的心血管模式（相对较高的总外周阻力和较低的心输出量）。进一步的分析表明，进步变化（与稳定相比）增加了左派对演讲的资源评估，并减少了他们对移民的偏见，而进步和保守变化（与稳定相比）都增加了右派的偏见。这些发现突出表明，基于观点的内群体规模的扩大可以作为一种资源，用于应对在敏感社会问题上形成和表达个人观点时的压力。
