http://primenjena.psihologija.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/pp/issue/feed Applied Psychology 2018-02-13T10:50:32+00:00 Jasmina Pekić primenjena.psihologija@ff.uns.ac.rs Open Journal Systems Applied Psychology http://primenjena.psihologija.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/pp/article/view/2070 INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE 2018-01-11T15:20:19+00:00 Bojan Todosijević aa@aa.aa <p style="text-align: justify;">Political psychology is an interdisciplinary field of scientific research, focused on studying the psychological basis of political behavior and attitudes, influence of political context on individual and group behavior, psychological effects of po- litical actions, and so on. It is a growing interdisciplinary field, founded at the in- tersection of social psychology and political science, but also sharing both the top- ics and researchers with sociology, education, and economics.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">While social sciences have studied psychological aspects of politics for dec- ades, even centuries, political psychology appeared as an institutionalized dis- cipline some forty years ago. In 1978, professor Jeanne N. Knutson founded the International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP), which soon attracted wide membership worldwide. The Society initiated an academic journal, Political Psy- chology, which is currently among the top academic journals both in social psy- chology and in political science.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Over the last two decades, research in political psychology spread across the former socialist world as well. Challenges of social and political transformations towards the West European political models created a need for scientific study of psychological aspects of the involved processes and phenomena. Scholars of different generations, whether or not they call themselves a political psycholo- gist, are studying the most pressing issues these societies are facing. This research often reaches close to the ancient social science ideal – to continue expanding our understanding of human behavior and to do service to the society.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">An impressive overview of political psychology research in the South-East- ern region of Europe was presented at the Mini Conference on Political Psychol- ogy in South-Eastern Europe, held in Novi Sad (Serbia), in October 2016 (http:// psihologija.ff.uns.ac.rs/ispp2016/). The Conference was supported and partly sponsored by the ISSP and by the Department of Psychology, University of Novi Sad, Serbia. Dozens of presented papers, covering a wide range of topics, from prejudice to political tolerance, from ethnic conflicts and violence to peace march- es in Hungary, clearly demonstrated that the gathered researchers do not hesitate to address the burning and controversial issues, nor that they compromise their theory and method.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">This special issue of <em>Primenjena psihologija </em>presents a selection of papers from this Mini Conference, together with some contributions first appearing in this issue. Although it was not planned, it turned out that all of the included papers, in one way or another, deal with Serbia, and involve at least some au- thors from Serbia. This unintended situation turned this special issue also into a showcase of political psychology research in Serbia. Even a cursory review of the papers leaves the impression of a wide range of socially very relevant topics, concern for psychological theory, and insistence on sound research methodology.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">At this point, I would like to remind readers that the quality and quantity of political psychology research in Serbia has roots in the long tradition of political- ly-related research of Serbian psychologists. While great names of Serbian social psychology, such as Nikola Rot, Dragomir Pantić, Ljiljana Baćević, Mirjana Vasović, Bora Kuzmanović, and others, probably would not call themselves political psy- chologists, a significant portion of their work would fit into the contemporary category of political psychology. A recently published chapter by Dragomir Pantić and Zoran Pavlović (2016) illuminates the not so well-known origins of scien- tific research dealing with political attitudes, values, opinions in Serbia. With such roots, the academic level of the papers included in this volume is not surprising.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The following several paragraphs will provide a brief review of the papers in this special issue. Conflicts and wars that accompanied the collapse of the former Yugoslavia, and psychological consequence thereof, represent one of the major themes that preoccupy psychologists in Serbia. Tijana Karić, Vladimir Mihić, and José Ángel Ruiz Jiménez focus on the psychological aspects of collective memory. How do Serbian respondents react to collective memory stimuli that are presented from different angles, i.e., from the angles of the conflicted ethnic groups – Serbs, Bosniaks, and Croats? Their study analyzes how such stimuli impact respondents’ stereotypes, social distance, and national identification.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Consequences of the post-Yugoslav conflicts are even more in the focus of Professor Miklos Biro’s text “Public opinion in Serbia on ICTY: A chicken or an egg?”. The establishment, mode of operation, and sentences passed (and not passed) by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) have been highly controversial in Serbia. Biro’s review of public opinion research evidence shows that the level of negative attitudes among the public toward the ICTY could be connected with the rhetoric of the Serbian political elite, and the way that media handled this issue.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">Post-Yugoslav history is also reflected in Huseyin Cakal and Nebojša Petrović paper titled “Intergroup contact and ingroup identification as predictors of inter- group attitudes and forgiveness in the Serbian context: The moderating role of exposure to positive information”. Here, the authors use a survey experiment to study the role of exposure to positive information on intergroup attitudes and for- giveness. One of their many interesting findings is that past contacts with mem- bers of the outgroup persist as significant predictors of present-day outgroup at- titudes, in this case of Serbs towards Bosniak Muslims.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">The remaining two papers deal with more explicitly political topics. Boban Petrović and Janko Međedović examine how the lexically derived ideological di- mensions are associated with party preferences, and whether and how these relationship changed over time. Interestingly, contrary to what we could expect assuming the existence of the process of “democratic learning”, it seems that the association between party preference and ideological dimensions is decreasing over time. Pavlović and Todosijević, in their paper “Authoritarianism and cogni- tive, political involvement”, address the neglected question of whether authori</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">tarianism is associated with political cognition. The answer is nuanced: high au- thoritarianism is associated with lower factual political knowledge, but not with political interest and interest in election campaigns. Apparently, transitory po- litical context can make high authoritarians more or less interested, but political knowledge seems to be a more stable correlate of authoritarianism.</p> <p style="text-align: justify;">To summarize, the papers included in this volume illustrate the wide range of topics, approaches and research methods that characterize political psychol- ogy in Serbia. While the psychological study of politics in earlier decades relied almost exclusively on survey research and focused on attitudes towards actual political issues, current political psychology is more varied both theoretically and methodologically. It also appears that the tumultuous events of the last two dec- ades provided additional stimuli for younger researchers to engage in political psychology research.</p> <p style="text-align: right;">Bojan Todosijević<br>Guest editor<br>Institute of Social Sciences, Serbia</p> 2018-01-11T15:04:27+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://primenjena.psihologija.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/pp/article/view/2078 STEREOTYPES IN YOUNG SERBS ABOUT CROATS AND BOSNIAKS PROVOKED BY COLLECTIVE MEMORY STIMULI 2018-02-13T10:44:16+00:00 Tijana Karić tijanakaric.psi@gmail.com Vladimir Mihić tijanakaric.psi@gmail.com José Ángel Ruiz Jiménez tijanakaric.psi@gmail.com <p>Not many studies have dealt with how Serbs from Serbia see Croats and Bosniaks in the light of the wars from 1990s. In our study, we used a quasi-experimental approach to assess the type of stereotypes provoked in Serbs, and their relationship to social distance and the national identity. The sample consisted of 66 participants of Serbian ethnicity, born between 1991 and 1995, who are residing in Serbia. The instruments included Social Distance Scale, National Identity Scale, socio-demographic questionnaire and a set of collective memory stimuli followed by a set of questions. As stimuli, we used shortened versions of collective memories as described by Ruiz Jiménez (2013), in order to set a context which referred to the 1990s wars. The results have shown that the described stimuli have impactneither on stereotypes nor on the social distance and the national identity of participants. However, the social distance is lower than in previous studies in the region, and Croats are consistently seen in more negative terms than Bosniaks and Serbs.</p> 2018-01-11T00:00:00+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://primenjena.psihologija.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/pp/article/view/2079 PUBLIC OPINION IN SERBIA ON ICTY: A CHICKEN OR AN EGG? 2018-02-13T10:45:07+00:00 Mikloš Biro biromik@gmail.com <p>The paper presents seven consecutive public opinion polls in Serbia (in the period 2000–2011) on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and its “partiality“ towards Serbs. The author connected changes in attitudes of citizens during the observed years with the public statements of the “national leaders“ about the Tribunal, as well as with the presentation of the facts of Serbian war crimes in Serbian media. Even though the observed correlation could not be interpreted in the terms of causal relation, the author pointed out to the importance of creators of the public opinion, and offered a possibility that the leading politicians and media in Serbia were not reactive to the attitudes of citizens (as they claimed) but vice versa – they created the public opinion of citizens by their statements or by presentation of the facts about Serbian war crimes.</p> 2018-01-11T00:00:00+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://primenjena.psihologija.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/pp/article/view/2075 INTERGROUP CONTACT AND INGROUP IDENTIFICATION AS PREDICTORS INTERGROUP ATTITUDES AND FORGIVENESS IN THE SERBIAN CONTEXT: THE MODERATING ROLE OF EXPOSURE TO POSITIVE INFORMATION 2018-02-13T10:47:25+00:00 Huseyin Cakal h.cakal@keele.ac.uk Nebojša Petrović h.cakal@keele.ac.uk <p>Intergroup contact reduces prejudice and improves outgroup attitudes, while a salient social identity might have the opposite effects. Recent research has shown that exposure to positive information about the outgroup could influence such effects of the contact and social identity on the outgroup attitudes. Here we investigate the effects of the contact and social identity on the outgroup attitudes, and forgiveness toward the outgroup of Bosniak Muslims among Serbs (<em>N </em>= 400), by randomly allocating them into control and experimental groups. In the experimental condition, the students were presented with brief biographies of three eminent Bosniak Muslims, in the positive context, after which they collected the survey. In the control group, students were only presented with the survey without the biographies. Subsequent independent samples t-tests showed that the mean values for ingroup identification and intergroup trust were significantly different in the two groups. Specifically, participants who were in the experimental condition, being exposed to the positive information about Bosniak Muslims, reported a higher level of intergroup trust and a lower level of ingroup identification as Serbian. We then performed a multi-group structural equation modeling through which we tested a predictive role of the past contact and in-the group identification on trust and collective guilt in both control and experimental conditions. Across both groups, past contact positively and ingroup identification negatively predicted both intergroup attitudes and forgiveness via trust and collective guilt. Exposure to the positive information about the outgroup moderated the indirect effects of the ingroup identification on the intergroup attitudes via collective guilt.</p> 2018-02-18T08:18:26+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://primenjena.psihologija.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/pp/article/view/2076 TEMPORAL CHANGES IN THE EVALUATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES: DOES EVALUATION OF POLITICAL PARTIES REFLECT ATTITUDINAL IDEOLOGIES? 2018-02-13T10:49:13+00:00 Boban Petrović boban.petrovic@iksi.ac.rs Janko Međedović boban.petrovic@iksi.ac.rs <p>Previous research has shown that since the beginning of the 1990s, differentiation in the ideological orientations of political parties in Serbia has been increased. Comparing three samples, we explored the temporal stability of relations between evaluations of Serbian political parties (DSS, DS, SRS, SPS, SNS, and LDP) and lexically derived ideological dimensions: Traditional and Religious Sources of Authority, Unmitigated Self-Interest, Communal Rationalism, and Subjective Spirituality. We hypothesize that: 1) political parties should be divided into conservative and socio-liberal parties, and this structure should become stable over time; 2) the evaluation of political parties should consistently reflect their political ideology orientation : conservative parties should be related to an indicator of conservative ideology, Traditional Religiosity, while socio-liberal parties should be related to a humanistic ideological orientation, Communal Rationalism. Data was collected in three time-points: 2010 (<em>N </em>= 102), 2014/15 (<em>N </em>= 358) and 2016 (<em>N </em>= 117) from university students in Serbia. In all three studies principal component analyses of evaluations of political parties showed that two components were extracted and interpreted as evaluations of the National-Conservative Parties and Socio-Liberal Parties (in 2010 and 2014), i.e. Democratic parties (in 2016). However, while the structure of evaluations of the National-Conservative Parties remained stable, the congruence of evaluations of the Socio-Liberal Parties decreased over time. Additionally, the results of regression analyses showed that evaluations of the National-Conservative Parties were rooted in Traditional and Religious Sources of Authority and Unmitigated Self-interest, but the percentage of explained variance decreased over time. The evaluations of the Socio-Liberal Parties had much weaker relations with ideological orientations throughout all three time-points. The findings suggested that there was some kind of ‘’ideological crisis’’ in Serbia, primarily regarding the Socio-Liberal Parties and their supporters.</p> 2018-02-18T08:18:26+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://primenjena.psihologija.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/pp/article/view/2077 AUTHORITARIANISM AND COGNITIVE POLITICAL INVOLVEMENT 2018-02-13T10:50:32+00:00 Zoran Pavlović zoran.pavlovic@f.bg.ac.rs Bojan Todosijević zoran.pavlovic@f.bg.ac.rs <p>This study analyses the linkage between authoritarianism and three indicators that describe one’s general cognitive orientation towards the world of politics: political knowledge, general interest in politics, and interest in the election campaign. Individuals high in authoritarianism are hypothesized to be less politically competent and less interested in politics, due to their resistance to adopting new information and to changing the adopted beliefs. This hypothesis is based on the classical description of the authoritarian personality, but it has not been adequately empirically verified yet. The data are taken from a post-election public opinion survey conducted in 2012 after the presidential and parliamentary elections, on a random sample of voting age citizens of Serbia (<em>N</em> = 1568). The results show that authoritarianism and the level of political knowledge are significantly and negatively correlated, even after controlling for the basic socio-demographic variables. The intensity of political interest is not significantly correlated with authoritarianism. Additional comparison of the misinformed and uninformed groups (those who provided incorrect answers, and those who answered “don't know”, respectively) did not support the view that authoritarian persons are more inclined to erroneously guess an answer than to simply say “don’t know”. The study concludes that the association between political knowledge and authoritarianism is based on deeper psychological roots, while the (lack of) association with political interest is likely to be context-dependent.</p> 2018-01-11T00:00:00+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement## http://primenjena.psihologija.ff.uns.ac.rs/index.php/pp/article/view/2081 Acknowledgment of reviewers 2018-01-23T07:15:07+00:00 Ljiljana Mihić lmihic@ff.uns.ac.rs <p>The Editorial board of the <em>Applied Psychology Journal</em> (<em>Primenjena psihologija</em>) would like to thank the following people who dedicated their time and acted as reviewers in 2017.</p> <p>Dr Aleksandar Vasić, vanredni profesor, Fakultet za pravne i poslovne studije "Dr Lazar Vrkatić" u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Aleksandra Huić, docent, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Zagrebu,</p> <p>Dr Aleksandra Trogrlić, docent, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Ana Genc, docent, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Bojana Bodroža, docent, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Bojana Dinić, docent, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Bojan Todosijević, viši naučni saradnik, Institut društvenih nauka u Beogradu,</p> <p>Dr Bojan Janičić, docent, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu, </p> <p>Dr Boris Popov, docent, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Danka Purić, docent, Laboratorija za istraživanje individualnih razlika, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu,</p> <p>Dr Dušan Vejnović, docent, Fakultet za medije i komunikacije, Univerzitet Singidunum,</p> <p>Dr Dušanka Mitrović, redovni profesor, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Ivana Petrović, docent, Odeljenje za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu,</p> <p>Dr Ivanka Živčić Bećirović, redovni profesor, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Rijeci,</p> <p>Dr Jelica Petrović, vanredni profesor, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Jelisaveta Todorović, redovni profesor, Departman za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Nišu,</p> <p>Dr Klaus Schlichte, redovni profesor, Institut za interkulturalne i internacionalne studije, Univerzitet u Bremenu,</p> <p>Dr Ljiljana Lazarević, naučni saradnik, Laboratorija za istraživanje individualnih razlika, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu,</p> <p>Dr Ljiljana Mihić, vanredni profesor, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Milan Oljača, MA, asistent, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Nada Krapić, vanredni profesor, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Rijeci,</p> <p>Dr Oliver Tošković, docent, Odeljenje za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu,</p> <p>Dr Petar Čolović, docent, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Siniša Subotić, docent, Filozofski fakultet, Univerzitet za poslovni inžinjering i manadžment u Banjaluci,</p> <p>Dr Slobodan Marković, redovni profesor, Odeljenje za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu,</p> <p>Dr Smiljana Jošić, istraživač saradnik, Institut za pedagoška istraživanja u Beogradu,</p> <p>Dr Vera Ćubela Adorić, vanredni profesor, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Zadru,</p> <p>Dr Vladimir Mihić, vanredni profesor, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Novom Sadu,</p> <p>Dr Zoran Pavlović, docent, Odeljenje za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu,</p> <p>Dr Zvjezdan Penezić, redovni profesor, Odsek za psihologiju, Filozofski fakultet Univerziteta u Zadru.</p> 2018-01-09T00:00:00+00:00 ##submission.copyrightStatement##