Hvor mange har de seneste dage stillet sig selv spørgsmålet: Ville jeg gribe til våben?

I 2016 stillede vi faktisk 1012 danskere det spørgsmål bl.a. i lyset af, at "Rusland opfører sig mere og mere aggressivt".

Her er hvad de svarede. 👇

🧵 (1/6)
Efter introen, der beskrev en mere ustabil verden med bl.a. et mere aggressivt Rusland, blev det repræsentative udsnit af danskere præsenteret for en række scenarier, herunder dette 👇 (2/6)
Derefter spurgte vi, om deltagerne forestillede sig, at de ville protestere mod regimet, hjælpe modstandsfolk, deltage i modstandskampen og bruge vold.

31 % forestiller sig, at de "ville bruge fysisk vold for at fremme modstandsbevægelsens mål". (3/6)
Mænd er - ikke overraskende - særligt tilbøjelige til at forestille sig, at de vil bruge vold mod et fremmed autoritært regime. Blandt mændene er det 46 %. Blandt kvinderne er det blot 16 %. (4/6)
Det er måske mere overraskende, at det særligt er de midalderende, som forestiller sig, at de vil bruge vold. De unge mænd, som ellers generelt er mere risiko-villige, er mere tilbageholdende. (5/6)
Undersøgelsen er foretaget under andre omstændigheder. Men når folk i dag spørger sig selv - hvad ville jeg gøre? - så tyder dataene på, at der er systematiske forskelle i hvem, der forestiller sig hvad.

Dataene er iøvrigt publiceret her: doi.org/10.1177/095679… (6/6)

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Bang Petersen

Michael Bang Petersen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @M_B_Petersen

Mar 3
Bans now limit Western access to Putin's propaganda.

Most of us have no interest in propaganda. But there is reason to pause.

Not only are bans out of sync with the science of misinformation. They may also be detrimental to our fight for democracy.

An evidence-based 🧵 (1/16)
Since the 2016 US presidential election a myth has been created: People easily fall prey to misinformation.

Myth-busting is harder than myth-creation.

But the science is now clear, as this review shows: doi.org/10.1017/S13582…

Propaganda have little effects (2/16)
A couple of examples may suffice.

A study did a meta-analysis of 40 studies on campaign effects on candidate preferences in the US and conclude that "the best estimate of the effects...is zero": doi.org/10.1017/S00030…
(3/16)
Read 16 tweets
Mar 1
I advised the Danish government on behavioral science during the pandemic.

In APS Observer, I wrote my advice on how to give advice when your discipline is (A) obviously important but (B) face discussions about replication: psychologicalscience.org/observer/scien…

I outline 3 lessons.

🧵(1/4)
1. Focus on decision-makers’ mental models.

Don't push single studies. Focus on broader models of behavior & help decision-makers *think* in the right way (e.g., "prioritize trust-building"). This facilitates better decisions even when you aren't there.

(2/4)
2. Focus on blind spots.

In a pandemic, there are many health advisors but few behavioral advisors.

You are your field's representative & should raise the problems & trade-offs that outsiders don't see (e.g., the perils of polarization & perceived control loss)

(3/4)
Read 4 tweets
Feb 28
The rage & fear you feel after the Russian invasion are ancient parts of your mind preparing - like clockwork - for a world of conflict.

After 10 years of research in the lab & field, it is surreal to feel it unfold in my own mind

A 🧵 on what happens & with what effects (1/16)
I lived during the Cold War but never felt its threat. Many Westerns have never experienced anything remotely like war.

But you are more than your experiences. Your mind was designed by natural selection and the genes you carry are adapted to a different world. (2/16)
That world included violent, group-based conflict. Scholars disagree on the details of the prehistory of war. But group conflict is universal, ancient & significant enough that it may have shaped our basic psychology (doi.org/10.1162/ISEC_a…) (3/16)
Read 16 tweets
Feb 26
Individuals who fight in armed conflict tend to be anti-democratic.

With one exception: Violent resistance in defence of democracy.

🧵 on our research on the psychology of violence & why the ultimate defense of democracy requires understanding anti-democratic impulses. (1/14)
Democracy is the principled recognition of equality in power. Autocracy is the opposite.

Psychologically, an orientation to autocracy draws its strength from so-called dominance motivations (doi.org/10.1177/095679…). (2/14)
All humans seek status. But paths differ (doi.org/10.1037/a00303…). *Prestige* is status in exchange for problem-solving. *Dominance* is the desire to acquire status from fear via intimidation & aggression.

In the game of status, dominance is the strategy of the predator. (3/14)
Read 14 tweets
Feb 25
Et markant nybrud er, at den demokratiske samtale flytter fra forsamlingshuset til sociale medier.

Vi mangler viden & data. Derfor præges debatten ofte af myter fx om ekkokamre.

Men vi skal ud af ekkokamret om, ja, ekkokamre.

🧵 om de store spørgmål & forskningens svar. (1/15)
Når man skal forstå et fænomen på sociale medier, fx ekkokamre, misinformation eller had, bør man altid stille 3 spørgsmål:

1) Hvor udbredt er X?
2) Hvad er årsagerne til X?
3) Hvad er effekterne af X?

Hvad siger forskningen om de 3 spørgsmål ift. ekkokamre? (2/15)
Et første skridt er at erkende, at forskningen om sociale medier er i sin vorden. Mange antagelser har vist sig forkerte. Og et enkelt studie giver sjældent sandheden.

Man må basere sig på opdaterede reviews fra internationalt førende forskere. (3/15)
Read 15 tweets
Feb 19
🚨 Preprint of 21 country study

Those not vaxxed against COVID face prejudice, exceeding other targets such as immigrants: psyarxiv.com/t2g45/

A 🧵 on our findings, why they may be controversial, why they in any case are important & how they help remedy the problem.

(1/16)
Debates about COVID-19 vaccines are intense, involving vax mandates (bbc.com/news/world-eur…), strong protests (bbc.com/news/world-us-…) & sharp rhetoric (edition.cnn.com/2022/01/05/eur…). (2/16)
Political cleavages have previously been found to elicit prejudice (doi.org/10.1111/ajps.1…), e.g., exclusion from family relationships. Here we ask if there is prejudice between groups defined by COVID-19 vaccination status? (2/16)
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(