Previous literature on conspiracy beliefs has an important gap, as it has almost completely excluded conspiracy beliefs relating to LGBTQ+ people. The purpose of the present research was to develop and validate a specific tool to measure the Gender Ideology and LGBTQ+ Lobby Conspiracies Beliefs: the GILC scale. Two independent data collections ( N _tot = 1.908) were run involving both heterosexual and gay, lesbian and bisexual people. We expected a mono‐factorial structure of the tool, with high levels of internal reliability, invariant by respondents' gender, sexual orientation and previous knowledge or hearsay of gender ideology. Furthermore, we expected that GILC scale manages to measure a differentiated construct: (a) compared to other specific and general conspiracy contents; (b) compared to a generic disposition to engage in conspiratorial mentality; (c) compared to existing measures of sexual prejudice, stereotypes and negative attitudes towards sexual minority people. In relation to criterion validity, we expected that several psychosocial and socio‐political ideology variables (i.e. RWA and SDO), would associate with high levels in GILC scale. The results confirmed our expectations, showing that GILC scale is a short tool which include nine items with a mono‐factorial structure and with excellent psychometric properties. Limitations and further research directions are discussed.

Negotiators are often advised to seek win-win agreements by focusing on interests (primary features) rather than issues (secondary features), but whether such advice is valid remains to be seen. Consistent with construal level theory (Y. Trope & N. Liberman, 2003), Experiments 1 and 2 show that negotiators focus on secondary features (issues) more than on primary features (interests) when psychological distance is low rather than high, and concomitant construal level is local and specific rather than global and Experiment 3 showed that high construal level promoted problem-solving behavior and therefore facilitated the achievement of win-win agreement, but only when integrative potential resided in underlying interests; when integrative potential resided in the issues, low construal level negotiators achieved higher joint outcomes. Thus, both low- and high-construal negotiators may achieve win-win agreements when such agreements require trade-offs at the level of issues, or at the level of underlying interests, respectively.

When considering how criminals should be punished, most individuals prefer retributive (i.e., punishment compensating for the harm caused by the perpetrator) over utilitarian justice (i.e., punishment with the intent to deter future crime). However, past research has found that individuals with a high (vs. low) need for cognitive closure (NCC) are more likely to endorse utilitarian punishment. In three studies, we replicated past research on the association between need for closure and utilitarian justice (Study 1), and found that this relationship is mediated by moral concerns pertaining to group unity and cohesion (Study 2). In Study 3 we examine another instance of utilitarian policy: torture. Our data provide evidence that preference for utilitarian punishment is rooted in basic moral concerns.

Introduction: Conspiracy theories and beliefs (CTBs) about LGBTQ+ people are often used as arguments in political debate in Italy and across Europe to hinder the passing of protective laws and negatively affect popular consensus regarding the promotion of anti-discrimination policies and the advancement of civil rights. Method: We conducted two correlational studies in Italy starting the data collection at the end of 2022. In Study 1 (N = 589), we investigated which ideological profile was more associated with LGBTQ+ CTBs, between the two profiles identified by Duckitt et al.’s model (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 75–93, 2002): path A) high vision of the world as a competitive jungle and consequent high social dominance orientation; path B) high vision of the world as dangerous and consequent high right-wing authoritarianism. In Study 2 (N = 1581), we have also included three potential outcomes associated with LGBTQ+ CTBs in the model. Results: Through a mediational path model, we found that path B was the strongest associated with LGBTQ+ CTBs. We found that LGBTQ+ CTBs mediated the relationships between the two ideological dispositions and (a) lower support to LGBTQ+ civil rights; (b) lower LGBTQ+ collective action intentions; and (c) higher adherence to economic myths about LGBTQ+ people. Conclusions: Socio-psychological research on LGBTQ+ CTBs may inform social policies that work to lessen the harm these beliefs do and advance a more welcoming and inclusive society. Policy Implications: Such results offer several insights to change and improve the actual debate in political, scientific, and cultural domains, contributing to producing new policies which might increase the self-determination of all LGBTQ+ people.