In a classic theory, Durkheim (1912) predicted that because of the social sharing of emotion they generate, collective gatherings bring participants to a stage of collective effervescence in which they experience a sense of union with others and a feeling of empowerment accompanied by positive affect. This would lead them to leave the collective situation with a renewed sense of confidence in life and in social institutions. A century after Durkheim's predictions of these effects, though, they remained untested as a whole. This article reports 4 studies, 2 correlational, 1 semilongitudinal, and 1 experimental, assessing the positive effects of participation in either positively valenced (folkloric marches) or negatively valenced (protest demonstrations) collective gatherings. Results confirmed that collective gatherings consistently strengthened collective identity, identity fusion, and social integration, as well as enhancing personal and collective self-esteem and efficacy, positive affect, and positive social beliefs among participants. In line with a central tenet of the theory, emotional communion, or perceived emotional synchrony with others mediated these effects. Higher perceived emotional synchrony was associated with stronger emotional reactions, stronger social support, and higher endorsement of social beliefs and values. Participation in symbolic collective gatherings also particularly reinforced identity fusion when perceived emotional synchrony was high. The respective contributions of perceived emotional synchrony and flow, or optimal experience, were also assessed. Whereas perceived emotional synchrony emerged as strongly related to the various social outcomes, flow was observed to be related first to collective efficacy and self-esteem, and thus, to encompass mainly empowerment effects.

With data from a 20-nation study (N = 2,533), the authors investigated how individual patterns of endorsement of individualist and collectivist attitudes are distributed within and across national contexts. A cluster analysis performed on individual scores of self-reliance (individualist dimension), group-oriented interdependence (collectivist dimension), and competitiveness (individualist or collectivist dimension) yielded a typology of four constrained combinations of these dimensions. Despite the prevalence of a typology group within a given country, variability was observed in all countries. Self-reliant non-competitors and interdependent non-competitors were prevalent among participants from Western nations, whereas self-reliant competitors and interdependent competitors were more common in non-Western countries. These findings emphasize the benefits for cross-cultural research of a typological approach based on combinations of individualist and collectivist dimensions.

The Brief-COPE is an abbreviated version of the COPE (Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced) Inventory, a self-report questionnaire developed to assess a broad range of coping responses. Currently, it is one of the best validated and most frequently used measures of coping strategies. The aim of this study was to validate a culturally appropriate Chilean version of the Brief-COPE, assess its psychometric properties and construct and congruent validity. The Spanish version of the Brief-COPE was administrated in a community sample of 1847 Chilean adult (60.4% women) exposed to a variety of stressful experiences. The factorial structure of the inventory was examined by comparing four different models found in previous studies in Latin American population. The results of confirmatory factor analyses revealed, as in the original studies, a 14-factor structure of the Brief-COPE. These dimensions showed adequate internal structure and consistency. The factorial invariance comparing women and men confirmed strict invariance. Additionally, the results showed significant correlation between some Brief-COPE scales, such as denial and substance use, with perceived stress and emotional support and active coping with subjective well-being. Overall, the present work offers a valid and reliable tool for assessing coping strategies in the Chilean population.

This study tests specific competing hypotheses from social dominance theory/realistic conflict theory (RCT) versus system justification theory about the role of social status. In particular, it examines whether system justification belief and effects are stronger among people with low socioeconomic status, and in less socially developed and unequal nations than among better-off people and countries. A cross-national survey was carried out in 19 nations from the Americas, Western and Eastern Europe, Asia, and Oceania using representative online samples ( N = 14,936, 50.15% women, M_age = 41.61 years). At the individual level, system justification beliefs, right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, national identification, sociopolitical conservatism, sex, age, and social status were measured. At the national level, the human development index and the Gini index were used. Multilevel analyses performed indicated that results fit better with the social dominance/RCT approach, as system justification was higher in high-status and developed nations; further, associations between legitimizing ideologies and system justification were stronger among high-status people.