To enable sound diagnosis, training and advice, this project takes a multi-level/multi-function perspective on representative negotiation in inter-group conflict in policy and industry. Three core outcomes ? (a) the development of creative agreements, (b) within-constituency conflict and consensus, and (c) inter-group perceptions and hostility ? are considered to depend on (1) the representative?s individual-level cognition, affect, and motivation, (2) within-constituency dynamics, and (3) the broader inter-group relations. In 2 PhD and 1 Postdoc project hypotheses will be tested using experiments, case studies, and quantitative surveys. Results will be communicated in academic and professional publications and will serve as input for training and development programs.

When making decisions, generating the right options to choose from is crucial. And yet, we know very little about how people generate options to make decisions, the underlying cognitive processes involved, and which factors of this process determine choice satisfaction. In this project, we propose that during option generation, not only memory processes are involved (e.g., remembering what you like), but that people can experience moments of insight, which facilitates creative decision-making and increase choice satisfaction. Using a multi-method approach, we test theories of preference by describing a novel strategy of how people might change their perspective during option generation.

Societies undergo rapid changes in the relations between social groups, for example due to migration, climate change, shifting gender roles, globalization, crises like the Covid-19 epidemic, and social movements like #BLM. Heated societal debates suggest that social changes are often experienced as threatening, leading to a host of negative consequences like rigidity, polarization, and hostility towards the source of threat. This makes understanding how people cope with social change one of the major challenges of our times. However, how people regulate negative arousal stemming from societal change, and how this in turn shapes opinions, is as yet poorly understood. We propose a psychophysiological threat-and-coping model of social change. Linking social, psychological, and physiological levels of analysis this novel model describes and explains the interplay of lower-level physiological responses and higher-level information processing to understand how people form opinions about social change. Moving beyond maladaptive physiological arousal (threat) we examine the possibility that change can also elicit more benign physiological arousal (challenge) and link this to sensitivity to specific types of arguments (instrumental, moral, identity) and rigidity versus open-mindedness in opinion formation. In two series of six psychophysiological experiments, partly making use of a mobile lab (‘test-van’), we test hypotheses derived from the model in two contexts: communities anticipating an influx of immigrants (WP A) and organizations implementing diversity policies (WP B). The gained insights will be used to inform policy-makers about ways to approach and communicate social change in order to avoid overly rigid and hostile responses.

This research posits that conspiracy thinking has an important social function for connecting with others. The first aim is to test whether being socially excluded causes people to endorse conspiracy theories to fulfil their need to belong. The second aim is to examine whether adopting conspiracy beliefs is indeed an effective way for excluded individuals to reduce exclusion feelings. Conspiracy thinking can reduce feelings of exclusion by the group of conspiracy thinkers, but may actually fuel feelings of exclusion by society. By examining determinants and consequences of conspiracy thinking, this research provides crucial insights into ways to reduce conspiracy thinking.

The next generation of researchers and consumers of science must be equipped with knowledge of open and reproducible research to maintain and further scientific standards. Thus, educators and mentors must be able to provide a strong foundation in Open Science training. We propose to design and develop a pedagogically-informed, evidence-based, self-guided program for supporting the teaching of Open Science. We will produce three modules for educators interested in teaching Open Science through a 1) positive, 2) participatory, and 3) inclusive lens. The materials will be developed and evaluated in consultation with educators, and will be disseminated as an open-access course.