Search Results

The nature of free will is a philosophical issue; whether people believe they have it is a psychological one; and whether people actually have it is in the terrain in between. This chapter shows how people's self-theories — their conceptions of human qualities as fixed or as malleable — create different perceptions and experiences of free will. Interestingly, these different perceptions mirror those of different philosophical traditions. The chapter then shows how self-theories lead people to different psychological solutions for issues allied with free will, such as issues of moral responsibility and blame. How much free will do people actually have? The debate has often turned on whether the physical laws of nature allow for free will. To a psychologist, this seems surprising. Thus, the chapter ends by proposing that the issue of free will may, at least in part, turn on questions of human nature and how best to conceive of it.

This chapter focuses on the mediating institutions of civil society in the social incorporation of younger citizens. Lay theories about the polity and the tenets of the social contract that bind states and citizens take shape via participation in the routine cultural practices of those institutions. Children's lay theories are refracted through groupways (the social class, caste, racial/ethnic, religious, and gender groups to which they belong). The practices of mediating institutions tend to reinforce dominant narratives and thus stabilize the political system. But civil society also provides free spaces in institutions where citizens can challenge the state and thus contribute to social change.

“Lay” theories are the theories that people use in their everyday life. They not only serve people's epistemic needs to understand and make predictions about their social world but also serve their social needs to form and maintain relationships as well as psychological needs to feel in control and good about themselves. Decades of findings from cognitive, cultural, developmental, and social psychological research involving children, adolescents, and adults across numerous cultures indicate that lay theories are powerful predictors of greater or weaker prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination toward numerous groups (gay men, overweight persons, people living with AIDS, poor persons, socially stigmatized racial/ethnic groups, women). This chapter examines how lay theories foster prejudice or tolerance toward social groups. It highlights some relevant findings on a prominent lay theory, the Protestant work ethic (PWE), which appears to have at least two intergroup implications: one for prejudice and one for tolerance. The tolerant implication of PWE seems to exist across age, cultural, and social status groups; whereas the intolerant implication seems to be culturally bound with children in those cultures first learning the tolerant implication and later learning the intolerant implication.

This chapter is concerned with lay theories of corporal punishment. Despite the fact that the issue of such things as the efficacy of punishment and the morality of corporal punishment in particular have been discussed and debated by lay people for centuries, there remains relatively little research on their lay theories. There may be a number of reasons for this surprising paucity of research literature. The first is that the topic is highly political, with both experts and lay people being influenced as much by sociopolitical values as by disinterested evidence. Second, it appears that neither experts nor lay people have sophisticated or complex specific theories as to why corporal punishment should or should not be implemented. On the other hand, there are many polls and surveys that simply look at attitudes per se rather than the nature, structure, and function of lay theories of punishment.

In this chapter, we introduce a lay theory approach to study how work passion is attained, as a complement to the scientific theory–driven approach. We provide insight into the lay person’s everyday experience of passion for work, and their beliefs about how passion is achieved, to enhance understanding about what gives rise to passionate workers.

Lay theories of change refer to beliefs people hold about how events develop over time and are related to each other. This chapter reviews cultural differences in lay theories of change between East Asians and Euro-Americans/Canadians. The overarching theme from the existing research is that East Asians tend to believe more than Westerners that phenomena change in a cyclical way, whereas Westerners tend to believe that events are either relatively stable or develop in a linear fashion. This cultural variation is manifested in a wide range of predictions and decisions. Furthermore, Euro–North Americans are more likely than East Asians to hold linear beliefs about the correspondence between cause and effect in magnitude, and between appearance and reality (e.g., a strong appearance corresponds to a strong internal state). The chapter also discusses the cultural underpinnings of lay theories of change and directions for future research.

This chapter explores the social creation of cultural fact and the effects of the cultural fact upon social and moral life. Lay trauma theory was compromised with the contemporary forms of thinking. These commonsensical forms of reasoning have deeply informed thinking about the effects of the Holocaust. Psychoanalytic and enlightenment forms of lay trauma thought has infused academic efforts at understanding what happened after the death camp revelations. The content of this chapter also contributes additional information to theoretical discussion, and it is related to a different but obvious empirical case. In connection to this matter, Nazism had initiated a trauma in modern history, but it was a perceptible trauma presenting “time out of time” in Victor Turner's sense.

Rapid globalization has heightened intercultural exposure and diversity of societies. As an adaptation to globalization, many individuals are acquiring identities that pertain to more than one regional and/or national culture. To understand the formation, maintenance, and impact of multicultural identity, researchers study it at multiple levels of analysis. To this end, this chapter will review the literature on multicultural identities at the levels of intrapersonal processes, interpersonal processes, and organizational and societal influences. The review shows that the concept of multicultural identity has evolved over time, from being seen as maladaptive to an embodiment of creativity and open-mindedness. This chapter demonstrates how the study of multicultural identities has gained prominence in recent decades and will be even more urgent as the mobility of individuals and social groups becomes the “new normal.” That is, with the exponential rate of intercultural contacts and mixing, being or becoming multicultural seems more normative than being monocultural. Monoculturalism may soon be a rare case and, as such, described as a thing of the past. It is ever more pressing to understand how people navigate among cultures, form bi- or multicultural identities, and adapt to new cultural environments cognitively and biologically and the challenges and barriers they face in the era of globalized world.

Disenchantment with democracy may have different sources. One such source is the discrepancy between the expected advantages of the system and the experience with real democracy. In our research, we found that these expectations depend on lay theories of democracy that may differ substantially from its normative conceptions and practical realizations. Another source is the change in social priorities that can be described as a conservative shift. This change is a reaction to an increased sense of existential and epistemic insecurity that entails higher preferences for strong government founded on tradition and a shared worldview. It is associated with decreased importance of political agency and pluralism. There is also disappointment with democratic politics based on adversarial principles, in which those who gain political advantage shape the political and social relations according to their own interests and points of view, ignoring the interests and views of others.