2026-03-26
Nejla Asimovic, Ruth Ditlmann
Structured intergroup programs provide a unique opportunity for youth in divided societies to come together and engage in shared activities. This research examines what makes such programs effective, drawing on cross-sectional survey findings from youth participants ( N = 431) in an initiative that embeds intergroup contact within a sports program facilitated by the same global organization across Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Israel, and South Africa. Our hypotheses focus on the pivotal roles of cross-group friendships and empowerment in shaping intergroup contact intentions, ingroup-oriented reconciliation efforts, and self-efficacy development – outcomes crucial for bridging communities in divided societies. Using structural equation modeling, we find that program duration directly and indirectly predicts self-efficacy, whereas it predicts intergroup contact intentions and reconciliation efforts only indirectly through cross-group friendships and empowerment. Combining survey results with qualitative data, this paper highlights two important mechanisms for the success of structured intergroup contact programs and offers practical strategies for fostering them.
2025-12-19
Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska, Ann-Cathrin Coenen, Gabriela Gore-Gorszewska, Jonas R. Kunst, Weronika Kałwak, Katarzyna Jasko
Drawing on goal systems theory (Kruglanski et al., 2002), this preregistered study explored the relationships between political and non-political goals among individuals with varying levels of political engagement. We conducted 40 semi-structured qualitative interviews with activists, non-activists, and former activists from Poland and Norway. We identify three recurrent relationships between political and other life goals, such as work, relationships, health, and basic psychological needs: (1) suppression, where non-political goals eclipse activism or vice-versa; (2) conflict, experienced as chronic trade-offs that often precipitate burnout; and (3) facilitation, whereby non-political goals enable sustained engagement. These relationships manifest as four distinct goal structures. Activists typically displayed either a “juggling” structure that continuously balances multiple commitments, or a “political-dominant” structure in which the cause overrides alternative goals. Non-activists most often subordinated political aims, whereas former activists described a fluctuating “all-or-nothing” structure—initial single-minded commitment followed by strategic withdrawal when costs outweighed perceived impact. Cross-nationally, Polish participants reported more multi-issue activism and acute work–activism conflicts than Norwegians, potentially reflecting longer working hours and political dissatisfaction. Our findings corroborate goal systems theory by showing how dynamic configurations of goal relations underpin trajectories of engagement, disengagement and re-engagement.
2025-12-19
Rahul Sambaraju, Suryapratim Roy
In much of social psychology, citizenship has been examined and understood in terms of how it proceeds from nationhood and how various versions of nationhood can be mobilised to exclude others. In this paper, we deviate from this line of scholarship to identify and examine practices by which constructions of citizenship are developed to inform nation-formation. We examine how versions of territory, national belonging, and history are intertwined in the construction of citizenship through a discursive and rhetorical examination of debates on Indian citizenship at two momentous occasions for India: the drafting of India’s constitution (1946-50) and the Citizen Amendment Act 2019. Analysis shows that citizenship policies were evaluated in terms of whether they realised the rights and entitlements of Hindus to the territory of India outside of the Indian nation-state. The findings then show that belonging to a territory is a salient resource in negotiating citizenship, and this can in turn work to support or undermine the idea of a nation-state.
2025-12-19
Fernando Moreno-Montero
This article proposes a comprehensive taxonomy of the diverse types of “leftism”, grounded in historical and materialist analysis, to inform future comparative research on political systems and ideology. More specifically, it discusses (1) the taxonomic confusion over leftism and liberalism, (2) the plausible overlap between the liberal-conservative and left-right metaphors, (3) leftists as a distinct group versus liberals, (4) leftists as different groups from each other, and (5) the implications of the above for political, psychological research, and activism, in the hope of encouraging debate, advancing our understanding of social reality, and improving cooperation and conflict resolution.