Utopian thinking

Last updated

Utopia denotes an imagined ideal society that, though nonexistent in reality, is envisioned as a perfect habitat for its members. [1] The term gained widespread usage following the publication of Thomas More's 1516 book Utopia . [2] Building upon the work of sociologist Ruth Levitas, [1] social psychologists have tested the functions of utopian thinking among people. [2] [3] Utopia is fundamentally a cultural and psychological concept, existing solely as symbols within people's minds. [4] Empirical evidence supports the connections between utopian thinking and the three primary functions proposed by Levitas: criticism, change, and compensation. [2] Theoretical models have been developed linking utopian thinking to established social psychological concepts such as collective action and system justification. [5] [6]

Contents

Functions

Theoretical background

The term "utopia" gained widespread usage following the publication of Thomas More's book "Utopia" in 1516. [2] Nevertheless, the concept of an ideal society is evident in historical records predating the coining of the term. [7] Utopian visions are prevalent across diverse nations and communities, with content variations influenced by cultural differences. [8] [9] These utopian depictions have played pivotal roles in activism, art, political discourse, and philosophical texts. [5] Importantly, utopian imagery extends beyond specific domains, frequently surfacing in everyday conversations among ordinary individuals. [1] Extensive research has delved into the diversity and characteristics of utopian images within sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies. [10] [11] [12] Researchers have founded the Society for Utopian Studies in 1975, which publishes the multidisciplinary peer-reviewed academic journal on this topic, Utopian Studies.

Levitas postulated three primary functions of utopias, emphasizing that these idealized visions play various roles for individuals and society. [1] The first function is criticism, wherein the visualization of a utopian society highlights the deficiencies of the current societal structure. The act of contrasting the ideal with the present state of society provides a clear perspective on areas in need of improvement. The second function is change, serving as a motivating force that propels individuals to actively pursue the societal goals depicted in the utopian vision. Armed with a tangible image of a superior society, individuals can channel their efforts more effectively toward the abstract goal of societal improvement.[ citation needed ]

The third function is compensation, which introduces a somewhat divergent aspect. Individuals may find satisfaction in their imaginative utopian dreams, potentially leading to a reluctance to pursue actual change in reality. The psychological satisfaction derived from the imagination can inadvertently serve as a deterrent to tangible action. In summary, while utopian thinking is theorized to play a pivotal role in inspiring social action, there is a potential risk of individuals engaging in hedonic escapism, withdrawing from the real world into the comfort of their imaginative ideals.[ citation needed ]

Utopian thinking encompasses the mental act of envisioning an ideal society. [2] It is conceptualized as a form of collective self-regulation by Fernando and colleagues, extending the self-regulatory function of the ideal self to the collective action domain. [2] Self-discrepancy theory has unveiled that the ideal self's image can serve as motivation for regulating cognition, emotion, and behavior, driven by the desire to minimize the discrepancy between the ideal and actual self. [13] [14] Just as the ideal self can motivate individuals to pursue goals aligned with that ideal self concept, the mental representation of an ideal society has the potential to collectively motivate people toward shared objectives embedded in utopian visions. [2] In fact, prominent social psychologists specializing in social change have contended that alternative societal visions hold power to motivate the conversion of societal structures. [15] [16] The acknowledgment that the current societal configuration is not the sole possibility, coupled with the act of envisioning an alternative society with desired attributes, has been posited as a pivotal catalyst for social change, according to social identity theorists. [17]

Empirical evidence

In order to empirically explore the association between utopian thinking and its psychological functions, Fernando and colleagues devised a Utopianism scale, conducted correlational studies, and executed experimental studies. [2] Individuals' inherent tendencies toward engaging in utopian thinking were found to be connected to the criticism, change, and compensation functions. Those prompted to articulate "an ideal or best possible society which is hoped or wished for" exhibited heightened intentions to partake in citizenship behaviors compared to a control group, providing evidence for the correlation between utopian thinking and the change function. Those who depicted their utopian images also demonstrated reduced satisfaction with the current society, substantiating the postulated relationship between utopian thinking and the criticism function. However, the compensation function did not exhibit elevated levels in response to experimentally induced utopian thinking. The researchers posited that the connection between utopian thinking and the compensation function could be moderated by the perceived likelihood of success of collective action. This implies that individuals could lean more towards escapism when the prospect of societal change is perceived as low. Additionally, the researchers noted that the functions of utopian thinking, viewed as both an individual difference and a situational influence, might differ. Dispositional utopian thinking exhibited a stronger predictive link with change functions, while experimental utopian thinking did not predict compensation functions. In summary, a meta-analysis unveiled an overall positive impact of utopian thinking on criticism, change, and compensation, although the effect sizes varied across studies. [2]

To comprehend the mechanisms underlying the impact of utopian thinking on its functions, one of the aforementioned experimental studies investigated the influence of the sequence in which individuals contemplated utopian societies and their current reality. [2] Oettingen's research on fantasy realization, [18] [19] which posits that mentally contrasting desired states with reality is instrumental in motivating goal-directed behavior, established that merely envisioning a fantasy is insufficient to stimulate goal-oriented actions. Instead, it is imperative to contrast the fantasy with the realities of the current situation, thereby engaging individuals in contemplating potential methods to achieve the envisioned outcome. Building on Oettingen's framework, Fernando and colleagues hypothesized and tested the notion that initiating utopian visions followed by a contrast with reality would be more effective in eliciting the functions of utopia, as opposed to initiating thoughts with the current reality and then introducing utopian ideals. [2] The research team found empirical support for the idea that contrasting the current society after contemplating utopia is more effective in eliciting criticism and change functions. In contrast, the reverse order of utopian thinking did not yield a significant effect compared to a control group that did not engage in utopian contemplation.[ citation needed ]

Collective action

Utopian thinking could be incorporated and add significant value to existing models that explain collective action. [6] The impact of utopian thinking extends to both conventionally conceptualized collective actions and more generic civic behaviors. [2] The former indicates participation in a social movement toward a shared goal with others, [20] while the latter refers to heightened engagement in society in any domain, whether or not in the company of like-minded individuals. [21] Utopias could be constructed around a certain group identity, such as a feminist utopia, or could generally inspire imagination of an alternative better version of society, without pertaining to a group membership. [2] The former will instill motivation for collective actions intended to achieve certain collective goals, for instance, achieving a feminist society. The latter will contribute to enhanced interest to be engaged with societal processes.[ citation needed ]

The Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA), [20] a prominent collective action theory, posits group identity, injustice/anger, and moral conviction as primary motivators for participation. While group identification has been recognized as a pivotal motivator for collective action, utopian thinking introduces a pathway that can stimulate participation without necessitating a specific group affiliation. [6] Conceiving a cognitive alternative through thinking about utopias without belonging to a specific ingroup is found to enhance collective action intentions. [6] Furthermore, utopian thinking has the potential to instigate the formation of entirely new groups, thereby strengthening motivations for collective action through the tie of group identification and collective action as well. [6] Researchers have conceptualized what they term "opinion-based groups," where similar opinions are the basis of group identification. [22] Shared utopian visions could serve as the basis for new group formations. [6] Smith and colleagues have theorized that the perceiving disparity between the current state of affairs and the envisioned ideal could give rise to a novel identity, [23] which is highly relevant to the process of utopian thinking as well. [6]

Overcome system justification

In the inaugural empirical exploration of utopian thinking, it has consistently emerged that such thinking diminishes system justification. [2] Notably, Jost and colleagues underscored utopian thinking as a promising approach in their recent review of system justification. [24] Building upon this foundation, Badaan and colleagues have proposed a comprehensive framework that interlinks the study of utopian thinking, collective action, and system justification. [5] Within this model, two proposed mechanisms mediate the relationship between utopian thinking and the motivation for system justification: hope and abstraction. The first pathway is the affective route, wherein utopian thinking reduces system justification by fostering an increase in social hope. The second pathway is the cognitive-motivational route, wherein utopian thinking diminishes system justification by priming higher-level construal or abstraction.[ citation needed ]

The authors highlight that hope, as an emotion, is nuanced and not merely a naive or optimistic outlook. [5] Hope transcends a positive expectation toward a goal; it inherently involves contemplating and implementing tangible methods to achieve that goal. [25] Understanding hope is pivotal in mobilizing social action towards change, as the absence of hope leaves no motivation for initiating and sustaining the often arduous efforts required to achieve the goal of social change. [26] Specifically, social hope pertains to the emotion an individual harbors for the future of society at large, extending beyond personal concerns. [10] The act of envisioning an ideal society through utopian thinking is proposed to have the capacity to evoke hope and instill the belief that the utopian dream is indeed attainable. [5]

Mental abstraction emerges as a crucial pathway, enabling individuals to explore cognitive alternatives that may not be readily accessible in their daily concrete thought processes. [5] Abstraction proves effective in bringing distant goals, such as social change, closer to our cognitive forefront. [27] The greater the level of abstraction in imagining utopia, the more significant the impact in rendering cognitive alternatives accessible in our minds. [28] High-level construals, associated with abstract thinking, are also known to motivate self-control behaviors. [29] Applied in the context of social change, the abstract contemplation of an ideal society is likely to trigger self-control behaviors, prompting individuals to adopt strategies for fostering societal change. [5]

To scrutinize these pathways, researchers manipulated utopian thinking by having participants read an article describing either a utopian society or the current society. [3] A structural equation model shed light on the relationships between variables. Utopian thinking increased both personal and social hope, subsequently elevating both system justification and collective action. The authors propose that this elevation might stem from the overlap in measures between hope and system justification, as certain items in the hope scale suggest that society is progressing in the right direction without major problems. Additionally, utopian thinking increased abstract thinking but exhibited only a marginal association with intentions for collective action. The authors elucidate that the measure for abstraction predominantly tapped into dispositional rather than situational aspects, making it less susceptible to change through utopian priming.[ citation needed ]

Utopia and dystopia

The antithesis to the concept of utopia is dystopia, representing a society that elicits fear and embodies the worst imaginable conditions. [30] [31] Both utopian and dystopian visions share the commonality of existing solely within the realm of human imagination, diverging significantly from the realities of contemporary society. Utopian ideals serve as a motivational force for societal participation, guiding collective efforts toward the realization of an envisioned ideal society. [2]

Dystopian thinking can similarly prompt societal engagement but in a manner distinct from utopian ideals. Dystopian societies, feared and avoided by individuals, stimulate preventive behaviors aimed at averting the realization of such nightmarish scenarios. [32] The functionality of dystopian thinking can also be elucidated through the framework of collective self-regulation. [4] The concept of "ought selves" propels individuals towards self-improvement driven by fear. [13] [14] Analogously, dystopian visions motivate societal involvement with the goal of steering the societal structure away from the envisaged dystopian nightmare. [4] This engagement also aligns with the change and criticism functions proposed by Levitas within the framework of utopian thinking. [4]

Contents

Moderating role of content

Evidently, participants exhibit a diverse array of responses when prompted with utopian thinking scenarios. [6] Several studies have delved into the significance of these varied responses, aiming to discern whether specific utopian contents prove more effective in eliciting the functions of utopia compared to others. [6] [33] Fernando and colleagues contrasted two prototypical utopias: the Green utopia and the Sci-Fi utopia. [6] The former envisions a communal society dedicated to environmental protection and equitable resource sharing, while the latter portrays a society endowed with boundless resources, thanks to technological advancements.[ citation needed ]

Upon priming with the Green utopia, individuals demonstrated a greater likelihood of expressing intentions for general societal participation. Conversely, the priming of Sci-Fi utopias did not yield a similar increase in societal engagement. The authors posit that societies perceived as fostering greater interpersonal warmth are more effective in motivating intentions for change. [34] It is important to note that this study focused on the impact of specific utopian priming on generic change intentions, and thus, it does not provide insights into the effect on behaviors within specific domains.[ citation needed ]

Political orientation

Despite employing the same prompt in empirical studies to induce utopian thinking across participants, the responses' content exhibits variations influenced by an array of sociocultural factors. [4] Among these factors, political orientation stands out as a prominent determinant in shaping the contents of utopian imagination. [5] An examination of social media discourses, employing machine-learning methods, revealed that liberal and conservative users articulated different themes when envisioning ideal societies. [35] Nevertheless, there were overarching themes common to utopian visions across both political orientations. Both liberal and conservative perspectives consistently emphasized the value of family, community, economic prosperity, and the pursuit of health, happiness, and freedom. However, notable differences surfaced in the specific themes highlighted by each group. Liberals tended to prioritize themes such as social justice, global inequality, women's rights, racism, criminal justice, healthcare, poverty, progress, social change, personal growth, and environmental sustainability. In contrast, conservatives more frequently centered their discussions around themes related to religion, social order, business, capitalism, national symbols, immigration, and terrorism. In conclusion, both diverging and converging themes are found across political orientations.[ citation needed ]

Application

Cross-cultural development research method

Development agencies, exemplified by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), establish overarching development agendas that nations can collaboratively pursue. [36] To ensure the efficacy and cultural relevance of these agendas, it is crucial to formulate them in a manner that resonates with the unique local contexts of individual countries. Although the UNDP has made strides in enhancing cultural sensitivity over time, there has been criticism of some development goals for their lack of cultural nuance. [37]

Badaan and Choucair (2023) propose the adoption of utopian thinking as a methodology for constructing contextualized development agendas. This approach involves soliciting input from people worldwide regarding the type of world they envision, analyzing these responses, and incorporating the findings into development agendas. By doing so, development agencies can comprehensively capture the diverse aspirations for change across nations, cultures, and communities. Qualitative methods such as interviews, focus group discussions, and open-ended surveys are particularly well-suited to leverage the utopian thinking framework. [37]

An inherent advantage of the utopian thinking approach is its potential to actively engage individuals in the process of social change. [37] Through the act of envisioning and articulating the societal conditions they desire, people are more likely to contemplate and visualize the kind of environment in which they wish to reside. This process has been found to stimulate increased intentions for societal participation. [2] Furthermore, priming ‘Green utopia’ when asking about an utopian society has been demonstrated to catalyze broader social change intentions and behaviors. [6] This suggests that utopian thinking can effectively draw attention to and raise awareness about critical social issues. [37]

Another notable advantage is the potential for development agencies to gather accurate information about the cultural nuances of various countries and regions. [37] By directly consulting with individuals who will both shape and be impacted by these changes, agencies can construct goals that are attuned to the specific needs of different contexts. This approach facilitates the identification of both universal and culturally specific issues, enabling the development of more nuanced interventions that account for regional differences. [37]

However, the implementation of the utopian thinking method raises realistic concerns. [37] Firstly, the content of utopian imaginations may vary drastically, with some proposals aiming to enhance societal well-being, while others may advocate exclusionary visions detrimental to certain groups of society. Striking a balance between upholding human rights principles and navigating contradictory views within cultures is imperative. [37] Besides, qualitative data collection from a diverse population demands more time and resources compared to alternative methods, necessitating a consideration of the tradeoff between efficiency and cultural sensitivity. [37]

Related Research Articles

A utopia typically describes an imaginary community or society that possesses highly desirable or near-perfect qualities for its members. It was coined by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, which describes a fictional island society in the New World.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social norm</span> Informal understanding of acceptable conduct

Social norms are shared standards of acceptable behavior by groups. Social norms can both be informal understandings that govern the behavior of members of a society, as well as be codified into rules and laws. Social normative influences or social norms, are deemed to be powerful drivers of human behavioural changes and well organized and incorporated by major theories which explain human behaviour. Institutions are composed of multiple norms. Norms are shared social beliefs about behavior; thus, they are distinct from "ideas", "attitudes", and "values", which can be held privately, and which do not necessarily concern behavior. Norms are contingent on context, social group, and historical circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hope</span> Optimistic attitude of mind

Hope is an optimistic state of mind that is based on an expectation of positive outcomes with respect to events and circumstances in one's life or the world at large. As a verb, its definitions include: "expect with confidence" and "to cherish a desire with anticipation".

In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is described as the mental discomfort people feel when their beliefs and actions are inconsistent and contradictory, ultimately making them change one factor to align better. Relevant items of information include peoples' actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things. According to this theory, when an action or idea is psychologically inconsistent with the other, people do all in their power to change either so that they become consistent. The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collective action</span> Action taken together by a group of people to further a common objective

Collective action refers to action taken together by a group of people whose goal is to enhance their condition and achieve a common objective. It is a term that has formulations and theories in many areas of the social sciences including psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science and economics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Attitude (psychology)</span> Concept in psychology and communication studies

An attitude "is a summary evaluation of an object of thought. An attitude object can be anything a person discriminates or holds in mind." Attitudes include beliefs (cognition), emotional responses (affect) and behavioral tendencies. In the classical definition an attitude is persistent, while in more contemporary conceptualizations, attitudes may vary depending upon situations, context, or moods.

Abnormality is a behavioral characteristic assigned to those with conditions that are regarded as rare or dysfunctional. Behavior is considered to be abnormal when it is atypical or out of the ordinary, consists of undesirable behavior, and results in impairment in the individual's functioning. Abnormality in behavior, is that in which is considered deviant from specific societal, cultural and ethical expectations. These expectations are broadly dependent on age, gender, traditional and societal categorizations. The definition of abnormal behavior is an often debated issue in abnormal psychology, because of these subjective variables.

Ruth Levitas is Emeritus Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Bristol. She is well known internationally for her research on utopia and utopian studies.

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macro theory of human motivation and personality that concerns people's innate growth tendencies and innate psychological needs. It pertains to the motivation behind people's choices in the absence of external influences and distractions. SDT focuses on the degree to which human behavior is self-motivated and self-determined.

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

Behavioural change theories are attempts to explain why human behaviours change. These theories cite environmental, personal, and behavioural characteristics as the major factors in behavioural determination. In recent years, there has been increased interest in the application of these theories in the areas of health, education, criminology, energy and international development with the hope that understanding behavioural change will improve the services offered in these areas. Some scholars have recently introduced a distinction between models of behavior and theories of change. Whereas models of behavior are more diagnostic and geared towards understanding the psychological factors that explain or predict a specific behavior, theories of change are more process-oriented and generally aimed at changing a given behavior. Thus, from this perspective, understanding and changing behavior are two separate but complementary lines of scientific investigation.

Moral disengagement is a meaning from Developmental psychology, educational psychology and social psychology for the process of convincing the self that ethical standards do not apply to oneself in a particular context. This is done by separating moral reactions from inhumane conduct and disabling the mechanism of self-condemnation. Thus, moral disengagement involves a process of cognitive re-construing or re-framing of destructive behavior as being morally acceptable without changing the behavior or the moral standards.

Incentivisation or incentivization is the practice of building incentives into an arrangement or system in order to motivate the actors within it. It is based on the idea that individuals within such systems can perform better not only when they are coerced but also when they are given rewards.

Counterfactual thinking is a concept in psychology that involves the human tendency to create possible alternatives to life events that have already occurred; something that is contrary to what actually happened. Counterfactual thinking is, as it states: "counter to the facts". These thoughts consist of the "What if?" and the "If only..." that occur when thinking of how things could have turned out differently. Counterfactual thoughts include things that – in the present – could not have happened because they are dependent on events that did not occur in the past.

Motivated reasoning is a cognitive and social response in which individuals, consciously or sub-consciously, allow emotion-loaded motivational biases to affect how new information is perceived. Individuals tend to favor evidence that coincides with their current beliefs and reject new information that contradicts them, despite contrary evidence.

Cultural differences can interact with positive psychology to create great variation, potentially impacting positive psychology interventions. Culture differences have an impact on the interventions of positive psychology. Culture influences how people seek psychological help, their definitions of social structure, and coping strategies. Cross cultural positive psychology is the application of the main themes of positive psychology from cross-cultural or multicultural perspectives.

The theory of regal and kungic societal structures, or regality theory, is a theory that seeks to explain certain cultural differences based on perceived collective danger and fear.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychology of climate change denial</span> Human behaviour with regards to climate change denial

The psychology of climate change denial is the study of why people deny climate change, despite the scientific consensus on climate change. A study assessed public perception and action on climate change on grounds of belief systems, and identified seven psychological barriers affecting behavior that otherwise would facilitate mitigation, adaptation, and environmental stewardship: cognition, ideological worldviews, comparisons to key people, costs and momentum, disbelief in experts and authorities, perceived risks of change, and inadequate behavioral changes. Other factors include distance in time, space, and influence.

Attributions for poverty is a theory concerned with what people believe about the causes of poverty. These beliefs are defined in terms of attribution theory, which is a social psychological perspective on how people make causal explanations about events in the world. In forming attributions, people rely on the information that is available to them in the moment, and their heuristics, or mental shortcuts. When considering the causes of poverty, people form attributions using the same tools: the information they have and mental shortcuts that are based on their experiences. Consistent with the literature on heuristics, people often rely on shortcuts to make sense of the causes of their own behavior and that of others, which often results in biased attributions. This information leads to perceptions about the causes of poverty, and in turn, ideas about how to eradicate poverty.

Outgroup favoritism is a social psychological construct intended to capture why some socially disadvantaged groups will express favorable attitudes toward social, cultural, or ethnic groups other than their own. Considered by many psychologists as part of a variety of system-justifying motives, outgroup favoritism has been widely researched as a potential explanation for why groups—particularly those disadvantaged by the normative social hierarchy—are motivated to support, maintain, and preserve the status quo. Specifically, outgroup favoritism provides a contrast to the idea of ingroup favoritism, which proposes that individuals exhibit a preference for members of their own group over members of the outgroup.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Levitas, Ruth (2010-01-01). The Concept of Utopia. Peter Lang UK. doi:10.3726/978-3-0353-0010-9. ISBN   978-3-0353-0010-9.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Fernando, Julian W.; Burden, Nicholas; Ferguson, Adam; O’Brien, Léan V.; Judge, Madeline; Kashima, Yoshihisa (May 2018). "Functions of Utopia: How Utopian Thinking Motivates Societal Engagement". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 44 (5): 779–792. doi:10.1177/0146167217748604. hdl: 11343/214064 . ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   29347880. S2CID   4480867.
  3. 1 2 Badaan, Vivienne; Akil, Carla; Zebian, Yara; Jost, John T. (2022-04-19). "Envisioning Change: An Empirical Test of the Social Psychological Model of Utopian Thinking and Collective Action". Journal of Social Psychology Research: 77–96. doi: 10.37256/jspr.1120221140 . ISSN   2810-9767.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Kashima, Yoshihisa; Fernando, Julian (August 2020). "Utopia and ideology in cultural dynamics". Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 34: 102–106. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.01.002. ISSN   2352-1546. S2CID   211116576.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Badaan, Vivienne; Jost, John T.; Fernando, Julian; Kashima, Yoshihisa (2020-03-09). "Imagining better societies: A social psychological framework for the study of utopian thinking and collective action". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 14 (4). doi:10.1111/spc3.12525. ISSN   1751-9004. S2CID   216369239.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Fernando, Julian W.; O'Brien, Léan V.; Burden, Nicholas J.; Judge, Madeline; Kashima, Yoshihisa (2019-07-21). "Greens or space invaders: Prominent utopian themes and effects on social change motivation". European Journal of Social Psychology. 50 (2): 278–291. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2607. hdl: 10536/DRO/DU:30136822 . ISSN   0046-2772. S2CID   197692718.
  7. ↑ Kumar, K. (1987). Utopia and anti-utopia in modern times. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
  8. ↑ Dutton, Jacqueline (2010-08-05), "'Non-western' utopian traditions", The Cambridge Companion to Utopian Literature, Cambridge University Press, pp. 223–258, doi:10.1017/ccol9780521886659.010, ISBN   978-0-521-88665-9 , retrieved 2023-11-27
  9. ↑ Sargent, Lyman Tower (2010-09-01). Utopianism. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780199573400.001.0001. ISBN   978-0-19-957340-0.
  10. 1 2 Browne, C. (2005). "Hope, critique, and utopia". Critical Horizons. 6 (1): 63–86. doi:10.1163/156851605775009483. S2CID   144912355.
  11. ↑ Brown, Valerie A. (January 2015). "Utopian thinking and the collective mind: Beyond transdisciplinarity". Futures. 65: 209–216. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2014.11.004.
  12. ↑ Hertzler, Joyce Oramel (2019-11-21). The History of Utopian Thought. doi:10.4324/9780429345111. ISBN   978-0-429-34511-1.
  13. 1 2 Higgins, E. Tory (1987). "Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect". Psychological Review. 94 (3): 319–340. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.319. ISSN   1939-1471. PMID   3615707.
  14. 1 2 Markus, Hazel; Nurius, Paula (September 1986). "Possible selves". American Psychologist. 41 (9): 954–969. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.9.954. ISSN   1935-990X. S2CID   550525.
  15. ↑ Moscovici, S.; Lage, E.; Naffrechoux, M. (December 1969). "Influence of a Consistent Minority on the Responses of a Majority in a Color Perception Task". Sociometry. 32 (4): 365. doi:10.2307/2786541. ISSN   0038-0431. JSTOR   2786541. PMID   5373094.
  16. ↑ Tajfel, Henri; Turner, John C. (2004-01-09), "The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior", Political Psychology, Psychology Press, pp. 276–293, doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16, ISBN   978-0-203-50598-4, S2CID   49235478 , retrieved 2023-11-27
  17. ↑ Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Change we can believe in: The role of social identity, cognitive alternatives, and leadership in group mobilization and social transformation. In B. Wagoner, E. Jensen, & J. A. Oldmeadow (Eds.), Culture and social change: Transforming society through the power of ideas. IAP Information Age Publishing. pp. 53–73.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ↑ Oettingen, Gabriele (March 2012). "Future thought and behaviour change". European Review of Social Psychology. 23 (1): 1–63. doi:10.1080/10463283.2011.643698. ISSN   1046-3283. S2CID   28053600.
  19. ↑ Kappes, Andreas; Singmann, Henrik; Oettingen, Gabriele (July 2012). "Mental contrasting instigates goal pursuit by linking obstacles of reality with instrumental behavior". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48 (4): 811–818. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.002. ISSN   0022-1031.
  20. 1 2 van Zomeren, Martijn; Postmes, Tom; Spears, Russell (July 2008). "Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives". Psychological Bulletin. 134 (4): 504–535. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504. ISSN   1939-1455. PMID   18605818. S2CID   18741272.
  21. ↑ Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G. A., & Kalof, L. (1999). "A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism". Human Ecology Review: 81–97.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ↑ Bliuc, Ana-Maria; McGarty, Craig; Reynolds, Katherine; Muntele, Daniela (2006-08-18). "Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action". European Journal of Social Psychology. 37 (1): 19–32. doi:10.1002/ejsp.334. ISSN   0046-2772.
  23. ↑ Smith, Laura G. E.; Thomas, Emma F.; McGarty, Craig (2014-03-13). ""We Must Be the Change We Want to See in the World": Integrating Norms and Identities through Social Interaction". Political Psychology. 36 (5): 543–557. doi:10.1111/pops.12180. ISSN   0162-895X.
  24. ↑ Jost, John T. (2018-11-28). "A quarter century of system justification theory: Questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications". British Journal of Social Psychology. 58 (2): 263–314. doi:10.1111/bjso.12297. ISSN   0144-6665. S2CID   54660351.
  25. ↑ Snyder, C. R. (October 2002). "TARGET ARTICLE: Hope Theory: Rainbows in the Mind". Psychological Inquiry. 13 (4): 249–275. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01. ISSN   1047-840X. S2CID   143302451.
  26. ↑ Teruelle, R. (2012). "Reconciled to the belief: Investigating the need for hope". Social Alternative. 31 (3): 45–48.
  27. ↑ Liberman, Nira; Trope, Yaacov (July 2014). "Traversing psychological distance". Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 18 (7): 364–369. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.03.001. PMID   24726527. S2CID   24170083.
  28. ↑ Levitas, Ruth (November 2013). "Some Varieties of Utopian Method". Irish Journal of Sociology. 21 (2): 41–50. doi:10.7227/IJS.21.2.3. ISSN   0791-6035. S2CID   147373546.
  29. ↑ Carnevale, Jessica J.; Fujita, Kentaro; Han, H. Anna; Amit, Elinor (January 2015). "Immersion Versus Transcendence: How Pictures and Words Impact Evaluative Associations Assessed by the Implicit Association Test". Social Psychological and Personality Science. 6 (1): 92–100. doi:10.1177/1948550614546050. ISSN   1948-5506. S2CID   146624355.
  30. ↑ Fitting, Peter (2010-08-05), "Utopia, dystopia and science fiction", The Cambridge Companion to Utopian Literature, Cambridge University Press, pp. 135–153, doi:10.1017/ccol9780521886659.006, ISBN   978-0-521-88665-9 , retrieved 2023-11-27
  31. ↑ Stableford, Brian (2010-08-05), "Ecology and dystopia", The Cambridge Companion to Utopian Literature, Cambridge University Press, pp. 259–281, doi:10.1017/ccol9780521886659.011, ISBN   978-0-521-88665-9 , retrieved 2023-11-27
  32. ↑ Skitka, Linda J.; Hanson, Brittany E.; Wisneski, Daniel C. (2016-11-23). "Utopian Hopes or Dystopian Fears? Exploring the Motivational Underpinnings of Moralized Political Engagement". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 43 (2): 177–190. doi:10.1177/0146167216678858. ISSN   0146-1672. PMID   27879440. S2CID   7007767.
  33. ↑ Fernando, J. W., Burden, N., Judge, M., O’Brien, L. V., Ashman, H., Paladino, A., & Kashima, Y. (2023). "Profiles of an Ideal Society: The Utopian Visions of Ordinary People" (PDF). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 54 (1): 43–60. doi:10.1177/00220221221126419. S2CID   252937249.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. ↑ Bain, P. G., Hornsey, M. J., Bongiorno, R., Kashima, Y., & Crimston, C. R. (2013). "Collective futures: How projections about the future of society are related to actions and attitudes supporting social change". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 39 (4): 523–539. doi:10.1177/0146167213478200. PMID   23456559. S2CID   20570725.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  35. ↑ Sterling, Joanna; Jost, John T.; Hardin, Curtis D. (April 2019). "Liberal and Conservative Representations of the Good Society: A (Social) Structural Topic Modeling Approach". SAGE Open. 9 (2): 215824401984621. doi: 10.1177/2158244019846211 . ISSN   2158-2440.
  36. ↑ Overview, The Sustainable Development Goals Report, United Nations, 2020-07-14, pp. 6–23, doi:10.18356/bde1e86b-en, ISBN   978-92-1-004960-3 , retrieved 2023-11-27
  37. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Badaan, Vivienne; Choucair, Farah (2022-03-11). "Toward Culturally Sensitive Development Paradigms: New Shifts, Limitations, and the Role of (Cross-) Cultural Psychology". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 54 (2): 232–248. doi:10.1177/00220221211073671. ISSN   0022-0221. S2CID   247416600.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.