• Canada
• Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council close

There is an increasing imperative for psychologists and other behavioral scientists to understand how people behave on social media. However, it is often very difficult to execute experimental research on actual social media platforms, or to link survey responses to online behavior in order to perform correlational analyses. Thus, there is a natural desire to use self-reported behavioral intentions in standard survey studies to gain insight into online behavior. But are such hypothetical responses hopelessly disconnected from actual sharing decisions? Or are online survey samples via sources such as Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) so different from the average social media user that the survey responses of one group give little insight into the on-platform behavior of the other? Here we investigate these issues by examining 67 pieces of political news content. We evaluate whether there is a meaningful relationship between (i) the level of sharing (tweets and retweets) of a given piece of content on Twitter, and (ii) the extent to which individuals (total N = 993) in online surveys on MTurk reported being willing to share that same piece of content. We found that the same news headlines that were more likely to be hypothetically shared on MTurk were also shared more frequently by Twitter users, r = .44. For example, across the observed range of MTurk sharing fractions, a 20 percentage point increase in the fraction of MTurk participants who reported being willing to share a news headline on social media was associated with 10x as many actual shares on Twitter. We also found that the correlation between sharing and various features of the headline was similar using both MTurk and Twitter data. These findings suggest that self-reported sharing intentions collected in online surveys are likely to provide some meaningful insight into what content would actually be shared on social media.

Situated within the Simple View of Reading, this study examined the code-related (word reading) and oral language (receptive vocabulary, narrative comprehension, narrative production) skills that c...

Developmental theory on nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI; e.g., self-cutting without lethal intent) underscores that stressful life experiences may lead to heightened risk for NSSI, potentially by undermining individuals' emotion coping capacities. Given that the transition to university is often accompanied by new stressors for emerging adults, it is possible that stressors experienced during the university years may lead to heightened susceptibility for NSSI during this developmental period. Cross-sectional research supports a positive association between stressful experiences and NSSI among students; however, longitudinal research is needed to examine the direction of effects and explore potential mediating factors (i.e., emotion dysregulation). In the present study, university students (N = 1132; 70.5% female; mage = 19.11) reported on their stressful experiences in university, difficulties in emotion regulation, and NSSI each year for three consecutive years. Path analysis revealed a bidirectional association between stressful experiences and NSSI. Increased stressful experiences predicted increased risk for NSSI through emotion dysregulation, and NSSI predicted increased stressful experiences through emotion dysregulation. Overall, these findings provide new insight into the processes through which NSSI may be initiated and maintained, as well as elucidate the impacts of NSSI on emotion regulation and stressful life experiences in university.

What are the psychological consequences of the increasingly politicized nature of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States relative to similar Western countries? In a two-wave study completed early (March) and later (December) in the pandemic, we found that polarization was greater in the United States ( N = 1,339) than in Canada ( N = 644) and the United Kingdom. ( N = 1,283). Political conservatism in the United States was strongly associated with engaging in weaker mitigation behaviors, lower COVID-19 risk perceptions, greater misperceptions, and stronger vaccination hesitancy. Although there was some evidence that cognitive sophistication was associated with increased polarization in the United States in December (but not March), cognitive sophistication was nonetheless consistently negatively correlated with misperceptions and vaccination hesitancy across time, countries, and party lines. Furthermore, COVID-19 skepticism in the United States was strongly correlated with distrust in liberal-leaning mainstream news outlets and trust in conservative-leaning news outlets, suggesting that polarization may be driven by differences in information environments.

We argue that the preference for the merit principle is a separate construct from hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies (i.e., system justification beliefs, prejudice, social dominance orientation), including descriptive beliefs that meritocracy currently exists in society. Moreover, we hypothesized that prescriptive beliefs about merit should have a stronger influence on reactions to the status quo when hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies are weak (vs. strong). In 4 studies, participants' preference for the merit principle and hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies were assessed; later, the participants evaluated organizational selection practices that support or challenge the status quo. Participants' prescriptive and descriptive beliefs about merit were separate constructs; only the latter predicted other hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies. In addition, as hypothesized, among participants who weakly endorsed hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies, the stronger their preference for the merit principle, the more they opposed selection practices that were perceived to be merit violating but the more they supported practices that were perceived to be merit restoring. In contrast, those who strongly endorsed hierarchy-legitimizing ideologies were always motivated to support the status quo, regardless of their preference for the merit principle.

Many scholars have proposed that parent-child attachment security should favor child sleep. Research has yet, however, to provide convincing support for this hypothesis. The current study used objective measures of sleep and attachment to assess the longitudinal links between mother-child attachment security and subsequent sleep, controlling for child dependency. Sixty-two middle-class families (30 girls) were met twice, when children were 15 months (Wave 1; W1) and 2 years of age (Wave 2; W2). At W1, mother-child attachment was assessed with the observer version of the Attachment Q-Sort. At W2, children wore an actigraph monitor for 72 hr. Results indicated that children more securely attached to their mothers subsequently slept more at night and had higher sleep efficiency, and these predictions were not confounded by child dependency. These findings suggest a unique role for secure attachment relationships in the development of young children's sleep regulation, while addressing methodological issues that have long precluded consensus in this literature.

In the standard formulation, the Marxist theory of the state implies that socialism requires revolution: Reformist social policy generates capital flight and capital flight undermines reform. I show that this mechanism, while plausible, turns out to have little empirical merit. State theory correctly points to an “accumulation” function whereby capitalist states depend on revenue and must therefore worry about the reforms that undermine profitability. But this accumulation function has been overwhelmed, historically, by a more powerful “legitimation” function: Popular social expenditures in rich capitalist democracies tend to grow and only rarely decline, even during the so-called neoliberal period. This article considers both sides of this debate. First, I propose (and predict) a path to socialism by way of mushrooming social policy. And second, I argue that if revolution is the only hope for socialism, then socialism is off the table; the revolution must be betrayed.

Abstract This paper aims to unpack the empirical and theoretical complexity that surrounds ‘resilience’, with particular attention to its application to war-affected children and youth. We expand current conceptual frameworks to adopt a more inclusive and intergenerational approach that accounts for the added layers of national, global and intergenerational resilience, arguing for greater recognition of the shared or relational nature of resilience. We introduce a multidimensional model of resilience that integrates the macro- and micro-level to include resilience-enabling systems at the family, community, national, global and intergenerational levels. The purpose of this conceptual framework is to provide a more holistic and integrative model that combines both bottom-up and top-down approaches to cultivating resilience, highlighting the power of interconnections across interrelated systems and social structures. Using the case example of post-genocide Rwanda and the experiences of children born of genocidal rape, we apply our multidimensional model to illustrate concrete examples of resilience-enabling systems at the family, community, national, global and intergenerational levels. Our proposed multidimensional model as applied to youth born of genocidal rape in Rwanda reveals key gaps in their surrounding social ecological systems, highlighting the importance of coordinated and mutually-reinforcing efforts to engender resilience across all dimensions concurrently. We conclude with a set of policy and practice implications, directions for future research, and lessons-learned on how best to champion the resilience of this unique and important population of children.