Inclusionary and Exclusionary Preferences: A Test of Three Cognitive Mechanisms

Identifying Cognitive Mechanisms Targeted for Treatment Development in Schizophrenia: An Overview of the First Meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Treatment Research to Improve Cognition in Schizophrenia Initiative

Communicating About Mental Illness: What Works, What Doesn’t?

Americans have a strong preference for multilateral foreign policies over unilateral foreign policies. But do Americans know their own preferences? Data from a national survey show wide misperceptions of public opinion on foreign policy. While Americans strongly prefer multilateral policies, they overestimate public support for unilateral policies. For example, while only 23 percent of respondents agreed that the more important lesson of September 11 is that the United States should work alone to fight terrorism rather than work with other countries, respondents estimated that almost 50 percent of Americans endorsed this view. Moreover, misperceptions of public opinion were related to subsequent judgments of specific policies. For example, respondents who incorrectly perceived the unilateral view as the majority view were 1.84 times more likely to support a presidential decision to invade Iraq without the approval of the United Nations (UN) Security Council than respondents who correctly perceived the unilateral view as the minority view. Misperceptions of public opinion were also associated with the belief that the current foreign policy reflects the opinions of the American people. This belief in the legitimacy of the foreign policy was as strong a predictor of support for specific unilateral policies as respondents' attitudes

BackgroundAlthough lockdown and mandatory quarantine measures have played crucial roles in the sharp decrease of the number of newly confirmed/suspected COVID-19 cases, concerns have been raised over the threat that these measures pose to mental health, especially the mental health of vulnerable groups, including pregnant women. Few empirical studies have assessed whether and how these control measures may affect mental health, and no study has investigated the prevalence and impacts of the use of eHealth resources among pregnant women during the COVID-19 outbreak.ObjectiveThis study investigated (1) the effects of lockdown and mandatory quarantine on mental health problems (ie, anxiety and depressive symptoms), (2) the potential mediation effects of perceived social support and maladaptive cognition, and (3) the moderation effects of eHealth-related factors (ie, using social media to obtain health information and using prenatal care services during the COVID-19 pandemic) on pregnant women in China.MethodsAn online cross-sectional survey was conducted among 19,515 pregnant women from all 34 Chinese provincial-level administrative regions from February 25 to March 10, 2020.ResultsOf the 19,515 participants, 12,209 (62.6%) were subjected to lockdown in their areas of residence, 737 (3.8%) were subjected to mandatory quarantine, 8712 (44.6%) had probable mild to severe depression, 5696 (29.2%) had probable mild to severe anxiety, and 1442 (7.4%) had suicidal ideations. Only 640 (3.3%) participants reported that they used online prenatal care services during the outbreak. Significant sociodemographic/maternal factors of anxiety/depressive symptoms included age, education, occupation, the area of residence, gestational duration, the number of children born, complication during pregnancy, the means of using prenatal care services, and social media use for obtaining health information. Multiple indicators multiple causes modeling (χ214=495.21; P<.05; comparative fit index=.99; nonnormed fit index=.98; root mean square error of approximation=.04, 90% CI 0.038-0.045) showed that quarantine was directly and indirectly strongly associated with poor mental health through decreased perceived social support and increased maladaptive cognition (B=.04; β=.02, 95% CI 0.01-0.02; P=.001), while lockdown was indirectly associated with mental health through increased social support and maladaptive cognition among pregnant women (B=.03; β=.03, 95% CI 0.02-0.03; P=.001). Multigroup analyses revealed that the use of social media for obtaining health information and the means of using prenatal care services were significant moderators of the model paths.ConclusionsOur findings provide epidemiological evidence for the importance of integrating mental health care and eHealth into the planning and implementation of control measure policies. The observed social and cognitive mechanisms and moderators in this study are modifiable, and they can inform the design of evidence-based mental health promotion among pregnant women.

The onset of the 2020 global COVID-19 pandemic led to a marked increase in positive discussion of Universal Basic Income (UBI) in political and media circles. However, we do not know whether there was a corresponding increase in support for the policy in the public at large, or why. Here, we present three studies carried out during 2020 in UK and US samples. In study 1 (n = 802, April 2020), people expressed much stronger support for a UBI policy for the times of the pandemic and its aftermath than for normal times. This was largely explained by the increased importance they attached, in the pandemic context, to a system that is simple and efficient to administer, and that reduces stress and anxiety in society. In study 2 (n = 400, May 2020), we pitted UBI against a conditional targeted social transfer system. Preferences for UBI were stronger for pandemic times than for normal times. This was partially explained by a number of perceived advantages, such as simplicity of administration and suitability for a changing world. In study 3 (n = 397, September 2020), we found that the headline results of studies 1 and 2 persisted six months after the onset of the pandemic, albeit with attenuated effect sizes. Our results illustrate how a changing social and economic situation can bring about markedly different policy preferences, through changes in citizens’ perceptions of what is currently important.

Harsh treatment of others can reflect an underlying motivation to view the world as fair and just and also a dispositional tendency to believe in justice. However, there is a critical need to refine and expand existing knowledge, not only to identify underlying psychological processes but also to better understand how justice may be implicated in support for exclusionary policies. Across two studies, we show that support for policies that restrict immigrants is exclusively associated with thoughts about fair outcomes for other people (distributive justice for others). In Study 1, Americans' dispositional tendency to believe in distributive justice for others was associated with greater support for a policy proposing to further restrict immigrant job seekers' capacity to gain employment in the United States. In Study 2, we experimentally primed thoughts about justice in a sample of U.S. police officers. Support for a policy that mandated stricter policing of illegal immigration was strongest among officers who first thought about fair outcomes for other people, relative to other unique justice primes. Across both studies, distributive justice for others was associated with greater collective angst—perceived threat towards the future existence of Americans. Moreover, collective angst mediated the link between distributive justice for others and support for restrictive policies. Overall, this research suggests that thoughts about distributive justice for others can especially diminish compassion towards immigrants and other underprivileged groups via support for exclusionary policies. In addition, merely thinking about distributive justice for others may be sufficient to amplify social callousness.

BackgroundThere is a need to improve mental health policy in Canada to address the growing population burden of mental illness. Understanding support for policy options is critical for advocacy efforts to improve mental health policy. Our purpose was to describe support for population-level healthy public policies to improve mental health among policy influencers and the general public in Alberta and Manitoba; and, identify associations between levels of support and sociodemographic variables and relative to the Nuffield Bioethics Intervention Ladder framework.MethodsWe used data from the 2019 Chronic Disease Prevention Survey, which recruited a representative sample of the general public in Alberta (n = 1792) and Manitoba (n = 1909) and policy influencers in each province (Alberta n = 291, Manitoba n = 129). Level of support was described for 16 policy options using a Likert-style scale for mental health policy options by province, sample type, and sociodemographic variables using ordinal regression modelling. Policy options were coded using the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Intervention Ladder to classify support for policy options by level of intrusiveness.ResultsPolicy options were categorized as ‘Provide Information’ and ‘Enable Choice’ according to the Nuffield Intervention Ladder. There was high support for all policy options, and few differences between samples or provinces. Strong support was more common among women and among those who were more politically left (versus center). Immigrants were more likely to strongly support most of the policies. Those who were politically right leaning (versus center) were less likely to support any of the mental health policies. Mental health status, education, and Indigenous identity were also associated with support for some policy options.ConclusionsThere is strong support for mental health policy in Western Canada. Results demonstrate a gap between support and implementation of mental health policy and provide evidence for advocates and policy makers looking to improve the policy landscape in Canada.

Despite broad public support for gun safety policies, minimal policy implementation has occurred. To investigate factors that encourage greater private support for and public action on gun safety policy. Three studies were conducted: a public opinion survey (Study 1) was conducted from January 8 to 22, 2019, and 2 experiments (Studies 2 and 3) were conducted from August 27 to October 17, 2019, and April 15 to 21, 2020, respectively. Adults living in the US were eligible to participate in Studies 1 and 3. Students 18 years and older participating in a research experience program were eligible to participate in Study 2. Study 1 was administered online by Ipsos, a market research company. A nationally representative sample of 1000 US adults was obtained from Ipsos' online KnowledgePanel, of whom 508 completed the public opinion survey. For Study 2, which was conducted in a university laboratory, 354 participants were recruited from a university research pool, all of whom completed the study. Study 3 was administered online by the market research company YouGov, which identified 727 US gun owners from its opt-in panel, from which it constructed a census-matched sample of 400 participants. Participants read a statement about the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Content was manipulated as a 2 (corrective information vs no corrective information) × 2 (system changeable vs system not changeable) between-subjects factorial design with random assignment. The corrective information included polling data highlighting widespread support among gun owners for several gun safety policies. System changeable described gun safety policies passed by Florida's legislature. Main outcomes were support for gun safety policies and public disclosure of support. The 3 studies included a total of 1262 participants (Study 1: 508 participants; weighted mean [SD] age, 47.7 [17.5] years; 261.9 women [51.6%]; 82.5 Hispanic [16.2%] and 60.3 Black [11.9%]; Study 2: 354 participants; mean [SD] age, 20.0 [2.3] years; 232 women [65.9%]; 100 Asian [28.3%] and 37 Black [10.5%]; Study 3: 400 participants; weighted mean [SD] age, 52.1 [16.4] years; 187.3 women [46.8%]; 295.5 White [73.9%], 44.5 Hispanic [11.1%], and 32.4 Black [8.1%]). Study 1 found that 63% to 91% of gun owners and 83% to 93% of non-gun owners supported key gun safety policies, yet both groups significantly underestimated gun owners' support for these policies by between 12% and 31%. Studies 2 and 3 found that exposure to corrective information was associated with a small increase in support for 2 gun safety policies of between 4% and 15%, both in terms of participants' privately held beliefs and the beliefs they would be willing to share publicly. This survey study found that many US adults failed to recognize that most gun owners support key gun safety policies. Correcting this misperception was associated with greater private and public support for gun safety policy.

Despite risen awareness of human-made climate change, there are still gaps in knowledge about the precise nature and the impact of the climate crisis for many people. This paper investigates to what extent factual knowledge about climate change is linked to publics’ policy preferences regarding climate crisis measures. It expands on existing research by widening the focus beyond climate-specific policy and also investigates whether knowledge about the crisis is connected to preferences for greater state involvement in the economy structurally. Comparing representative survey results from eight European countries and the USA, this paper shows that climate-specific knowledge is indeed strongly linked to both—while greater formal education does not show strong associations or is even linked to a preference for the status quo in some countries. Important cross-country variations and the implications of emphasising climate specific knowledge in advocacy and policy contexts are discussed to demonstrate how enhancing public knowledge could increase support for transformative climate policies and broader economic change.

How did the great recession affect policy and partisan preferences in the most afflicted countries? We theorize the role of a previously under-emphasized source of preferences: the size and scope of one’s exposure to other individuals who have been exposed to the crisis. Contact with others who have economically suffered should be an additional channel for the crisis’ effects on policy preferences. We gathered data during the recession from a crisis-hit country, Spain, to measure the size of the respondent’s social networks in different ways and the impact of the crisis upon them. We also measured a battery of policy and political preferences (support for austerity, the euro, supranational institutions and new parties). We find strong associations between support for anti-status quo policies and anti-establishment parties and exposure to economic suffering within one’s social networks in ways that enrich our understanding of the process of preference formation in times of crisis.

Alignment between self- and perceived peer support for specific firearm policies: Results from a representative survey of adults in nine U.S. states.

Despite numerous documented benefits derived from pets among those who are socially marginalized, public attitudes often reflect a perception that people living in poverty should not be pet owners. Two studies assessed individual differences that might predict reactions to those living in poverty as a function of the presence or absence of a pet, and support for social service policies that enable or restrict access to pets based on financial means. Both studies involved online surveys assessing individual differences (social justice orientation, individualistic beliefs about poverty, identifying/empathy with others, and attitudes toward animals), and novel outcome measures assessing responses to a person requesting financial assistance from passersby and to social service policies regarding pets and people living in poverty. In study 1 (n = 212), when the hypothetical person asking for financial assistance was accompanied by a pet, participants expressed less suspicion of them, and the presence of a pet caused those low in social justice orientation to express more concern and give more money. Social justice orientation and attitudes toward animals were associated with greater support for policies that enable pet care and diminished support for policies that restrict pet access. Study 2 (n = 278) largely replicated study 1. In addition, two conditions made differentially salient the benefits of the human–pet relationship for either pet or human wellness (vs. a control condition). The salience of benefits to the pet increased support for enabling policies among those with lower social justice orientations; making salient the human or pet benefits similarly affected support for such policies among those who were less empathetic toward animals. The findings suggest that contextual cues can raise awareness among some individuals who might not otherwise be compassionate toward people in poverty with pets.

Attitudes towards social spending and the welfare state have been characterised by one of the longest standing and widest gender gaps. Past research suggests that parenthood deepens this divide further. Yet, the exact relationship between parenthood and support for social policies – and the gendered nature of this process – has been difficult to establish because it can vary across welfare policy areas and the age of the children, which past studies, relying on cross‐sectional data, has found difficult to unravel. Using panel data from the Swiss Household Panel, we examine individual level changes in fathers’ and mothers’ views towards specific welfare state policies. We find that individuals’ support for social spending fluctuates at different stages of parenthood, and that mothers’ demands differ from fathers’ in relation to care related but not in terms of educational spending. This implies that parents are not a homogeneous group that parties could target with uniform electoral pledges. As a result, building widespread electoral support for expanding a broad range of social investment policies is likely to be challenging in a context where, first and foremost, self‐interest appears to drive (or depress) individuals’ support for specific welfare state policies.

Governments worldwide are exploring policies aimed at promoting healthier and more sustainable dietary choices. This study examines the public acceptability of two promising yet controversial policy interventions: the introduction of a meat tax and the removal of meat subsidies. Drawing on existing literature about the impact of policies on food consumption, particularly meat, we analyse data from a multi-country survey conducted across five European countries. We employ ordered logistic models and latent cluster analysis to examine factors influencing respondents’ support for these policies. Our findings highlight the role of value-based, diet-related, and socio-demographic factors. Notably, respondents from Spain, Portugal, and the UK showed significantly greater support for these meat policies compared to Latvians and Czechs. Age emerged as a key factor, indicating an increasing likelihood of support for both policies among younger individuals. Moreover, environmental and egoistic values were associated with increased odds of support, while security concerns and hedonic values had the opposite effect. Neither income nor employment emerged as significant predictors. Our study underscores the complexity of public opinions towards meat policies and provides valuable insights for policymakers seeking to design effective strategies to promote healthier and more sustainable dietary behaviours in Europe.

This chapters turns to examining political outcomes and policy preferences that have previously been left out of mainstream discussion of Black politics and gender and American politics. Chapter 4 considers the influence of intersectional solidarity on public opinion. Using the Intersectional Politics Study, intersectional solidarity is found to be consistently and positively associated with support for policies that explicitly or implicitly benefit Black women. While intersectional solidarity can influence anyone’s willingness to support intersectionally marginalized groups, the findings demonstrate that intersectional solidarity has an especially large payoff when it comes to the attitudes of white men because, relative to Black men and women and white women, they are the group who is least likely to support these issues, and therefore have the largest potential for growth. In particular, the chapter examines the relationship between intersectional solidarity and support for addressing the pay gap, the Black maternal healthcare crisis, domestic violence, and Black LGBTQ+ youth homelessness. I also evaluate the relationship between intersectional solidarity and support for a policy that requires employers to have designated spaces for breastfeeding in the workplace. Doing so demonstrates that intersectional solidarity has a less influential relationship when it comes to addressing policies that affect broader marginalized groups as opposed to policies that specifically affect disadvantaged marginalized subgroups.