On the Attitudinal Consequences of Being Mindful: Links Between Mindfulness and Attitudinal Ambivalence.

A series of studies examined whether mindfulness is associated with the experience of attitudinal ambivalence. Studies 1A and 1B found that mindful individuals expressed greater comfort holding ambivalent views and reported feeling ambivalent less often. More mindful individuals also responded more positively to feelings of uncertainty (as assessed in Study 1B). Study 2 replicated these effects and demonstrated that mindful individuals had lower objective and subjective ambivalence across a range of attitude objects but did not differ in attitude valence, extremity, positivity/negativity, strength, or the need to evaluate. Study 3 showed that the link between greater ambivalence and negative affect was buffered by mindfulness, such that there was no link between the amount of ambivalence and negative affect among more mindful individuals. The results are discussed with respect to the benefits of mindfulness in relation to ambivalence and affect.

The collective origins of valued originality: a social identity approach to creativity.

Prevailing approaches to individual and group creativity have focused on personal factors that contribute to creative behavior (e.g., personality, intelligence, motivation), and the processes of behaving creatively and appreciating creativity are understood to be largely unrelated. This article uses social identity and self-categorization theories as the basis for a model of creativity that addresses these lacunae by emphasizing the role that groups play in stimulating and shaping creative acts and in determining the reception they are given. We argue that shared social identity (or lack of it) motivates individuals to rise to particular creative challenges and provides a basis for certain forms of creativity to be recognized (or disregarded). Empirical work informed by this approach supports eight novel hypotheses relating to individual, group, and systemic dimensions of the creativity process. These also provide an agenda for future creativity research.

What are we fighting for?: the effects of framing on ingroup identification and allegiance.

Two studies were conducted examining the impact of framing on ingroup identification and allegiance in the context of international conflicts. The first study was carried out among British students at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan (N = 69). Perceptions of the war were manipulated by varying the frame that determined whether the war was perceived as positive and just or negative. Participants provided with a positive frame on the war identified more with their ingroup (Britain), and displayed higher allegiance to the United States than when given a negative frame. These findings were replicated in a second study conducted in the context of the second Iraq war (N = 51). Discussion focuses on the way in which framing affects perceptions of intergroup relations and the relationship between self, ingroup and out-group(s).

Social identity and the recognition of creativity in groups.

This paper develops an analysis of creativity that is informed by the social identity approach. Two studies are reported that support this analysis. Study 1 (N=73) manipulated social identity salience and the content of group norms. The group norm was either conservative (i.e. promoted no change) or progressive (i.e. promoted change). When social identity was salient and the group norm was conservative, a non-novel proposal was perceived to be more creative. Study 2 (N=63) manipulated social norms and identity relevance. Results showed that while social norms influenced perceptions of creativity, identity relevance influenced positivity but not perceptions of creativity. These findings support the idea that perceptions of creativity are grounded in the normative content of group membership and self-categorization processes.

When group members admit to being conformist: the role of relative intragroup status in conformity self-reports.

Five studies examined the hypothesis that people will strategically portray the self as being more group influenced the more junior they feel within the group. Among social psychologists (Study 1), ratings of self-conformity by group members were greater when the status of the participant was low than when it was high. These effects were replicated in Studies 2, 3, and 4 in which relative intragroup status was manipulated. In Study 3, the authors found junior group members described themselves as more conformist than senior members when they were addressing an ingroup audience, but when they were addressing an outgroup audience the effect disappeared. Furthermore, junior members (but not senior members) rated themselves as more conformist when they were led to believe their responses were public than when responses were private (Study 5). The discussion focuses on the strategic processes underlying low-status group members' self-reports of group influence and the functional role of conformity in groups.