Being a Fair Neighbor-Towards a Psychometric Inventory to Assess Fairness-Related Perceptions of Airports by Residents-Development and Validation of the Aircraft Noise-Related Fairness Inventory (fAIR-In).

Aircraft noise causes a variety of negative health consequences, and annoyance is a central factor mediating stress-related health risks. Non-acoustic factors play an important role in the experience of annoyance where the aspect of fairness is assumed to be a vital component. This paper describes the development of the Aircraft Noise-related Fairness Inventory (fAIR-In) and examines its factorial validity, construct validity and predictive validity. The development of the questionnaire included expert consultations, statements from airport residents and a large-scale online survey around three German airports (N = 1367). Its items cover distributive, procedural, informational and interpersonal fairness. Via mailshot, almost 100,000 flyers were sent out in more (>55 dB(A) Lden)- and less (≤55 dB(A) Lden)-aircraft-noise-exposed areas around Cologne-Bonn, Dusseldorf and Dortmund Airport. Thirty-two items were carefully selected considering reliability, theoretical importance and factor loading calculated via exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with all facets achieving high internal consistency (α = 0.89 to 0.92). The factorial validity, analyzed via a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), revealed that viewing distributive, procedural, informational and interpersonal fairness as distinct factors produced a better fit to the data than other categorizations with fewer factors. The fAIR-In shows adequate results in terms of construct validity and excellent results in terms of the predictive validity of annoyance by aircraft noise (r = -0.53 to r = -0.68), acceptance of airports and air traffic (r = 0.46 to r = 0.59) and willingness to protest (r = -0.28 to r = -0.46). The fAIR-In provides airport managers with a reliable, valid and easy-to-use tool to design, monitor and evaluate efforts to improve the neighborliness between an airport and its residents.

Psychological underpinnings of pandemic denial - patterns of disagreement with scientific experts in the German public during the COVID-19 pandemic.

We investigated pandemic denial in the general public in Germany after the first wave of COVID-19 in May 2020. Using latent class analysis, we compared patterns of disagreement with claims about (a) the origin, spread, or infectiousness of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and (b) the personal risk from COVID-19 between scientific laypersons (N = 1,575) and scientific experts (N = 128). Two groups in the general public differed distinctively from expert evaluations. The Dismissive (8%) are characterized by low-risk assessment, low compliance with containment measures, and mistrust in politicians. The Doubtful (19%) are characterized by low cognitive reflection, high uncertainty in the distinction between true and false claims, and high social media intake. Our research indicates that pandemic denial cannot be linked to a single and distinct pattern of psychological dispositions but involves different subgroups within the general population that share high COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and low beliefs in epistemic complexity.

Mapping political trust and involvement in the personality space-A meta-analysis and new evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Relations between the Big Five personality dispositions and individual differences in political trust and involvement in politics have been investigated in many studies. We aimed to systematically integrate these findings and further explore the correlations at different hierarchical levels of the Big Five and political trust and involvement. METHOD: We conducted a meta-analysis of 43 publications (N1  = 207,360 participants) and estimated latent correlations at different hierarchical levels using two additional samples (N2  = 988 and N3  = 795). RESULTS: The meta-analysis revealed substantial correlations between involvement and openness (+), extraversion (+), and neuroticism (-), but only small correlations between trust and the Big Five. We also found a substantial amount of inconsistency in findings across studies. Our additional analyses showed that (a) correlations with the Big Five were larger for higher-order factors of general political trust (as opposed to subdimensions such as trust in politicians) and general political involvement (as opposed to subdimensions such as political interest) and (b) correlational patterns within each Big Five domain differed across facets. CONCLUSION: Our analyses indicate that political involvement is more strongly linked to the Big Five than political trust. We discuss the theoretical and empirical relevance of hierarchical constructs.

Conservative bias, selective political exposure and truly false consensus beliefs in political communication about the 'refugee crisis' in Germany.

The rise of digital media has increased the opportunities for individuals to self-select political content online. This development has stimulated empirical research on how people select political information, especially when political beliefs are at stake. In the present paper, we tested a series of theory-derived assumptions about antecedents and consequences of selective exposure to confirmative political information and opinions in the digital arena. We conducted an online survey with German Internet users (N = 897, April 2016) and assessed political attitudes, media use and general beliefs in the context of the so-called "migration crisis". 28% of the participants in our sample reported exposure to a confirmative information environment. They are more likely to hear or read about political opinions on migration and political asylum that are similar to their own compared to cross-cutting content. We found no evidence for the assumption that the technological affordances of the Internet foster this form of selective political exposure. Instead, our analyses indicate that conservatism is a positive predictor of selecting confirmative information environments when it comes to migration and political asylum. We also gathered evidence that this relation is mediated by perceived threat and that selective political exposure is linked to truly false consensus beliefs. Our findings inform supply- and demand-side explanations of selective political exposure online. We discuss the relevance for psychological theories about the motivational underpinnings of selective exposure.

Aircraft Noise Distribution as a Fairness Dilemma-A Review of Aircraft Noise through the Lens of Social Justice Research.

Aircraft noise exposure is a health risk and there is evidence that noise annoyance partly mediates the association between noise exposure and stress-related health risks. Thus, approaches to reduce annoyance may be beneficial for health. Annoyance is influenced by manifold non-acoustic factors and perceiving a fair and trustful relationship between the airport and its residents may be one of them. The distribution of aircraft noise exposure can be regarded as a fairness dilemma: while residents living near an airport may seem to have some advantages, the majority of residents living under certain flight routes or in their immediate proximity suffer from the disadvantages of the airport, especially the noise. Moreover, a dilemma exists between the airport's beneficial economic impact for a region and the physical and psychological integrity of residents. Aircraft noise exposure through the lens of social justice research can help to improve our understanding of noise annoyance. Research indicates that the fairness perceptions of the parties involved can be enhanced by (a) improving individual cost-benefit ratios, (b) providing a fair procedure for deciding upon the noise distribution, and (c) implementing fair social interaction with residents. Based on the review of evidence from social justice research, we derive recommendations on how fairness aspects can be integrated into aircraft noise management with the purpose of improving the relationship between the airport and its residents, to reduce annoyance, and to enhance the acceptance of local aviation and the airport as a neighbor.

The effects of social identity threat and social identity affirmation on laypersons' perception of scientists.

Public debates about socio-scientific issues (e.g. climate change or violent video games) are often accompanied by attacks on the reputation of the involved scientists. Drawing on the social identity approach, we report a minimal group experiment investigating the conditions under which scientists are perceived as non-prototypical, non-reputable, and incompetent. Results show that in-group affirming and threatening scientific findings (compared to a control condition) both alter laypersons' evaluations of the study: in-group affirming findings lead to more positive and in-group threatening findings to more negative evaluations. However, only in-group threatening findings alter laypersons' perceptions of the scientists who published the study: scientists were perceived as less prototypical, less reputable, and less competent when their research results imply a threat to participants' social identity compared to a non-threat condition. Our findings add to the literature on science reception research and have implications for understanding the public engagement with science.

How Moral Threat Shapes Laypersons' Engagement With Science.

Laypersons' engagement with science has grown over the last decade, especially in Internet environments. While this development has many benefits, scientists also face the challenge of devaluation and public criticism by laypersons. Embedding this phenomenon in social-psychological theories and research on value-behavior correspondence, we investigated moral threat as a factor influencing laypersons' engagement with science. Across three studies, we hypothesized and found that moral values shape the way laypersons evaluate and communicate about science when these values are threatened in a given situation and central to people's self-concept. However, prior research on the underlying mechanism of moral threat effects cannot fully rule out value salience as an alternative explanation. To close this gap, we situationally induced value salience while varying the degree of moral threat (Study 3). Our findings indicate that moral threat amplifies the influence of moral values on laypersons' evaluation of science above and beyond value salience.

Reflexive intergroup bias in third-party punishment.

Humans show a rare tendency to punish norm-violators who have not harmed them directly-a behavior known as third-party punishment. Research has found that third-party punishment is subject to intergroup bias, whereby people punish members of the out-group more severely than the in-group. Although the prevalence of this behavior is well-documented, the psychological processes underlying it remain largely unexplored. Some work suggests that it stems from people's inherent predisposition to form alliances with in-group members and aggress against out-group members. This implies that people will show reflexive intergroup bias in third-party punishment, favoring in-group over out-group members especially when their capacity for deliberation is impaired. Here we test this hypothesis directly, examining whether intergroup bias in third-party punishment emerges from reflexive, as opposed to deliberative, components of moral cognition. In 3 experiments, utilizing a simulated economic game, we varied participants' group relationship to a transgressor, measured or manipulated the extent to which they relied on reflexive or deliberative judgment, and observed people's punishment decisions. Across group-membership manipulations (American football teams, nationalities, and baseball teams) and 2 assessments of reflexive judgment (response time and cognitive load), reflexive judgment heightened intergroup bias, suggesting that such bias in punishment is inherent to human moral cognition. We discuss the implications of these studies for theories of punishment, cooperation, social behavior, and legal practice. (PsycINFO Database Record

Mutual long-term effects of school bullying, victimization, and justice sensitivity in adolescents.

In the present study, we investigate long-term relations between experiences of aggression at school and the development of justice sensitivity as a personality disposition in adolescents. We assessed justice sensitivity (from the victim, observer, and perpetrator perspective), bullying, and victimization among 565 German 12- to 18-year-olds in a one-year longitudinal study with two measurement points. Latent path analyses revealed gender differences in long-term effects of bullying and victimization on observer sensitivity and victim sensitivity. Experiences of victimization at T1 predicted an increase in victim sensitivity among girls and a decrease in victim sensitivity among boys. Bullying behavior at T1 predicted an increase in victim sensitivity among boys and a decrease in observer sensitivity among girls. We did not find long-term effects of justice sensitivity on bullying and victimization. Our findings indicate that experiences of bullying and victimization have gender-specific influences on the development of moral personality dispositions in adolescents.

Social identity threat motivates science-discrediting online comments.

Experiencing social identity threat from scientific findings can lead people to cognitively devalue the respective findings. Three studies examined whether potentially threatening scientific findings motivate group members to take action against the respective findings by publicly discrediting them on the Web. Results show that strongly (vs. weakly) identified group members (i.e., people who identified as "gamers") were particularly likely to discredit social identity threatening findings publicly (i.e., studies that found an effect of playing violent video games on aggression). A content analytical evaluation of online comments revealed that social identification specifically predicted critiques of the methodology employed in potentially threatening, but not in non-threatening research (Study 2). Furthermore, when participants were collectively (vs. self-) affirmed, identification did no longer predict discrediting posting behavior (Study 3). These findings contribute to the understanding of the formation of online collective action and add to the burgeoning literature on the question why certain scientific findings sometimes face a broad public opposition.

Proposal of a Nonlinear Interaction of Person and Situation (NIPS) model.

Marshall and Brown (2006) proposed a Traits as Situational Sensitivities (TASS) Model, which implies a systematic person × situation interaction. We review this model and show that it suffers from several limitations. We extend and modify the model in order to obtain a symmetric pattern of levels and effects for both person and situation factors. Our suggestions result in a general Nonlinear Interaction of Person and Situation (NIPS) Model. The NIPS model bears striking similarities to the Rasch model. Based on the symmetric nature of the NIPS model, we generalize the concept of weak and strong situations to individuals and propose the concepts of weak and strong persons. Finally, we discuss psychological mechanisms that might explain the NIPS pattern and offer ideas for future research.

Victim sensitivity and the accuracy of social judgments.

Recent theorizing on the relation between victim sensitivity and unethical behavior predicts that victim sensitivity is related to an asymmetrical focus on cues associated with untrustworthiness compared to cues associated with trustworthiness. This hypothesis and its consequences for the accuracy of social predictions are investigated in this article. In Study 1, participants rated the trustworthiness of 35 computer-animated faces that differed in their emotional expression. People high in victim sensitivity rated neutral and hostile faces more untrustworthy than people low in victim sensitivity, whereas no such effect was found for friendly faces. In Study 2, participants predicted the cooperativeness of 56 targets on the basis of minimal information. The accuracy of predictions was negatively related to victim sensitivity, and people high in victim sensitivity systematically underestimated targets' cooperativeness. Thus, the asymmetrical focus on untrustworthiness cues among victim-sensitive individuals seems to impair rather than improve their social judgments.

Of virtual victims and victimized virtues: differential effects of experienced aggression in video games on social cooperation.

Two experimental studies were used to investigate how interacting with aggressive virtual characters in video games affects trust and cooperation of players. Study 1 demonstrates that experiencing virtual aggression from a victim's perspective can impair players' investments in a subsequent common goods dilemma situation. This effect is mediated by reduced expectations of trust in the cooperativeness of interaction partners. In Study 2 the same effect was replicated by using a different cooperation task and by investigating the moderating role of justice sensitivity from a victim's perspective as a dispositional factor. Participants transferred less money to an unknown partner in a trust game after exposure to aggressive nonplayer characters in a video game. This effect was stronger for people high in victim sensitivity. Results of both studies can be interpreted in line with the sensitivity to mean intentions model and add to the body of research on violent media effects.