Browsing by Person "Winter, Kevin"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3

Belief in a norm‐consistent climate policy conspiracy theory and non‐normative collective action
(2025) Pummerer, Lotte; Ditrich, Lara; Winter, Kevin; Sassenberg, Kai; Pummerer, Lotte; University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany; Ditrich, Lara; Leibniz‐Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Germany; Winter, Kevin; University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany; Sassenberg, Kai; ZPID—Leibniz Institute for Psychology, Trier, Germany
Believing in conspiracy theories is connected to support for non‐normative collective action. One explanation might be that this is due to both being non‐normative. Alternatively, it might be the case that non‐normative action appears justified based on what conspiracy theories alleging harm to a personally relevant group due to powerholders’ secret actions imply about social reality. To test this assumption, we focus on the belief in a norm‐consistent (i.e., popular and plausible) climate policy conspiracy theory alleging that powerful groups (i.e., politicians and the business sector) act without public oversight, leading to climate policies that suit their interests but are harmful to the public. Across three studies—one using a quota‐based German sample and two preregistered replications (Ntotal = 1257)—we investigate how the belief in such a theory relates to the endorsement of non‐normative collective action, and test whether this relationship also emerges for the belief in a norm‐inconsistent (i.e., implausible and unpopular) climate policy conspiracy theory suggesting a similar social reality (Study 3). Our data show that beliefs in both norm‐consistent and norm‐inconsistent climate policy conspiracy theories correlate positively with support for non‐normative collective action, while only the belief in a norm‐consistent climate policy conspiracy theory was related to normative collective action. In contrast, a stronger predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories (i.e., conspiracy mentality), albeit positively correlated with belief in a norm‐consistent climate policy conspiracy theory, was related to lower support for non‐normative collective action serving climate protection.
Change by (almost) all means: The role of conspiracy mentality in predicting support for social change among the political left and right
(2023) Winter, Kevin; Pummerer, Lotte; Sassenberg, Kai
Right-wing movements across the globe call for system-changing actions. This development contradicts the typically assumed resistance to change among the political right. Many of these movements use conspiracist rhetoric and, thus, we reasoned that conspiracy mentality might be associated with the striving for system change—especially on the political right. In four cross-sectional studies in Germany (one nationally quota-balanced, one preregistered; total N = 1539) we found that high conspiracy mentality was related to support for social change among the right and to support for reactionary social change among the left. Support for change among those high in conspiracy mentality was diminished when elected representatives (vs the population) were thought to drive social change. These results suggest that both right wingers and left wingers high in conspiracy mentality support change in ways that are seemingly incompatible with their political orientation.
Intraindividual conflicts reduce the polarization of attitudes
(2024) Sassenberg, Kai; Winter, Kevin
Societies are increasingly divided about political issues such as migration or counteracting climate change. This attitudinal polarization is the basis for intergroup conflict and prevents societal progress in addressing pressing challenges. Research on attitude change should provide an answer regarding how people might be persuaded to move away from the extremes to take a moderate stance. However, persuasive communication often most strongly affects those who hold a moderate attitude or are undecided. More importantly, barely any research has explicitly aimed at mitigating extreme attitudes and behavioral tendencies. Addressing this gap, this article summarizes research demonstrating that (different types of) intraindividual conflicts might be a means to mitigate polarized attitudes. Goal conflicts, cognitive conflicts, counterfactual thinking, and paradoxical thinking facilitate cognitive flexibility. This, in turn, seems to initiate the consideration of alternative stances and mitigate the polarization of attitudes. We discuss the limitations of the existing research and the potential of this approach for interventions.