ISPP Early Career Committee Newsletter — Issue 1, 2024

Welcome to the ISPP ECC Newsletter!

For Issue 1, 2024, we’ve continued with our previous format. Rather than having the full newsletter sent to your email (which can be rather long), you can again click to read more for each of the contributions, and you’ll be directed to the full version of the newsletter on Medium. Watch this space!

Dr. Myrto Pantazi (University of Amsterdam)

Dear ISPP Early Career Colleagues,

Welcome to the Spring newsletter of our academic year. During the eventful past months, the ECC has been busy with various online activities dedicated to the early career community of the ISPP, and with planning the ECC events of the annual meeting in Chile.

In a time of continuous intergroup clashes around the world, from the tragic ongoing war in the Middle East, with its reverberations on inter-group relations around the world, understanding inter-group dynamics and reconciliation is as urgent as ever. In this context, the ECC has been organising a series of online talks on inter-group peace and conflict. I would like to thank all the speakers and ECC officers who have worked on this endeavour. We hope many of you have already attended these talks and, please, stay tuned for the next talks in the series.

The present newsletter, nicely aligned with this annual meeting’s focus, is dedicated to the theme of Populism, its nuances and ramifications for democracy and research. In the election year we are currently traversing these insightful pieces on populism can be particularly useful and help us understand the political developments that we have been and will be witnessing, both in our capacity as political psychologists and as citizens. I want to warmly thank our Newsletter contributors for donating some of their time for the creation of this newsletter and Andrea Correa Chica, Jessica Gale and Tijana Karić from the ECC for curating it.

The ECC has also been busy with the ECC blogpost series, dedicated to showcasing latest research by ISPP Early Career Scholars, that is, all of you [link to blogpost]! If you have new research (published or as pre-print), which you wish to popularise, do not hesitate to reach out to us.

I am happy to anounce that this year the ISPP granted 17 ECC Travel Awards for scholars from various parts of the workd to travel to Chile for the annual meeting. The winners come from multiple disciplines (political science, psychology, international relations and business) and countries including Brasil, India, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, the Philipines, Serbia, the UK, and the US.

As we approach the annual meeting in Chile, I would like to announce the series of ECC-organised events that are particularly relevant for early career scholars. Erika Arias, and Slieman Halabi, our mentoring luncheon coordinators, are in the process of finalising the details of our popular ECC Mentoring Luncheon, which will bring together approximately 20 mentors and 75 mentees.

Our professional development team, Fabian Neuner and Mete Sefa Uysal, have organised three roundtables. “The Dissertation is done, now what?” is designed to give career advise to newly-awarded PhDs. “Navigating Opportunities and Challenges as Early Career Researchers” is expected to give you an overview of opportunities and challenges you may face as well as advise on how to navigate them. Lastly, our slightly re-branded Roundtable/Workshop “How to talk about your research” is self-explanatory expected to give you guidance and hands-on experience on presenting your research. Please come in numbers and make the most of these roundtables.

Before closing, I would like to announce that the ECC will very shortly be opening the call for applications for the new ECC officers. If you want to become one of us, gain experience in how the ISPP is run and help other early career scholars, please consider these soon-to-open applications. The announcement of the call, like all calls and activities of the ECC, can be found on the ISPP socials. I would like to take this opportunity and thank our Web-resource Coordinators, Islam Borinca and Ruri Takizawa, for keeping an open channel between us and you. If you are not yet following us, look for us on X (@PolPsyISPP), Facebook, or LinkedIn.

Last but not least, I want to thank the ECC Chair-Elect Boglarka Nyul and the ECC Ex-Officio Chair Tijana Karić, for their continuous work and support.

I hope you enjoy this newsletter and looking forward to seeing you in Chile!

Myrto Pantazi

ISPP-ECC Chair 2023–2024

2024 Issue I Theme: Bridging Conceptual Gaps: Reflections on Populism through the Lens of System Justification

By Lisa Zanotti (lisa.zanotti@mail.udp.cl; Assistant Professor in the Department of Social Sciences and History at Diego Portales University) and Gonzalo Espinoza-Bianchini (gonzalo.espinozab@mail.udp.cl; Co-director Artificial Intelligence Center for the Study of Political Radicalization at Diego Portales University)

Populism has been studied through the lenses of supply and demand. It is often seen as a response to a crisis of representation, where a perceived rift between the people and the elite creates a political emphasis on their stark opposition. Research on the supply side, focusing on how political actors develop and disseminate populist narratives, is extensive. However, the demand side, which encompasses the origins and manifestations of populist attitudes and their psychological foundations, necessitates further investigation. These attitudes are defined by key characteristics that emphasize the ideological and psychological dimensions of populism (Akkerman et al., 2014). By utilizing insights from political psychology, specifically system justification theory (Jost, 2019), we seek to explore the connection between societal structures and the psychological elements driving populist ideologies.

Populism gains momentum by resonating with collective sentiments and integrating them into expansive socio-political narratives. This requires a deeper exploration of the psychological motivations at the individual level, which are often overlooked compared to socio-economic and political factors. Understanding these motivations is crucial to uncovering why populist ideologies continue to hold appeal. Focusing on individual-level factors, especially through system justification theory (Jost, 2019), is essential for revealing the psychological basis of populism. This approach provides clarity on the mechanisms driving populism and sheds light on its lasting appeal, offering useful insights for both academic research and strategic political planning.

System Justification and Populism: Theoretical Implications and Call for Future Research

System justification theory suggests that individuals have an inherent need to rationalize and defend existing social, economic, and political systems, even at personal cost (Jost et al., 2004). This psychological tendency can shape attitudes toward change and the status quo, impacting political belief systems. Populism, however, often arises from a critique of the current system, advocating for significant changes or a return to an idealized past. Given this oppositional stance, one could argue that those with higher populist attitudes are less likely to justify the existing system, as their beliefs inherently challenge established power structures.

This creates a paradox, where the desire for political upheaval coexists with the psychological drive to maintain stability through system justification. Populist attitudes, characterized by a simultaneous pro-people and anti-elite sentiment, suggest that existing power structures might be unjust. This view of the system as flawed can conflict with system justification, leading to an inherent tension between populist ideologies and the psychological need to defend the status quo.

This interplay between seeking radical change and preserving established systems underscores the complex dynamics at play in populist ideologies. The difference between economic and political system justifications is crucial in this context. Political system justification involves supporting political institutions and practices, while economic system justification rationalizes economic inequality and the existing order. Jost’s (2019) theory posits that people might justify economic systems that perpetuate inequality if they believe these systems align with their interests. This insight is key to understanding populism, as populist leaders can use both political and economic system justifications to attract their base, appealing to those who defend their worldview and those who feel wronged by economic injustices.

Nevertheless, the relationship between populist attitudes and system justification is complex and influenced by factors like perceived system corruption, political disillusionment, or economic inequality. Left-wing and right-wing populism might engage with system justification differently, depending on their ideological foundations and critiques of the status quo. Although a negative relationship between populist attitudes and system justification might be anticipated, the actual dynamics are nuanced and context dependent. Future research should explore how individuals navigate these conflicting forces, the techniques populist leaders use to leverage these psychological processes, and how these patterns vary across different populations and political contexts. This exploration of the connection between populist attitudes and system justification theory highlights the need for integrating political science and political psychology to gain a deeper understanding of populism.

To study populism thoroughly, a dual approach is essential: examining how political figures create and disseminate populist narratives on the supply side, and analyzing how these narratives resonate with the psychological needs of the populace on the demand side. A complete examination of populism requires unraveling the complex relationship between the rhetoric of leaders and public sentiment.

References

Akkerman, A., Mudde, C., & Zaslove, A. (2014). How Populist Are the People? Measuring Populist Attitudes in Voters. Comparative Political Studies, 47(9), 1324–1353.

Jost, J. T. (2019). A Theory of System Justification. Harvard University Press.

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.

Advice Column

The Popularity of Populism and its Challenges for Researchers

By Senior Lecturer in Psychology Sandra Obradović (Sandra.Obradovic@open.ac.uk; Open University)

Researcher at the Electoral Psychology Observatory, London School of Economics

Populism has become quite a popular topic of research within political psychology, despite having a relatively long history, most prominently in South American countries. As a topic that genuinely intersects between psychology and political science, it does come with its own set of challenges for researchers interested in pursuing their line of work around this topic.

Generally, it seems much of the literature on populism falls on either side of the ‘demand’ and ‘supply’ metaphor; understanding what makes a leader or party populist, and understanding what makes a citizen want to vote for, or support, a populist party/leader. This literature raises a few challenges that are worth considering.

The first one relates to conceptualization. The popularity of populism increases the risk that it become a buzzword, and a topic that researchers’ study from an atheoretical starting point and with disregard for existing literature. As the literature on populism proliferates, I think one of the key challenges is ensuring our empirical research has a solid conceptual and theoretical grounding. Rovira Kaltwasser and colleagues (2017) introduce three distinct conceptual approaches to populism that are useful to understand; an ideational, a political-strategic and a sociocultural approach. Similarly, when we (Obradović et al., 2020) wrote about the psychological appeal of populism, we tried to lay out an argument for how psychological insights could benefit our understanding of the ‘demand-side’ of populism, by revealing its underlying relational logic. Our focus was on articulating why populist leaders are gaining so much traction with citizens, and what that can tell us about socio-political grievances and concerns that are about so much more than just ‘politics’. In doing so, we offered an argument for how the economic anxiety and cultural backlash theses could be understood as integrated parts of a social-psychological sensitivity to status differences framed in group terms. To overcome the risks of populism becoming a catch-all word and a ‘new bottle for old wines’, it’s important to set the conceptual parameters of what we’re researching, and to engage with the multidisciplinary literature that exists.

The second challenge I see stems from the former. The emphasis on populism as a set of ideas that are given meaning by their attachment to a host-ideology (Mudde & Kaltwasser, 2018) gives populism a conceptual flexibility that enables us to also study its context specific manifestations. But it can also run the risk of lazy research. If we are making claims about ‘populism’ with reference to only right-wing populist research, then we run the risk of muddying the distinctions between political ideology and populism, and further readers attempting to grasp what populism is, and more importantly, what it isn’t. Comparative research has largely stemmed from political science, and research in psychology has tended to focus on one form of populism (predominantly its right-wing expression). To overcome this challenge, comparative research that crosses disciplinary boundaries is crucial. It helps test the limits of our arguments, and how much the generalize. In other words, if you’re interested in studying right-wing populist attitudes, before you design your study and collect your data, ask yourself: is what I am studying really about populism (and if so, how would it manifest on the populist left?), or is it about political ideology? Similarly, it is worthwhile to think about comparative research not only across political ideologies but also in relation to comparing mainstream and populist; what is it that differentiates the former from the latter? If we cannot answer this question, then maybe ‘populism’ isn’t the right word for what we’re studying.

References

Mudde, C., & Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (2018). Studying populism in comparative perspective: Reflections on the contemporary and future research agenda. Comparative political studies, 51(13), 1667–1693.

Obradović, S., Power, S. A., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2020). Understanding the psychological appeal of populism. Current opinion in psychology, 35, 125–131.

Rovira Kaltwasser C., Taggart P., Ochoa Espejo P., Ostiguy P. (Eds.). (2017). The Oxford handbook of populism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kudos Column

By Assistant Professor in Psychology Lusine Grigoryan (lusine.grigoryan@york.ac.uk; University of York)

I was honored to be invited to write this column as one of the recipients of the 2023 Early Career Award from the European Association of Social Psychology. Given the opportunity to write about my research, I thought that it might be more helpful and hopefully interesting for the early career researchers who read this Newsletter to talk about my experience building an academic career. But of course, I will not be able to do that without also talking about the research that I do.

I was born in Armenia, a tiny mountainous country in the South Caucasus. My family immigrated to Russia when I was 10. Fast-forward 6 years, and I am celebrating getting a government-funded spot in the psychology department of one of the best universities in the country — Higher School of Economics (HSE). HSE of early 2000s was an amazing place to be: a dynamic university that was constantly changing, striving to be open to the world and become better. Fast forward another 8 years, and I’m building a successful academic career at HSE — teaching, running research projects, starting a master’s program in collaboration with Tilburg University. Meanwhile, the country I live in takes a turn that I consider to be a point of not return: Russia invades Ukraine and annexes Crimea. The mood in the country changed dramatically after the annexation of Crimea. It wasn’t just the propaganda that was becoming unbearable, it was also the people around me who were changing, and the university itself. I had to make the difficult decision to leave the career I’ve built and start it all from scratch elsewhere. In 2014, I applied and luckily got accepted into a PhD program at the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, where I completed my degree under the supervision of professors Klaus Boehnke, Christopher Cohrs, and Fons van de Vijver, who tragically passed away the same year as I defended my thesis.

I absolutely loved my graduate school experience, and I have two pieces of advice for those who are considering doing a PhD: (1) try to get some work experience before doing a PhD — you will appreciate the grad school more and (2) work on topics you are truly passionate about. I know many students are advised to be strategic about their choice of a topic or a supervisor — to choose something that is in demand, or popular, or easy to publish. I don’t see a point in an academic career if you are not exploring the things that you truly believe are interesting and important.

I started applying for jobs as I was about to complete my PhD. The funding was running out, so was my student visa, and I was getting interview invites, but no job offers. After the sixth unsuccessful interview, I started thinking if I should perhaps consider going back to Russia, if that was the only way I can still do the job I love. Luckily, it didn’t come to that, as the seventh interview was a success: I was offered a postdoc position at Ruhr University Bochum, under the supervision of Prof Wilhelm Hofmann. I could not have asked for a more enthusiastic, supportive, and generous mentor than Will. If it wasn’t for him, I would have never thought I could compete for any of these awards. He took the time and effort to nominate me for different awards, including the EASP award which I was lucky to receive. Another piece of advice: not everyone will be lucky to have such amazing mentors. If you haven’t got one, be your own advocate: identify awards you might be eligible for and find people around you who would be happy to nominate you, even if it’s not your immediate supervisor. Most of us do not believe we stand a chance, but if you try, you might be pleasantly surprised.

Finally, I promised I will say something about my research, so here it comes. What is it about my research that made the esteemed award committee choose me for this award over all other candidates, who were, I am sure, absolutely amazing. The honest answer is — I do not know. But I can offer my best guess. I think my research is driven by what strikes a chord within me and I think, maybe, other people are touched by similar things. As an immigrant in Russia, I wanted to understand why people are sometimes hostile towards immigrants, and how peoples’ values (Grigoryan & Schwartz, 2021) or their feelings about their own country (Grigoryan & Ponizovskiy, 2018) can drive these attitudes. As I was becoming a well-educated, middle-class immigrant who enjoyed many privileges while still being the “foreigner”, I became interested in intersectionality and how people perceive their own and others’ multiple intersecting identities (Grigoryan, 2020a, 2020b, Grigoryan et al., 2022, 2023). As my country was becoming more and more authoritarian and inflicting more and more suffering on people around, I became interested in peoples’ experiences of group-based guilt and shame and whether these feelings can motivate collective action (Grigoryan et al., in print). I think I am simply tuning in to the world around me and letting it guide my research, and the things that are striking a chord within me might be the same things that strike a chord within you.

References

Grigoryan L. (2020). Crossed categorization outside the lab: Findings from a factorial survey experiment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(5), 983–1000.

Grigoryan L. (2020). Perceived similarity in multiple categorization. Applied Psychology, 69(4), 1122–1144.

Grigoryan L., Cohrs J.C., Boehnke K., van de Vijver A.J.R., Easterbrook M. (2022). Multiple categorization and intergroup bias: Examining the generalizability of three theories of intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 34–52.

Grigoryan L., Jones H.B., Cohrs J.C., Boehnke K., Easterbrook M. (2023). Differentiating between belief-indicative and status-indicative groups improves predictions of intergroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(7), 1097–1112.

Grigoryan L., Ponizovskiy V., Weissflog M.I., Osin E., Lickel B. (in print). Guilt, shame, and anti-war action in an authoritarian country at war. Political Psychology. Preprint: https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/9pa5x

Grigoryan L., Ponizovskiy V.A. (2018). The three facets of national identity: Identity dynamics and attitudes toward immigrants in Russia. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 59, 403–427.

Grigoryan L., Schwartz S.H. (2021). Values and attitudes towards cultural diversity: Exploring alternative moderators of the value-attitude link. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 24(6), 966–981.

Information About the 2024 ISPP Annual Meeting

ECC Mentoring Luncheon

We are thrilled to announce that ISPP will once again be hosting the Mentoring Luncheon event at the 2024 ISPP Annual Conference in Santiago, Chile! This luncheon, a staple of our conference, is organized annually to facilitate one-to-one meetings between early career scholars and leading academics and researchers in their field. One of the main goals of this event is to facilitate long-term connections, for career development and research advice beyond the individual’s supervisors at their respective institution. This event has attracted increasing numbers of participants over the years, as emerging scholars recognize the value of engaging with leading researchers who have volunteered to share their expertise and provide valuable guidance.

The Mentoring Luncheon will provide a casual and comfortable atmosphere for both mentors and mentees to engage in meaningful discussions. Mentees will have the opportunity to ask questions, seek advice, and network with established scholars. This session is a unique opportunity for early career researchers to gain insights into the latest developments and trends in political psychology, as well as receive personalized guidance on their own research projects.

Please note: This event can accommodate only 75 early career mentees and 20 mentors (95 total persons). Applying for the event upon registration for the conference does NOT guarantee participation in the Mentoring Luncheon event. Applicants are required to wait until receiving confirmation from the luncheon organizers.

We look forward to seeing you there!

Slieman Halabi & Erika Arias
Mentoring Program Coordinators

Early Career Scholars Roundtables

We are excited to offer two roundtables and one workshop at the upcoming annual meeting in Santiago. These events will provide valuable insights and practical advice on various topics relevant to early career political psychology researchers.

Roundtable: Navigating Opportunities and Challenges as Early Career Researchers

Are you a junior scholar facing challenges transitioning from your Ph.D. studies to a postdoc or assistant professorship? Our roundtable will bring together scholars from different career phases to discuss best practices regarding research, teaching, and publication strategies. Our panelists, who come from political science and psychology, will advise on promoting research, building a tenure application, social media use, blogging research, developing a personal website, managing Google Scholar, and more.

Roundtable: The Dissertation is Done, now What?

This roundtable of scholars and editors will provide advice on the publications of dissertations and research articles. The conversation will also include advice on when it’s ok to walk away from a publication and spark discussions on how promotion and tenure committees view projects coming out of the dissertation.

Workshop: How to Talk About Your Research

Do you struggle with framing your research in an engaging manner for different audiences? Our workshop is designed to help you master the art of elevator pitches. A panel of experts will discuss the challenges of framing interdisciplinary research, and participants will have a chance to role-play and practice how to speak about their research in an engaging manner.

We hope that these workshops will be beneficial for all attendees and help them succeed in their academic careers.

Mete Sefa Uysal & Fabian Neuner
Professional Development Coordinators

2024 ISPP Academy

Welcome to the 2024 ISPP Academy!

We’re thrilled to announce that this year’s ISPP Academy will be held in Santiago, Chile from July 1st to 3rd.

We will be welcoming approximately 60 fellows from around the world, representing various career stages, to join us this year. The diversity of both lecturers and participants is a significant aspect of our Academy, and we’re excited to foster a global community of political psychologists.

Our line-up of instructors includes renowned political psychologists from around the world: Molly Andrews (University College London), Jill Bradbury (University of the Witwatersrand), Kevin Durrheim (University of Johannesburg), Stanley Feldman (Stony Brook University), Monica Gerber Plüss (Universidad Diego Portales), Leonie Huddy (Stony Brook University), Joanne Miller (University of Delaware), David Redlawsk (University of Delaware), André Sales (Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo), and Salvador Sandoval (Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo).

The lectures and Q&A sessions will cover a wide range of substantive topics, including obedience, authoritarianism, resistance, group identities, information processing, and conspiracy theories.

The sessions will also cover topics in political psychology methods: Professor Andrews and Professor Bradbury will conduct a workshop on Narrative Theory Method; Professors Sales and Sandoval will discuss Multi-Method Researching in Latin American Political Psychology, and Kevin Durrheim will present Word Embeddings for Natural Language Analysis.

We are also excited to be hosting discussions led by Chris Federico (University of Minnesota), Ana Figueiredo (Universidad de O’Higgins), and Roberto Gonzalez (P. Universidad Católica de Chile) on issues related to professional development. They will cover topics such as navigating uncertainty in academia, doing interdisciplinary work in political psychology, and forging international academic collaborations.

To stay up-to-date on the Academy and follow the latest updates you can visit our website, https://ispp.org/resources/academy/, email theacademy@ispp.org, or follow the #ISPPAcademy hashtag on Twitter!

Gizem Arikan
Director of the ISPP Academy
Associate Professor, Trinity College Dublin

ECC on the Web

The ISPP invites you to stay engaged with the ECC online through the society’s Twitter (@PolPsyISPP), Facebook( https://fb.com/PolPsyISPP), Linkedin ( https://www.linkedin.com/in/intlsocpolpsych), blog ( https://ispp.org/category/ispp-blog/) and medium ( https://polpsyispp.medium.com/) sites. Stay up-to-date on conferences, publications, open positions, and discussions of interest to scholars in political psychology through our social various media!

We are always on the look-out for new and interesting articles to be featured in our ECC blog. Articles can range from communicating your research to a more general audience to writing about current social issues in the world through an interdisciplinary, political, sociological, and/or psychological lens. If you are willing to contribute, please get in touch with us through the e-mail address ecc@ispp.org.

Originally published at https://polpsyispp.medium.com on May 17, 2024.