People often speak of random acts of violence. Traumatic events may be unpredictable, but they are not random. A political psychology of trauma requires an understanding of the patterned nature of traumatic experiences, which is the main objective of this chapter. Traumatic experiences are associated with factors such as gender, age, minority ethnic or religious group and poverty. Different demographic groups tend to have different types and ranges of traumatic experiences. There are groups of people who may be far more vulnerable than others when they encounter a traumatic experience. On the other hand, when people encounter a traumatic experience from a position of relative strength, the outcome is likely to be very different to having the same experience at a moment of vulnerability. The role of these social risks and their consequence for people’s subsequent resources is centrally relevant to how people adjust to trauma. People’s responses to the events they experience are covered in later chapters, though obviously these two factors, the experience and the response, are connected. The main goal of the chapter is to uncover how social economic and political resources play a role in shaping people’s exposure and vulnerability to traumatic events.

Because people have many identities, or multiple identities, social context and cues are important in determining when a social identity or group membership drives behaviour. Traumatic reminders, or triggers, can make group memberships salient. These reminders can take the form of discrete events or even wider events where political or historical context is seen to be relevant. Trauma has the capacity to reveal differences between us, or between us and ‘them’. A long tradition of research in social psychology documents the role of a sense of ingroup and outgroup, ‘us’ and ‘them’, that underlies tensions and hostilities between groups. In contexts where the situation is already oppositional or polarised, these tensions can quickly give rise to anger and even open hostilities. This can lead to a downward spiral of events where the anger and distress associated with traumatic circumstances give rise to social and political action.

Traumatic experience matters. Trauma isn’t some post-millennial concern. In fact, the idea that trauma has pathological effects has been around for a long time. In this chapter, the costs of trauma in terms of death and disability are considered before turning to the mental health costs of trauma. The World Mental Health surveys are used to consider the global cost of post-traumatic stress and the associated disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder. Both are believed to flow directly from traumatic experience. Trauma also has a significant human cost, driving incidence of substance misuse and depression, which can be thought of as relevant comorbidities. The potential for symptoms of post-traumatic stress to be misinterpreted and for affected populations to be pilloried because of their trauma is also considered. Finally, the social and economic burdens of trauma are reviewed. Trauma can contribute to poverty, disability and underemployment, migration of populations, family separation and homelessness, all of which carry significant social and economic costs.

Traumatic events, because they affect people’s social identities and group memberships, can ultimately impact their psychological outcomes after trauma. Traumatic events that consolidate social identities can provide a platform for resilience and even give hope for the future. Trauma that is seen as a shared experience can offer a new basis for connecting to others in difficult times. This can also be a source of resilience. This chapter delves into existing new and multiple group memberships as a foundation for resilience. The role of changes in group memberships and degree of connections to these groups on psychological outcomes after trauma is reviewed. Paying attention to political dimensions, the impact of shifts in the value placed on groups and identities by changing social and political circumstances is also considered. The chapter concludes that changes in social identities and group memberships are a powerful determinant of psychological adjustment to trauma.

Doing research on the impact of traumatic experiences can be both heartening and heart-rending. People and situations are encountered that would touch the hardest of hearts, and others are met who inspire with their tenacity and strength to go on. Psychological trauma and adaptation to traumatic events is without question a truly fascinating and important field. You don’t have to look hard to find stories of stress and trauma. Crisis and catastrophe happen with remarkable regularity. Yet the attributes that help or hinder people when they meet misfortune are not well understood. In this chapter contemporary models and definitions of trauma are reviewed. And research that shows us that traumatic experiences are shaped by social and political factors is briefly considered to highlight the relevance of social sciences and social psychology, specifically to the study of trauma, as they offer a set of analytical tools. This allows us to unravel the social and political processes that matter to how people cope with adversity, which leads to a conclusion that emphasises that a social psychological perspective on trauma is useful and necessary.

This chapter considers the role of social identities in processing, responding to and recovering from traumatic experiences. Two possible mechanisms are outlined. The first is that trauma reveals the value of existing social identities, which drives post-traumatic growth. The second relates to the sense of connection that can emerge amongst victims of trauma that allows new social identities to develop. Where collective post-traumatic growth occurs, people can develop insight, or collective consciousness, into how their traumatic experiences are tied to their group membership. This understanding of the systematic and patterned nature of trauma not only enables connections between those affected but also facilitates resistance to problematic and oppressive systems and structures. This chapter concludes by highlighting the potential for trauma, because of its identity-based consequences, to be a force for positive social change.

This chapter draws out the implications of the patterned nature of traumatic experiences. The chapter offers a new way of understanding trauma that emphasises the significance of group memberships. Trauma and adverse experience can lead to the categorisation and recategorisation of people into different groups, such as labelling them as ‘refugees’ or ‘widows’ due to war or bereavement. Trauma can also reinforce existing group memberships and boundaries. This social identity approach is useful to studying trauma, then, because the risk and experience of trauma can shape identity. And though shared group memberships and identities can be crucial social and psychological resources for coping with trauma, where blame is laid for the experience of a trauma, this can disconnect those who experience trauma from their own group. The chapter emphasises the value of a social psychological analysis, and especially a social identity analysis, in comprehending the relationship between traumatic experiences and our sense of ourselves and others as group members. This hinges on the core idea that group memberships play a crucial role in how we experience and manage trauma.

This chapter reviews the evidence behind the anti-misinformation interventions that have been designed and tested since misinformation research exploded in popularity around 2016. It focuses on four types of intervention: boosting skills or competences (media/digital literacy, critical thinking, and prebunking); nudging people by making changes to social media platforms’ choice architecture; debunking misinformation through fact-checking; and (automated) content labelling. These interventions have one of three goals: to improve relevant skills such as spotting manipulation techniques, source criticism, or lateral reading (in the case of boosting interventions and some content labels); to change people’s behavior, most commonly improving the quality of their sharing decisions (for nudges and most content labels); or to reduce misperceptions and misbeliefs (in the case of debunking). While many such interventions have been shown to work well in lab studies, there continues to be an evidence gap with respect to their effectiveness over time, and how well they work in real-life settings (such as on social media).

Most people who regularly use the Internet will be familiar with words like “misinformation,” “fake news,” “disinformation,” and maybe even “malinformation.” It can appear as though these terms are used interchangeably, and they often are. However, they don’t always refer to the same types of content, and just because a news story or social media post is false doesn’t always mean it’s problematic. To add to the confusion, not all misinformation researchers agree on the definition of the problem, or employ a unified terminology. This chapter discusses the terminology around misinformation, guided by illustrative examples of problematic news content. It also looks at what misinformation isn’t: what makes a piece of information “real” or “true”? Finally, we explore how researchers have defined misinformation and how these definitions can be categorized, before presenting the working definition that is used throughout this book.