Symposium Summary:

Dr. Jer Clifton will chair a symposium that will present two new primals papers with surprising results that shed light on the developmental origins of primal world beliefs in order to facilitate dynamic discussion with the audience of research avenues that might be explored next--we are hungry for ideas. 

• 5 minutes: Dr. Clifton introduces the primals concept, describes potential importance for wellbeing, which begs the question where do primals come from? 
• 10 minutes: Dr. Nick Kerry presents empirical findings demonstrating that a popular intuition is that positive primals reflect having led an objectively privileged life (Study 1) but new findings suggest this is objectively not the case (e.g., rich people don't see the world as more abundant, those living in dangerous zip codes don't see the world as more dangerous, etc.; Study 2 and Study 3). 
• 10 minutes: Dr. Clifton will present empirical findings showing that, despite popular intuition, changes in worldwide conditions don't seem to change our beliefs about the world. Analysis of 2 samples suggests that when the pandemic made the world objectively more dangerous, dangerous world belief did not increase. 
• 5 minutes: Dr. Clifton will comment on takeaways that primals might be like schematic lenses used to interpret our experiences that aren't themselves influenced by those experiences and there are many reasons to be hopeful that primals can be changed.
• 30 minutes: Hungry for ideas about what to study next, Dr. Clifton would then invite a discussion with attendees about their questions and especially where they think primals might come from, given that changing objective life circumstances in order to alter primal world beliefs will probably never do the trick. For example, Dr. Clifton would invite the audience to reflect on how their own primal world beliefs originated and invite comment if the experience seems generalizable. 

Symposium Presentation 1: Despite Popular Intuition, Positive Primal World Beliefs Poorly Reflect Indicators of Privilege  

Beliefs that the world is safe, abundant, pleasurable, and progressing (termed “primal world beliefs”) strongly correlate with—and are hypothesized to influence—wellbeing. But could these positive beliefs simply stem from enjoying a privileged life? Study 1 (N=980) found that laypeople and researchers predicted 12 substantial correlations between world beliefs and several indicators of privilege (being male, rich, healthy, living in low-crime environments, etc.). Study 2 (N=14,481) tested these 12 pre-registered predictions using self-report and objective regional data, finding mostly negligible relationships (e.g., instead of the expected r=.33, neighborhood affluence correlated with Abundant world belief at r=.05). Study 3 (N=1,086, pre-registered) explored associations with negative life experiences by comparing controls to those experiencing cancer, cystic fibrosis, and causing a fatal accident, again finding mostly small or null relationships. Results could represent good news: if worldviews are not determined by external circumstances, this might allow more room for internally driven change.

Status: Under review at Psychological Science

Symposium Presentation 2: Resilience of primal world beliefs to the initial shock of the COVID-19 pandemic

People hold general beliefs about the world called primals (e.g., the world is Safe, Intentional), which are strongly linked to individual differences in personality, behavior, and mental health. How such beliefs form or change across the lifespan is largely unknown, although theory suggests that beliefs become more negative after disruptive events. The COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity to test whether dramatic world changes and personal adversity affect beliefs. In a longitudinal, quasi-experimental, pre-registered design, 529 US participants (51% female, 76% White) provided ratings of primals before and several months after pandemic onset, and information about personal adversity (e.g., losing family, financial hardship). Data were compared to 398 participants without experience of the pandemic. The average person in our sample showed no change in 23 of the 26 primals, including Safe, in response to the early pandemic, and only saw the world as slightly less Alive, Interactive, and Acceptable. Higher adversity, however, was associated with slight declines in some beliefs. One limitation is that participants were exclusively American. Primals were remarkably stable during the initial shock wrought by a once-in-a-century pandemic, supporting a view of primals as stable lenses through which people interpret the world.

Status: Published 2022 in Journal of Personality

Ludwig, V. U., Crone, D., Clifton, J. D., Rebele, R. W., Schor, J., & Platt, M. L. (2022). Resilience of primal world beliefs to the initial shock of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12780