Yong-Yu Guo’s research while affiliated with Nanjing Normal University and other places

Although the classical economic perspective contends that higher inequality increases support for redistribution, research has produced conflicting findings. Indeed, where some have observed a positive relationship between inequality and redistributive preferences, others have found no evidence of such a relationship. This inconsistency is referred to as the paradox of redistribution. We contend that this paradox may be partially due to people's attributions of inequality, that is, how they think about and understand inequality. From an ideological perspective, our study demonstrates that attributions of inequality moderate the relationship between economic inequality and redistributive preferences. First, in Study 1( N = 676), we conducted a survey showing that perceived inequality positively correlated with redistributive preferences among people with external attribution tendency but negatively correlated with redistributive preferences among people with internal attribution tendency. Second, in Studies 2 ( N = 150) and 3 ( N = 171), we conducted two experiments where perceptions and attributions of inequality were primed at group and national levels, respectively. Similar to the results of Study 1, we found that the effect of primed perceived inequality on redistributive preferences was positive among people primed with external attribution tendency but dampened among those primed with internal attribution tendency. These findings partially explain the paradox of redistribution and illuminate ways to reduce inequality.

Climate change is a global problem that needs to be addressed, but public support for action remains a challenge. According to the Gateway Belief Model (GBM), emphasizing the scientific consensus on the issue predicts changes in cognitive and emotional responses related to climate change, which in turn predict increased support for public action. However, evidence from non-WEIRD populations is lacking for this model. The current study conducted a confirmatory replication of the GBM for the first time in China using a national quota sample (N = 1506). The results suggest that consensus messaging increased participants' perceived scientific consensus, their beliefs that global warming is happening and human caused, as well as support for public action on global warming. Furthermore, the results partially support the mediation hypothesis of the GBM. Experimentally induced changes in perceived scientific consensus directly predicted subsequent changes in general attitudes toward public actions, support for specific government policies, and behavioral intentions. We further found an interaction between participants’ self-reported impact of global warming and the consensus manipulation. Participants less impacted by global warming were more likely to change their perceptions to align with the consensus after being exposed to the consensus message. These findings emphasize the critical role of consensus messaging in enhancing public support for global warming actions in China, especially among those less impacted by global warming.

Recent research has highlighted the crucial role of employment in social mobility amid growing concerns about social solidification and the expanding wealth gap. This study investigates whether university students from upper social status, characterized by a pronounced inclination towards social dominance, prefer occupations that monopolize resources and perpetuate social inequalities. Results indicated that students from higher socioeconomic status exhibited elevated levels of social dominance orientation and favoured occupational values that prioritize elite interests over those that benefit the underprivileged. The second study analysed the actual occupational choices of 169 university students from diverse social backgrounds. A pilot study involving 44 participants identified occupations that either enhance or attenuate social hierarchies. Subsequent regression and mediation analyses revealed that students from more affluent backgrounds showed a marked preference for occupations that enhance social hierarchies and exhibited less interest in occupations that attenuate them. Social dominance orientation was identified as a mediating factor in this relationship. These findings offer new insights into the mechanisms of social mobility and solidification, highlighting the importance of understanding how occupational choices shape, and are shaped by, broader societal structures and their implications for social equity.

Conspiracy theories tend to be prevalent, particularly in societies with high economic inequality. However, few studies have examined the relationship between economic inequality and belief in conspiracy theories. We propose that economic inequality leads people to believe conspiracy theories about economically advantaged groups (i.e., upwards conspiracy theories) and that moral evaluations of those groups mediate this relationship. Study 1 (N = 300) found support for these ideas in a survey among Chinese residents. Study 2 (N = 160) manipulated participants' perceptions of economic inequality in a virtual society. The manipulation shaped moral evaluations of economically advantaged groups, and conspiracy beliefs, in the predicted manner. In Study 3 (N = 191) and Study 4 (N = 210), we experimentally manipulated participants' perceptions of economic inequality in real Chinese society and replicated the results of Study 2. In addition, in Study 4, we find that economic inequality predicts belief in conspiracy theories about economically disadvantaged groups (i.e., downward conspiracy theories), which was mediated by anomie. We conclude that perceived economic inequality predicts conspiracy theories about economically advantaged groups and that moral evaluations account for this effect. Also, upward and downward conspiracy theory beliefs are associated with different psychological processes.

By distinguishing between ingroup versus outgroup conspiracy theories, this research seeks to explain a paradox in conspiracy theory research, namely, that conspiracy beliefs are associated with both derogation and justification of the social system. Study 1 ( N = 1,481) was a survey in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic in China, and the results revealed a negative correlation between belief in ingroup conspiracy theories and system‐justifying beliefs. In Study 2 ( N = 195), exposure to outgroup conspiracy theories positively predicted system‐justifying beliefs, a finding that was serially mediated by external attributions and collective narcissism. In Study 3 ( N = 256), exposure to ingroup conspiracy theories negatively predicted system‐justifying beliefs, a result that was serially mediated by internal attributions and anomie. In Study 4 ( N = 616), exposure to a conspiracy theory about the US government increased system‐justifying beliefs among Chinese participants and decreased them among US participants. The distinction between ingroup versus outgroup conspiracy theories hence implies two different processes through which conspiracy theories affect system‐justifying beliefs.

Regarding social class differences in redistributive preferences, previous research demonstrated the explanations of self-interest perspective were limited. From an ideology perspective, the present study uncovered that attributions for rich-poor gap could mediate the relation between social class and redistributive preferences. In study 1, we conducted a measurement-of-mediation design among adults (N = 448) with the results showing that compared with those from lower social classes, higher-class individuals were more likely to make internal attributions for rich-poor gap, in turn, had lower redistributive preferences. And these associations held controlling for self-interest. In study 2, we conducted an experimental-causal-chain design with the results showing that the experimentally induced higher social class increased internal attributions for rich-poor gap (study 2A, N = 128), and priming internal attributions for rich-poor gap lowered redistributive preferences (study 2B, N = 155). These findings expand the understanding of the psychological mechanisms of class-based policy preferences and shed some light on how to reduce social inequality.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many people have endorsed conspiracy theories about foreign governments yet shown increased trust and support for their own government. Whether there is a potential correlation between these social phenomena and the psychological mechanisms behind them is still unclear. Integrating insights from the existential threat model of conspiracy theories and system justification theory, two experimental studies were conducted to investigate whether belief in out-group conspiracy theories can play a mediating role in the effects of system threat on people's system justification beliefs against the background of the pandemic. The results show that system threat positively predicts individuals’ system-justifying belief, and belief in out-group conspiracy theories mediated this relationship.

Previous research has indicated that social class is likely to be an important factor that influences individuals’ beliefs in conspiracy theories; however, the underlying psychological mechanisms between these two variables remain unclear. This study directly investigated the relationship between these two variables through questionnaires and experimental manipulation, and introduced the perspective of compensatory control theory to investigate the serial mediating role of perceived control and need for structure in the process of social class influencing individuals’ belief in conspiracy theories. The results showed that social class can significantly negatively predict individuals’ belief in conspiracy theories, and perceived control and need for structure played a serial mediating role between them. To some extent, these results reveal the psychological mechanism that causes the higher likelihood of people from lower social classes to believe in conspiracy theories, and advances the explanation from the compensatory control theory.

Sense of entitlement can be defined as a pervasive sense that one deserves more and is entitled to more than others. Two studies examined the relationship between social class and sense of entitlement and how this relationship is moderated by system-justifying belief (SJB) in China. In Study 1, we conducted a survey among adults (N = 669) with results showing that social class was positively correlated with sense of entitlement for those endorsing SJB, but negatively correlated with sense of entitlement for those opposing SJB. In Study 2, we conducted an experiment among undergraduates (N = 128) with both social class and SJB being primed and the results replicated the pattern: the positive effect of primed higher social class on pay entitlement existed only for those primed with high SJB, and was dampened for those primed with low SJB. Therefore, higher-class individuals do not necessarily feel more entitled, and SJB may play an important role in shaping their sense of entitlement.

The status-legitimacy hypothesis proposes that low-status groups are more inclined to justify the status quo as fair and legitimate than high-status groups. Although there are some research evidences for this hypothesis, many studies have found the opposite result, that disadvantaged groups are more dissatisfied with the social system. To resolve this disagreement, this article integrates relevant ideas and empirical research in three aspects. First, the conceptual approach emphasises that the controversy is a result of different operational definitions of social status and system justification in previous studies. The second approach, focusing on moderator variables, proposes that the disputes over past studies are probably due to moderator variables, which can influence the relationship between status and system justification. The third approach, based on psychological mechanisms, proposes that system justification theory cannot completely explain the psychological underpinnings of status differences in system justification, and in order to clarify this, it is necessary to explore other psychological processes. Future studies should continue to examine the mediation mechanisms and boundary conditions of the status-legitimacy hypothesis and may try to establish a nonlinear hypothesis. Moreover, researchers should also pay attention to the application of experimental methods and big-data methods.