ISPP Early Career Committee Newsletter — Issue II, 2023

Welcome to our ISPP ECC Newsletter!!

For Issue 2, 2023, we’ve continued with our previous format. Rather than having the full newsletter sent to your email (which can be rather long), you can now 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!

Chair’s Address

Dr. Myrto Pantazi (University of Amsterdam — Université libre de Bruxelles)

Dear ISPP Early Career Colleagues,

Welcome to the first newsletter of this academic year. I am honoured and humbled by the opportunity to chair the ISPP Early Career Committee in these troubled times, which are unfortunately marked by extreme violence, tragic loss of human lives and perpetual creation of trauma – physical as well as psychological. Besides the toll in human lives and suffering, the past couple of months have also been marked by increased political polarization across the globe. Outside but also within our academic community, the space for civil and meaningful exchange of opinions and viewpoints appears to be shrinking and freedom of expression encounters serious threats.

The topic of this newsletter–Political (in)tolerance—could not have been timelier, and I would like to wholeheartedly thank Jessie Gale and Andrea Correa Chica, our old and new ECC Newsletter officers respectively, for nicely curating it. I would also like to thank our Newsletter contributors who agreed to offer their valuable insights on the theme of Political (in)tolerance, and, hopefully, provide some actionable advice to our community in this turbulent period.

The ECC is committed to advancing and advocating for the interests and rights of Early Career Scholars working on Political Psychology – and hopefully helping them navigate these early career years, which can be rich and hopeful, but also challenging. As a first step to this effort, I would like to extend a somewhat belated but warm “welcome” to a new generation of ECC officers, who are committed to contributing positively to the early career scholars' community, Erika Arias, Andrea Correa Chica, and Mete Sefa Uysal, and a special welcome to our new Chair-Elect, Boglarka Nyul.

I would also like to express my continuous gratitude to the ECC officers currently traversing their second year, Islam Borinca, Jessie Gale, Slieman Halabi, Fabian Neuner, and Ruri Takizawa. I believe I speak on behalf of the entire ISPP when I say that your personal investement is greatly appreciated and leaves a much-needed positive imprint on our academic community.

Last but not least I’d like to personally salute the ECC Chair Ex-Officio, Tijana Karic, and to thank her on both a personal and professional level. Under her chairmanship, a number of succesful ECC activities were organised last year. Next to the series of early career events that took place during the Annual Meeting in Montreal, a series of online events were offered to early career ISPP members throughout the year.

In the 2023-2024 academic year, we plan to continue this tradition. The Annual Meeting in Chile will feature the Mentoring Luncheon and Early Career roundtables full of professional development tips. Once again, the ECC and the ISPP will do their best to financially support early career scholars through our travel awards scheme, based on criteria of research excellence and diversity, so make sure to submit your abstracts by the deadline ( *today*)!

We are also busy planning a number of online activities to take place in the months leading to the annual meeting, with the purpose of stimulating exchanges around topical Political Psychology issues and of supporting and promoting early career scholars and their research. We will also soon open a call for a new round of ECC blog series, dedicated to showcasing Political Psychology work by early career scholars. As a new feature of this year’s edition, you will be able to present your work in languages other than English (alongside an English translation). Please, stay tuned for related calls and announcements, and we hope to cross paths with many of you through these initiatives.

I hope you enjoy this newsletter and that it can inspire us in our job of shedding light on the human experience –and of trying to improve this experience to the extent that we can.

Myrto Pantazi

ISPP-ECC Chair 2023-2024

2023 Issue II Theme:

Political (In)tolerance and Collective Action: Detonators or Responses to State Repression?

By Dr. Adriana Acosta Ramos (Universidad Popular del Cesar)

Although participation in collective action has historically been of high interest to political psychology (Ulug et al., 2022; van Stekelenburg et al, 2011), in recent years it has gained even more relevance. Until 2019, prior to the onset of the pandemic, protests increased worldwide by an annual rate of 11.5% (Ortiz et al, 2022; Brannen, 2022). Nevertheless, the repression exercised by governments to contain and deter such mobilization, allowing those in power to maintain social order, also increased during these events (Steinert-Threlkeld et al, 2021).

Intuitively, one might think that state repression can discourage collective action, but there is growing evidence that its effects can be varied. Recent cases of sustained mobilization despite (and in response to) repression have been evident in different regions, including the prolonged and massive protests in Hong Kong, marked by violent clashes with police using colonial-era riot control tactics (Purbrick, 2019). Furthermore, the “gilets jaunes” or yellow vests movement in France is notable not only for its demands but also for the strategies implemented by protesters, the duration of mobilization, and importantly, the clashes with police (Kipfer, 2019).

Sustained large-scale mobilizations are also evident in various Latin American countries, despite facing severe repression by democratic governments (Badilla et al., 2022; Lissardy, 2019). Notable instances include recent mobilizations in Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Chile (CNN, 2019).

In 2019, in Bolivia, amid a post-electoral crisis following allegations of fraud in the general elections and the resignation of then-President Evo Morales, massive demonstrations occurred. During this time, there were reports of excessive and unnecessary use of force by the National Police and the Armed Forces.

In 2019 and 2021, Colombia witnessed substantial mobilizations in response to labor and pension reforms that would restrict benefits for existing recipients, coupled with a tax reform that would negatively impact the middle class. These occurrences led to the 2021 national strike, which was recognized as the longest in the country’s history and which drew widespread condemnation from both the Colombian population and the international community. This criticism stemmed from the excessive use of police force during the demonstrations, resulting in numerous fatalities and prompting official complaints from Colombia’s Ombudsman’s Office and international organizations (Díaz-Guevara, 2021).

In 2022, in Ecuador, a mobilization led by the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities emerged in protest against the policies of the Guillermo Lasso government. During this period, cases of harassment and disproportionate use of force by authorities were reported.

Furthermore, in late 2022, Peru experienced a government crisis involving an attempted self-coup, the impeachment and arrest of President Pedro Castillo, the dissolution of Congress, and the establishment of an emergency government. This turbulent period spurred widespread mobilizations, met with excessive use of force by security bodies.

Understanding these movements throughout Latin America offers valuable insights into political psychology research and its applications, in particular concerning the relationship between collective action and repression. Let’s take some recent research conducted in Chile as an illustration.

The Case of Chile

The case of Chile is, indeed, also representative of large-scale demonstrations and acts of violence reported between 2019 and 2020. The triggering event in this context was a subway fare increase in Santiago to which high school students responded with fare evasion. The number of fare evaders increased, leading to incidents within the metro that resulted in clashes with the security forces. Over the following days, the protests, lacking defined leaders, drew in broad segments of society across the country and highlighted deeper issues such as the high cost of living, low pensions, healthcare costs, and a widespread rejection of the political class and the country’s constitution. For more than five months, numerous mobilizations and different types of collective actions were carried out such as protests, traffic cuts, barricades, and scratches on the city walls, among others (Moyano-Díaz et al, 2021; Salas et al, 2019).

The excessive and disproportionate use of violence, a high number of injuries, and allegations of human rights violations were part of the context of mobilizations during this social upheaval. The United Nations Human Rights Office Report (2019) detailed allegations of torture, ill-treatment and sexual violence against detainees during demonstrations from October 18 to December 6, 2019. The report mentions over 28,000 detentions, documents 113 cases of torture and ill-treatment, 24 cases of sexual abuse, and approximately 350 people suffering eye or facial injuries (UN, 2019).

Importantly, in our research conducted among university students who participated in the social outburst in Chile in 2019, we found that the perception of police repression generated anger among participants, which in turn predicted participation in collective action. This is an example of a situation in which repression fueled rather than discouraged collective action, via a key emotion which we know drives collective action: anger.

Political psychologists agree that our current shared scientific understanding of the nature and dynamics of the relationship between protests and government repression, along with the underlying psychosocial mechanisms involved, is limited (Uluğ et al., 2022). While there is consensus that repression can either deter or encourage protests, there remains a lack of agreement on the mechanisms involved in this relationship (Bellin, 2012; Lawrence, 2017; Honari, 2018). In addition to key emotions like anger, it is crucial for future research to further examine these mechanisms, in contexts where collective action occurs clearly in conjunction with repression.

Given our role as Political Psychologists, it becomes imperative for us to actively contribute to generate evidence that permits us to improve the public policies related to protest management and reassessing existing protocols. Furthermore, we carry the responsibility of fostering awareness regarding the constitutional right to protest and the recognition of collective demands in the face of injustice.

Indeed, continued progress in studying the relationship between repression and participation in collective actions is crucial, and examining political contexts like those in Latin America may be particularly valuable for advancing this research. This entails recognizing the collective agency of individuals and acknowledging the diverse ways in which repression is perceived and experienced. Research on this topic, in these contexts, holds promise for political psychology, offering insights that can identify mechanisms for preventing the escalation of political intolerance.

References

Badilla, M., Clark, J. R., y Mason, R. (2022). Heritage from below in Latin America: Urban protests and the struggle for Human Rights. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 113, 89–102.

Bellin, E. (2012). Reconsidering the robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East: Lessons from the Arab Spring. Comparative Politics, 44(2), 127–149.

Brannen, S. (7 de abril de 2020). Will COVID-19 End the Age of Mass Protests?. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-covid-19-end-age-mass-protests

CNN Español. (22 de noviembre de 2019). ¿Primavera Latinoamericana? 2019, un año de protestas en la región. CNN. https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2019/11/22/primavera-latinoamericana-2019-un-ano-de-protestas-en-la-region/

Díaz-Guevara, H. (2021). Comentarios para una historia crítica del presente: el Paro Nacional de abril de 2021 en Colombia como acontecimiento. Cambios Y Permanencias, 12(1), 619–645.

Honari, A. (2018). From ‘the effect of repression’ toward ‘the response to repression’. Current Sociology, 66(6), 950–973.

Kipfer, S. (2019). What colour is your vest? Reflections on the yellow vest movement in France. Studies in Political Economy, 100(3), 209–231.

Lawrence, A. K. (2017). Repression and activism among the Arab Spring’s first movers: evidence from Morocco’s February 20th Movement. British Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 699–718.

Lissardy, G. (24 de octubre de 2019). Protestas en América Latina: “Vamos a seguir con manifestaciones hasta que los pueblos crean que se gobierna para ellos y no para un puñado”. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-america-latina-50137163

Moyano-Díaz, E., Mendoza-Llanos, R. ., y Pineida, A. (2021). Exploración del malestar social: hacia una explicación psicosocial del estallido social chileno. Revista Sul-Americana De Psicologia, 9(2), 83–110.

Organización de las Naciones Unidas — ONU. (2019). Informe sobre la misión a Chile de la Oficina Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Derechos Humanos. ONU. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/CL/Report_Chile_2019_SP.pdf

Ortiz, I., Burke, S., Berrada, M., y Saenz Cortés, H. (2022). World Protests: A Study of Key Protest Issues in the 21st Century. Springer Nature.

Purbrick, M. (2019). A report of the 2019 Hong Kong protests. Asian Affairs, 50(4), 465–487.

Salas, G., Urzúa, A., Larraín, A., Zúñiga, C., Cornejo, M., Sisto, V., … y Pérez-Salas, C. (2019). Manifiesto por la Psicología en Chile: A propósito de la revuelta del 18 de Octubre 2019. Terapia Psicológica, 37(3).

Steinert-Threlkeld, Z. C., Chan, A. M., y Joo, J. (2022). How state and protester violence affect protest dynamics. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 798–813.

Uluğ, Ö. M., Chayinska, M., y Tropp, L. R. (2022). Conceptual, methodological, and contextual challenges in studying collective action: Recommendations for future research. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 29(1).

van Stekelenburg, J., Klandermans, B., y Van Dijk, W. W. (2011). Combining motivations and emotion: The motivational dynamics of protest participation. Revista de Psicología Social, 26(1), 91–104.

Advice Column

Critical Discourse as Key to Tolerance in Political Psychology

By Dr. Magdalena Bobowik (University of the Basque Country / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea)

In the academic realm, particularly within the field of political psychology, political (in)tolerance poses a significant challenge. Political tolerance, accepting the expression of ideas or viewpoints that one disagrees with, is essential for a thriving democracy and innovation in a diverse world (Sullivan et al., 1979). However, at the heart of this issue there is a paradox: critical thinking, which involves questioning existing doctrines, is commonly discouraged and sometimes penalized. Such intolerance not only hampers progress in research, but also perpetuates power imbalances and muffles marginalized voices.

I would like to start with providing two examples from the classroom. Some years back, a dear colleague and I exposed criminology students, some aspiring or active law enforcement officers, to a Basque Government report investigating allegations of police torture within the Basque Country. This activity challenged the existing doctrines by asking a question: Does the police protect their citizens? During one session, a student officer, disturbed by the content, abruptly left the classroom. Yet, he returned for subsequent classes and ultimately sent us a letter at the end of the course expressing gratitude for the chance to confront and re-evaluate his societal viewpoints.

In a contrasting scenario, within a master’s course on political violence, predominantly attended by left-wing activists, we ensure the narrative remains multifaceted as well. We challenge cognitive inflexibility, for instance, by underscoring that police officers (not to be confused with the police as an institutionalized power structure) are potentially victims of systemic violence of law enforcement structures that normalize or even mandate using violence. While these discussions often provoke a defensive reaction, they ultimately prove constructive, as they encourage the development of perspective-taking and empathy.

These educational intervention examples serve to spotlight and challenge entrenched biases, which are often even more deeply rooted and have greater ramifications among senior academics and those wielding authority within university hierarchies. Such individuals frequently possess the power to influence curriculum and institutional culture, potentially perpetuating these biases.

Adopting a multifaceted and flexible perspective, yet aware of power asymmetries, is vital in socio-political academic discussions. However, academic freedom is often celebrated in theory but constrained in practice by the institutions that should champion it. Specifically, the academic sphere has recently witnessed a surge in polarization due to divergent responses to the severe human rights violations in Gaza. The fear felt by academics about critically speaking out is indicative of a broader climate of intolerance that silences dissent and stifles debate. The consequences for those who contest established discourses have been troubling and continue to impact scholars globally, from subtle censorship to explicit career threats.

The combination of fear and reprisals forms a dangerous mix because, for the most part, those who dare to raise their voice against systemic injustice are those who have already suffered and continue to suffer oppression. This situation is alarming because it perpetuates a cycle in which those groups that should be heard and protected are silenced and punished. Such a hostile environment reinforces existing power structures and hinders progress towards a more just and equal society.

For early-career academics, this landscape can feel particularly daunting. At this stage, many are still looking to consolidate their position, establish their voice, and gain recognition in an environment that can often be intimidating and highly competitive. It is in these moments that the academic community must come together, offering solidarity and support to those who may feel overwhelmed by the weight of political intolerance. In this scenario, it is difficult to offer advice, yet three essential points stand out.

First, amid the difficult times we navigate, it is crucial to keep the safeguarding of human rights at the heart of our mission in political psychology. Political psychologists can amplify their impact by integrating human rights education in their curricula, engaging with affected communities, participating in public discussions, and building networks with other disciplines.

Second, cognitive flexibility — embracing various approaches to addressing a situation and being flexible in new circumstances — and intellectual humility — or recognizing our knowledge’s limits — also foster open-mindedness and tolerance toward others (Zmigrod et al., 2020). Hence, being willing to adjust our thinking can help us become more tolerant.

Lastly, for us psychologists, whose mission is to comprehend the human experience, attending to our own humanity is paramount. Sharing personal experiences is highly effective in promoting tolerance for divergent viewpoints (Kubin et al., 2021). Personal experiences seem to resonate more than facts, a phenomenon particularly pertinent in today’s era of “post-truth.” We need to create safe spaces for recognizing our personal emotions, disclosing experiences, self-care, introspection, and connection with others beyond the professional. Academia should not overshadow our humanity but should instead enrich and celebrate it.

References:

Kubin, E., Puryear, C., Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2021). Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(6), e2008389118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2008389118

Sullivan, J. L., Piereson, J., & Marcus, G. E. (1979). An Alternative Conceptualization of Political Tolerance: Illusory Increases 1950s–1970s. American Political Science Review, 73(3), 781–794. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955404

Zmigrod, L. (2020). The role of cognitive rigidity in political ideologies: Theory, evidence, and future directions. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.016

Kudos Column

By Dr. Hanna Szekeres (Eötvös Loránd University)

At this year’s ISPP, I was honored to receive the Best Dissertation Award for my thesis on confronting prejudice, which I conducted under the supervision of Tamar Saguy (Reichman University, IL), Anna Kende (Eotvos Lorand University, HU), and Eran Halperin (Hebrew University, IL). I would like to express my gratitude to the selection committee for recognizing my work. It is an honor to be chosen among such talented and brilliant young scholars in the field.

In my thesis work, I investigated the negative intergroup costs of failure to confront prejudice, focusing on bystanders who are not the target of prejudice, and analyzed potential psychological–moral messages that could motivate bystanders to speak up. To do so, we conducted studies in the US and in Hungary, in various intergroup contexts where the outgroup minority was either African-American, Muslim-American, or Latin-American (US), and Roma or Jewish (Hungary). To test actual confronting, I designed an online behavioral paradigm, where participants believed they were witnessing prejudice and discrimination against an outgroup minority and had an opportunity to confront the perpetrator. In our first study, I tested the impact of failure to confront prejudice on the intergroup attitudes of the bystander. We found that those who did not confront the perpetrator, albeit with an opportunity to do so, subsequently endorsed more negative outgroup attitudes compared to their initial attitudes and compared to control groups — likely in order to justify and reconcile (e.g., cognitive dissonance) with prior inaction. In our second study, I tested the longer-term impact of a moral mindset intervention. We found that a moral loss framing (vs. moral gain framing or control group) increased confronting tendencies among those who are morally committed to non-prejudice (possibly due to one’s desire to safeguard a moral self-concept).

This research and follow-up work were published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, and in Nature’s Scientific Reports. I continue to conduct research on prejudice confrontation, as well as collective action and prejudice-reduction interventions in the lab and in the field. My work has been focused on discrimination towards Roma people, the largest ethnic minority in Europe, who nevertheless attract little attention in mainstream media, academia or in policy making.

ISPP has played a pivotal role in shaping my professional journey. It attended the ISPP conference in Roma in 2014 where I gave my very first conference presentation, and over the years, I had the privilege of presenting my thesis research in Lisbon in 2019 and in Athens in 2022. Additionally, I had the opportunity to attend the ISPP summer academy in Lisbon. These events offered stimulating conversations, insightful talks, and the chance to forge meaningful connections with peers and researchers who greatly influenced and inspired my academic path.

Currently, I am an Assistant Professor at Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, and I will soon start my postdoc at the University of Amsterdam as a MSCA fellow.

In the midst of the complex challenges our world confronts today (war, violence, discrimination, and climate change), our collective research efforts should continue to provide valuable insights and solutions. As scholars, we should remain committed to understanding and tackling such struggles and challenges, offering a glimpse of a future hopefully marked by solidarity and inclusivity.

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.