Drawing on uncertainty-identity theory, we investigated how people respond differently to identity uncertainty at a superordinate (i.e., UK) or subgroup (i.e., Scottish) level depending on the subjective self-conceptual centrality of subgroup relative to superordinate group; altering superordinate and subgroup identification and attitude toward subgroup relations to the superordinate group in the context of Scotland’s bid for independence from the UK (N = 115). Hierarchical regression analyses confirmed our prediction. Where the subgroup was self-conceptually more central than the superordinate group, subgroup identity uncertainty strengthened superordinate identification (H1) and weakened subgroup identification. Strengthened superordinate identification weakened support for subgroup separation. However, where the superordinate group was self-conceptually more central than the subgroup, superordinate identity uncertainty was not associated with superordinate and subgroup identification (H2).
In three studies, we examined whether ingroup disparaging humor leads to greater stereotyping of the ingroup. First, in Study 1, (N = 101) university students were exposed to (a) ingroup disparaging humor, (b) neutral humor, or (c) ingroup disparaging nonhumorous text. Participants exposed to disparaging humor reported more stereotypic evaluations than those in the neutral humor or disparaging text condition. Study 2 (N = 167) replicated these findings with humor conditions (disparaging vs. neutral) and showed that ingroup identification moderated the effects of the type of humor. Low identifiers exposed to ingroup disparaging humor (vs. those in the control condition) reported a greater frequency of stereotypic evaluations, whereas the manipulation did not affect high identifiers. Finally, Study 3 (N = 153) also manipulated the source of the jokes. As in Study 2, we found an interaction effect showing that high identifiers were not affected by the manipulation, whereas for low identifiers disparaging humor increased stereotyping and led to more negative emotions toward the ingroup. No significant effects were found for source of the jokes. We discuss findings in terms of how the traditional pattern of humor facilitating outgroup stereotyping also seems to apply to ingroup stereotyping.
We examined how the perception that separatist groups threaten the majority’s moral identity impacts the latter group’s support for reconciliation in separatist conflict. Two studies were conducted in Indonesia, where separatist conflict is rife. Javanese students (representing the nonseparatist majority) responded surveys regarding separatist conflicts in Aceh (Study 1, N = 679) or West Papua (Study 2, N = 500). As expected, perceived threat to the majority’s moral identity increased this particular group’s reconciliatory attitudes (Study 1), emotions, and behaviours (Study 2), through increased compensatory needs for social acceptance and restoration of moral image. These findings underline the importance of moral identity dynamics in separatist conflict. Moreover, they reveal that the majority, despite its dominant position, can experience morality threat from separatist groups which can foster positive attitudes towards the reconciliation process.
What power dynamics are instantiated when a minority group member empathizes with a dominant group member during social interaction? How do these dynamics compare to those instantiated when the dominant group member instead does the empathizing? According to a general power script account, because empathy is generally directed "down" toward disadvantaged targets needing support, the empathizer should come out "on top" with respect to power-relevant outcomes no matter who it is. According to a meta-stereotype account, because adopting an empathic stance in intergroup contexts leads individuals to think about how their own group is viewed (including with respect to power-relevant characteristics), the dominant group member might come out on top no matter which person empathizes. Two studies involving face-to-face intergroup exchanges yielded results that overall were consistent with the meta-stereotype account: Regardless of who does it, empathy in intergroup contexts seems more apt to exacerbate than mitigate group-based status differences.
Starting from the pluralistic view of morality proposed by the moral foundations theory, this paper aims at highlighting the plurality of personal moral concerns that may drive people to collective action and at investigating how they are connected with other personal and group-based motivations to act (i.e., moral obligation, moral convictions, politicized group identity, group efficacy, and group-based anger). Moral foundations can be distinguished into individualizing foundations, aimed at protecting individual rights and well-being; and binding foundations, aimed at tightening people into ordered communities. We expected that collective action intention would be most strongly associated with an individualizing foundation in equality-focused movements, and with a binding foundation in conformity-focused ones. Four studies that examined activists of both liberal and conservative movements confirmed these expectations. The relevant foundations predicted collective action mainly through the mediation of moral obligation and politicized identity, but they also had some effects above and beyond them.
When objective group membership and subjective ethnic identification don’t align, which has a greater impact on how people feel towards the groups they affiliate with, and why? Deprived of many distinctiveness markers typically found in intergroup relations (e.g., physical features, obvious status differences), Taiwanese society provides a perfect natural context to explore the impact of objective group membership (Taiwanese nationality) versus subjective ethnic identification (Taiwanese or Chinese) on intergroup bias. Results from representative telephone (N = 1,060) and Internet (N = 500) surveys demonstrated that even among participants with no visible distinctiveness markers or differences in social status, subjective ethnic identification contributed to intergroup bias in favor of Taiwanese over Chinese Mainlanders (main effect). Both self-enhancement (collective self-esteem as Taiwanese) and perceived threat from Chinese Mainlanders helped account for this finding (mediation effects). Implications for intergroup relations are discussed.
Whether racism is perceived in ambiguous situations may depend on individual differences in perceivers’ beliefs about the prevalence of racial prejudice and discrimination, trivialization of targets’ concerns, and vigilance and confidence in recognizing instances of racial prejudice. In Studies 1 and 2, we develop a psychometrically sound measure of these beliefs, the Propensity to Make Attributions to Prejudice Scale (PMAPS), and provide evidence that the PMAPS is related to individual differences in the justification and suppression of prejudice. Studies 3 and 5 provide evidence that the PMAPS predicts attributions to prejudice in a variety of situations. Theoretically consistent racial and gender differences in the PMAPS were found in a large sample (Study 4). Together, these data provide evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the PMAPS and provide insights about the role that beliefs and expectations play in third-party observers’ judgments about expressions of prejudice.
Increasing outgroup empathy is an important first step toward reducing intergroup conflict. The communication of group-based anger has been found to increase outgroup empathy due to its presumed relational function (as it signals to the outgroup that they unfairly treat the ingroup, but also that the ingroup wants to maintain a positive intergroup relationship). Yet, little is known about when communicating group-based anger increases outgroup empathy. We therefore examine two antecedent conditions, namely perceived procedural unfairness (which makes the communication of anger more appropriate) and outgroup consensus (which makes the communication of anger more group-based). Three experiments suggest that the communication of group-based anger increases outgroup empathy only when the outgroup was treated unfairly (Experiment 1) and when there was high outgroup consensus (Experiment 2). Results from Experiment 3 revealed that either antecedent seems sufficient to facilitate the positive, empathy-inducing effects of the communication of group-based anger. We discuss the implications of these findings for the theory and practice of communicating anger in intergroup conflicts to increase outgroup empathy.
We utilized a general intervention that affects (through "recalibration") the way people generalize negative associations when evaluating objects to promote less negative expectations about an interaction with a Black Internet "chat" partner. During this intervention, participants played a game to learn which "beans" varying in shape and speckles increased or decreased their points. Participants later classified game beans and new beans as good or bad. Recalibration condition participants were told whether they classified beans correctly, thus receiving feedback regarding the appropriate weighting of resemblance to a known positive versus negative object. Control participants, who received no feedback, were more likely to classify new beans as negative than recalibration participants. Compared to control, the recalibration condition also anticipated feeling less intergroup anxiety during a chat with a Black partner (Experiments 1 and 2) and this effect was strongest among participants who reported fewer close interactions with Black people (Experiment 2).
What accounts for the widespread support for Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential race? This experiment demonstrates that the changing racial demographics of America contribute to Trump’s success as a presidential candidate among White Americans whose race/ethnicity is central to their identity. Reminding White Americans high in ethnic identification that non-White racial groups will outnumber Whites in the United States by 2042 caused them to become more concerned about the declining status and influence of White Americans as a group (i.e., experience group status threat), and caused them to report increased support for Trump and anti-immigrant policies, as well as greater opposition to political correctness. Increased group status threat mediated the effects of the racial shift condition on candidate support, anti-immigrant policy support, and opposition to political correctness. Among Whites low in ethnic identification, in contrast, the racial shift condition had no effect on group status threat or support for anti-immigrant policies, but did cause decreased positivity toward Trump and decreased opposition to political correctness. Group status threat did not mediate these effects. Reminders of the changing racial demographics had comparable effects for Democrats and Republicans. Results illustrate the importance of changing racial demographics and White ethnic identification in voter preferences and how social psychological theory can illuminate voter preferences.
Four studies were conducted to better understand the relationship between arousal, conformity, and the influence of arbitrary and genuine social information. Experiment 1 found that conforming to an apparently genuine majority led to lower levels of autonomic arousal than did independence. Experiment 2 replicated the same findings under nonrealistic conditions in which the experimenter, in front of the participant, told the majority which response to give, thus removing social information from the response. Experiment 3 used arousal-based reasoning to predict that if disagreeing with a majority leads to higher arousal than conformity, even when majority responses contain no social information, participants will conform to majority responses under those same conditions, which was supported. Experiment 4 attempted to broaden our understanding of how arbitrary and real majority responses affect conformity by varying the size of the majority and whether majority responses were arbitrary or genuine. Responses were significantly influenced in all experimental conditions, thus replicating Experiment 3, but more influence occurred with a larger majority that appeared to be giving genuine responses. Our findings expand our understanding of the factors involved in the typical conformity situation by showing that the responses given by the majority affect conformity, whether or not they are genuine, though genuineness adds to the effect with a group size of 3. Also, we argue that taking an arousal-based view provides a way of viewing these results as part of a broader homeostatic behavioral system, although the compatibility of the results with other approaches is acknowledged.
Previous research has demonstrated that emphasizing diversity within superordinate groups can either improve or impair subgroup relations. The present research investigated whether this can depend on the way in which diversity is activated. We activated diversity by presenting central or peripheral subgroups. We tested the effects on group-based conventionalism and subgroup attitudes within the superordinate group of "metal music fans". Participants were members of the (majority) subgroup of death metal fans. When the superordinate group’s diversity was activated with peripheral subgroups, death metal fans showed higher group-based conventionalism than in the condition in which central subgroups were presented. Group-based conventionalism mediated the relation between diversity activation and subgroup attitudes. Higher group-based conventionalism led to less positive subgroup attitudes (Experiments 1 and 2). However, this detrimental "back to the roots"-process did only occur for majority members who perceived a high overlap of their subgroup and the superordinate group (Experiment 2). Underlying factors of this process and practical implications for multicultural contexts are discussed.
Research suggests that people chronically concerned with safety, as measured by the Belief in a Dangerous World (BDW) Scale, are prone to intergroup prejudice and likely to endorse negative stereotypes under conditions eliciting concern for safety. Using a sociofunctional, threat-based approach to prejudice, the current research tested whether people with high BDW report increased prejudice specifically toward groups stereotypically associated with safety-related threats compared to groups associated with unrelated threats. Studies 1 and 2 found that higher BDW predicts increased negativity, safety-related concern, and fear toward groups stereotypically associated with threats to safety (e.g., illegal immigrants and Muslims) compared to groups thought to pose unrelated threats (e.g., gay men and obese people). Study 3 activated concern for safety using a news story detailing increased crime (vs. a control story), finding an interaction between safety concern activation, target group, and BDW, such that situational threat concern elicited greater prejudice toward Mexican Americans, but not toward Asian Americans, from those participants with higher BDW. These studies suggest that individual differences in concern for safety predict specific prejudices (e.g., fear and social distancing) toward distinct groups rather than general outgroup negativity.
In an experimental study, we examined the effects of dyadic communication and implicit racial attitudes on impressions formed of Black versus White individuals. Participants viewed a graduate application of a student depicted as a Black or White male and then had a conversation about the applicant with another student (or not) before individually rendering judgments of him. Subjective impressions were more favorable for the Black than White applicant among participants in the communication condition, conversations about Whites included more negations, and participants wrote longer narratives in which they were less likely to mention race when they had previously communicated than when they had not. Communication also disrupted the association between implicit racial attitudes and memory for the applicant’s Graduate Record Examination (GRE) scores: Those with negative racial attitudes remembered the Black applicant as having lower GRE scores than the White applicant, but this effect was eliminated following communication. Findings are discussed with reference to audience tuning, shifting standards, and attitude–behavior consistency models.
Two studies investigated the hypothesis that because individuals who are high on attachment avoidance tend to be disinterested in warmth in interpersonal relationships, they may respond less favorably to groups perceived as warm, attenuating the generally positive association between perceived warmth and favorable evaluation of a group. In Study 1, participants responded to groups representing the four quadrants based on warmth and competence identified by the stereotype content model (e.g., White people, homeless people). On average, people evaluated groups higher in stereotypical warmth more positively. However, as predicted, this effect was significantly weaker among participants higher in attachment avoidance. No effect was found for attachment anxiety. Study 2, in which the perceived warmth of a fictitious group was experimentally manipulated, conceptually replicated the effect for attachment avoidance. Understanding how attachment avoidance may attenuate favorable attitudes toward socially warm groups can help illuminate broader processes of intergroup relations.
Two studies investigate schadenfreude (pleasure at the misfortune of others) as an emotional response to news about out-group misfortunes in a political and consumer context by analyzing reactions of voters for opposition parties to the downfall of a Dutch coalition government (Study 1), and of BlackBerry users to negative news reports about Apple’s iPhone (Study 2). Consistent with social identity theory and intergroup emotion theory, both studies demonstrate that affective in-group identification increases schadenfreude reactions to news about an out-group’s misfortune, provided that this misfortune occurs in a domain of interest to news recipients. Additional findings show that this interaction effect attenuates when a misfortune instead befalls the in-group (Study 1) and is still observed when controlling for affective dispositions towards the out-group (Study 2). Moreover, results suggest that schadenfreude reactions strengthen subsequent intentions to share news about the out-group’s misfortune with others or to engage in negative word-of-mouth (Study 2).
In social psychology, the background assumption of most of the research on cultural diversity ideologies is that multiculturalism is not in the interest of majority group members while colourblindness is. However, this assumption may not hold in a context in which multiculturalism benefits the majority group. Two studies investigated the association between multiculturalism and in-group bias amongst Hindu majority members in Mauritius. In Study 1, survey data showed that those who highly identified as Hindus reported less bias when they endorsed multiculturalism. Using an experimental design, Study 2 demonstrated that higher compared to lower majority group identifiers showed stronger in-group bias in colourblindness, polyculturalism, and control conditions, but not in a multiculturalism condition. In contrast to the existing research conducted in Western countries, these findings demonstrate that multiculturalism rather than colourblindness can be reassuring for high majority group identifiers. It is concluded that the meaning and impact of cultural diversity ideologies for intergroup relations depend on the national context.
We examine nonprototypicality as an antecedent to invisibility (lack of individuation) of Black women. Study 1 varied numerical representation of Black women within the group "women" to be low/equal to White women, and Study 2 varied the trait overlap of Black women to be low/high relative to White women and/or Black men. Invisibility was measured by a face recognition task. Rather than invisibility being reduced under conditions of equal numerical representation and high trait overlap, low numerical representation and low trait overlap increased recognition for Black female faces. In Studies 3–4 participants primed to focus on differences showed better recognition for Black women’s faces than those primed to focus on similarities. We suggest a difference focus reduces reliance on categorical information, increasing individuation and visibility. But nonprototypicality matters: Study 5 perceivers who saw less overlap between "women" and "Black women" on gender stereotypes showed worse recognition of Black women.
Based on the argument that the ingroup projection model may not be applicable to the minority group when addressing the effect of relative ingroup prototypicality (RIP) on outgroup attitudes, two studies investigated whether RIP and its effects on outgroup attitudes differ for the majority (Han) and an ethnic minority group (Tibetan). We measured RIP and outgroup attitudes in Study 1 (N = 164) and manipulated RIP in Study 2 (N = 145). The results indicated that the Hans presented high RIP, whereas the Tibetans presented low RIP. The effects of RIP on outgroup attitudes were moderated by group size: High RIP among Hans resulted in negative outgroup attitudes, whereas high RIP among Tibetans led to positive outgroup attitudes. These findings imply that improving the minority group’s RIP by making its culture prototypicality equal to that of the majority group would lead to positive outgroup attitudes.
Some have described gay and lesbian people as making a "lifestyle choice" while others assert that bisexuality is not a stable or valid identity. This paper examines the possibility that perceived instability and perceived choice, and their associations with prejudice, differ depending on both the sexual orientation of the participant and the target group. Participants varying in sexual orientation were randomly assigned to evaluate heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual targets. Results indicated that negative evaluation of the various target groups was more closely associated with perceived instability than it was with perceived choice. This relationship was moderated by both participant and target sexual orientation; for example, it was weaker for bisexual targets, whose sexual orientations were rated as unstable even among nonbisexual participants who evaluated them positively. A more nuanced understanding of the beliefs underlying prejudice against sexual minorities can be developed by considering targets and participants of many sexual orientations.
Representative negotiations often take a competitive course due to constituency pressures. However, in multi-issue integrative negotiation settings, using a competitive value-claiming strategy may result in less than optimal outcomes for both parties. In this experiment, we compared the negotiation process and outcomes of representatives with hawkish versus dovish constituencies. Representatives with a dovish constituency engaged in more information exchange and less contentious tactics, resulting in fewer impasses and higher quality agreements. Although representatives with a hawkish constituency claimed more value by placing higher demands, this negatively affected not only their joint, but also their individual outcomes. Overall, results suggest that representatives with a dovish constituency achieve better outcomes, both on an individual and dyadic level.
Drawing on findings from the study of prejudice and prejudice reduction, we identify a number of mechanisms through which religious communities may influence the intergroup attitudes of their members. We hypothesize that religious participation could in principle either reduce or promote prejudice with respect to any given target group. A religious community’s influence on intergroup attitudes will depend upon the specific beliefs, attitudes, and practices found within the community, as well as on interactions between the religious community and the larger social environment in which it is embedded. Basing our proposals on findings from the literature on prejudice formation and prejudice reduction allows us to outline useful directions for future studies of religion and prejudice.
Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) distinguishes between two interrelated forms of sexism: Hostile and benevolent. Although this theory motivated a large body of work examining how endorsement of these views impacts on social interactions and women’s performance, no research has yet examined what these forms of sexism are seen to communicate about men and women. We report three studies examining the image that benevolent and hostile sexist messages are seen to describe (Studies 1 and 2) and prescribe for men and women (Study 3). Results show that both benevolent and hostile sexism were seen to convey that women are and should be less competent than men. Additionally, benevolent sexism was seen as describing and prescribing women to be warmer than did hostile sexism. Across all studies men and women agreed about what the messages communicate about men and women. We discuss the implications of these results for the understanding of how stereotypical beliefs are perpetuated.
Group researchers have long been interested in how group members respond to deviance, defined as the violation of prescriptive norms about how members should think, feel, or act. Valuable perspectives on reaction to deviance have been offered by scholars in several disciplines, including social psychology, evolutionary psychology, and sociology. Most of the theoretical and empirical work on reaction to deviance assumes that this behavior has negative consequences for group welfare and hence elicits efforts designed to reduce or eliminate it, including the threat or use of punishment. However, there is increasing interest in the other side of the coin, namely cases in which deviance has positive consequences for group welfare and hence is tolerated or even celebrated. In addition, researchers are also devoting increased attention to the causes of deviance, that is, the reasons why some group members choose to violate prescriptive norms even though doing so may elicit punishment. The papers in this Special Issue, which investigate deviance in a wide range of situations, illustrate cutting-edge work on each of these themes.
Two studies investigated the effectiveness of intergroup contact in Turkish Cypriot children with the aim of improving attitudes, intentions, and trust toward Greek Cypriots. In the first study, we found that positive contact and positive family storytelling were associated with more positive outgroup attitudes and intended outgroup behavior in a group of 6- to 12-year-old Turkish Cypriots. We followed this up in Study 2 by using a vicarious intergroup contact intervention technique. Turkish Cypriot children aged 6–11 years took part in a 3-week intervention involving reading stories of solidarity between Turkish and Greek Cypriot children. Results showed that the intervention worked to improve outgroup attitudes, intended behavior, and outgroup trust. These findings suggest that indirect contact techniques such as extended contact and vicarious intergroup contact can be used as prejudice-reduction tools in intractable conflict zones, most in need of such interventions.
Two studies (N = 1,048) examined how Blacks’, Asians’, and Latinos’ perceived value within their own ethnic group (ethnic intragroup status) shapes mental health (depression, anxiety, psychological distress). The proposed intragroup status and health (ISAH) model predicts that feeling valued among ethnic ingroup members has benefits for health, but also indirect costs. Costs arise because individuals who feel highly valued in their ethnic group see their ethnicity as more central to their self-concept; with stronger identity-centrality, individuals more frequently view daily social interactions through the "lens" of their ethnicity and ultimately perceive/experience more discrimination. Discrimination, in turn, adversely shapes mental health. Results of structural equation modeling supported these predictions across all groups in both studies. Thus, feeling valued in one’s minority group may be a double-edged sword for mental health. Overall, the ISAH model reveals how intragroup processes, when considered from an intergroup perspective, advance our understanding of minority mental health.
People are particularly attracted to groups that value morality. However, in social and work life, team decision-making sometimes involves balancing moral considerations with achievement goals in ambiguous situations. We examined how the importance attached to morality and competence in experimentally created task teams influenced perceived team attractiveness and motivational responses. Results showed that team attractiveness was fully determined by value attached to morality in a team. However, cardiovascular responses revealed that when actually engaging in a team interaction where unanimous decisions had to be made about competing considerations, value attached to both morality and competence in a team influenced participants’ motivational states. Congruence between the value attached to morality and competence elicited adaptive challenge responses, while incongruence between these team features elicited maladaptive threat. These results have important theoretical and practical implications.
Imagined contact is a relatively new technique designed to focus the accumulated knowledge of over 500 studies of intergroup contact into a simple and versatile prejudice-reduction intervention. While it is now clear that imagined contact can improve intergroup attitudes, its ability to change actual intergroup behavior is less well established. Some emerging findings provide cause for optimism with nonverbal, and unobtrusive measures of behavior. This paper extends this work by adopting methods from behavioral economics to examine more deliberative behavior. Participants believed they were playing a prisoner’s dilemma with an outgroup member. They could choose whether to cooperate or compete with the other player. In three studies, we provide reliable evidence that imagined contact (vs. control) successfully encouraged more prosocial, cooperative choices. In the third study we show that this effect is mediated by increased trust towards the outgroup member. The findings demonstrate that imagined contact interventions can have a tangible impact on volitional intergroup behaviors.
Effective use of available information is a problem that plagues group decision-making tasks. Groups heavily favor shared information, or information that is known to all group members, which can lead to incorrect decisions and selection of inferior alternatives. However, groups may be less prone to overlooking unshared information if they are focused to value uniqueness and novel input from group members. The present research demonstrates that groups that value uniqueness, or a separatist orientation, correctly solved a hidden profile task more often than groups with a synchronous orientation, or groups that value similarity. Separatist groups repeated more unshared information than synchronous overall. Separatists also repeated more shared information than synchronous groups. Further, groups with a correct minority member also repeated more unshared information than groups with either a majority correct or no correct members. Results are discussed in terms of group focus and biases that affect the discussion of information.
The present research compared the effectiveness of meaningful negation—"That’s wrong"—and simple negation—"No"—to alter automatic prejudice. Participants were trained to negate prejudice-consistent or prejudice-inconsistent information, using either simple or meaningful negation, and completed an evaluative priming measure of racial prejudice before and after training. No significant changes in automatic prejudice in the simple negation conditions emerged. In contrast, those trained to negate prejudice-consistent information in a more meaningful way showed a significant decrease in automatic prejudice, whereas those trained to negate prejudice-inconsistent information meaningfully showed a significant increase. Study 2 revealed that these effects were driven by participants high in their motivation to control prejudiced reactions (MCPR), as they demonstrated the greatest changes in automatic prejudice following training. Contrary to research suggesting negation training is an ineffective means to reduce automatic racial prejudice, the present research suggests negation can be effective when the negation is meaningful.
Throughout history, the rights of stigmatized minority group members have been subject to popular debate and voter referenda. The impact of the resulting devaluing social discourse on the well-being of minority group members remains unknown. For example, exposure to the discourse leading up to decisions on same-sex marriage may have negative consequences for sexual minority individuals and same-sex couples. We examined the impact of exposure to same-sex marriage campaign messages (e.g., commercials, billboards, yard signs) on the psychological and relational well-being of couples living in the four states that had same-sex marriage voter initiatives in the 2012 general election. Sixty-two same-sex couples (N = 124) completed a baseline survey and 10 daily diary reports during the month before the election. Daily exposure to negative campaign messages was associated with increased negative affect and decreased positive affect and relationship satisfaction. These associations persisted controlling for baseline levels of depression and daily fluctuations in general stress among both members of the couple. Exposure to a devaluing social discourse regarding the rights of same-sex couples represents a unique form of social stress resulting in negative consequences for the psychological and relational well-being of same-sex couples. Thus, the health of same-sex couples may be of particular concern in contexts where marriage policy decisions are pending and the subject of popular debate.
Monin, Sawyer, and Marquez (2008) demonstrated that a rebel who refused to participate in a racially prejudiced decision task was derogated by actors who had themselves taken part in the task, but exalted by uninvolved observers. These authors argued that this rejection resulted from actors who expected and resented imagined moral reproach from the rebel. Two new studies address alternative explanations for such rejection of moral rebels. Study 1 rules out both (a) self-presentation and (b) a more cognitive alternative wherein anchoring on one’s first impression of a task leads to do-gooder derogation. Study 2 breaks down the principled rebellion into its two components, a principled stance and rebellion itself, to show that both seem to play a part in derogation. Individuals imagine that moral others would reject them, which in turn leads to rejecting those deviants.
Recent evidence suggests that one possible cause of disparities in health outcomes for stigmatized groups is the implicit biases held by health care providers. In response, several health care organizations have called for, and developed, new training in implicit bias for their providers. This review examines current evidence on the role that provider implicit bias may play in health disparities, and whether training in implicit bias can effectively reduce the biases that providers exhibit. Directions for future research on the presence and consequences of provider implicit bias, and best practices for training to reduce such bias, will be discussed.
Norm violations engender both negative reactions and perceptions of power from observers. We addressed this paradox by examining whether observers’ tendency to grant power to norm followers versus norm violators is moderated by the observer’s position in the hierarchy. Because norm violations threaten the status quo, we hypothesized that individuals higher in a hierarchy (high verticality) would be less likely to grant power to norm violators compared to individuals lower in the hierarchy (low verticality). In 14 studies (Ntotal = 1,704), we measured participants’ trait verticality (sense of power, socioeconomic status, testosterone) and manipulated state verticality (power position, status, dominance). A meta-analysis revealed that higher ranked participants granted less power to norm violators than lower ranked individuals, presumably because the former support social stratification. Interestingly, these effects occurred for trait but not state verticality. Overall, negative reactions to deviants may be driven by hierarchy-maintenance motives by those in privileged positions.
Emerging research suggests that both perceptions of discrimination and internalized racism (i.e., endorsement of negative stereotypes of one’s racial group) are associated with poor mental health. Yet, no studies to date have examined their effects on mental health with racial/ethnic minorities in the US in a single study. The present study examined: (a) the direct effects of everyday discrimination and internalized racism on risk of DSM-IV criteria of past-year major depressive disorder (MDD); (b) the interactive effects of everyday discrimination and internalized racism on risk of past-year MDD; and (c) the indirect effect of everyday discrimination on risk of past-year MDD via internalized racism. Further, we examined whether these associations differed by ethnic group membership. We utilized nationally representative data of Afro-Caribbean (N = 1,418) and African American (N = 3,570) adults from the National Survey of American Life. Results revealed that experiencing discrimination was associated with increased odds of past-year MDD among the total sample. Moreover, for Afro-Caribbeans, but not African Americans, internalized racism was associated with decreased odds of meeting criteria for past-year MDD. We did not find an interaction effect for everyday discrimination by internalized racism, nor an indirect effect of discrimination on risk of past-year MDD through internalized racism. Collectively, our findings suggest a need to investigate other potential mechanisms by which discrimination impacts mental health, and examine further the underlying factors of internalized racism as a potential self-protective strategy. Lastly, our findings point to the need for research that draws attention to the heterogeneity within the U.S. Black population.
Two studies investigated the role of perceived realistic and symbolic threats in predicting collective action tendencies, and in mediating effects of intergroup contact and social identity on collective action in the context of an intractable conflict. Extending earlier research on collective action, integrated threat theory, and intergroup contact theory, we tested whether realistic and symbolic threats would predict collective action tendencies and outgroup attitudes; and mediate the effects of intergroup contact and social identity on collective action tendencies and outgroup attitudes among the advantaged, Turks, and the disadvantaged, Kurds. Findings from both studies (Study 1, N = 289 Turks; Study 2, N = 209 Kurds) supported the predictive and mediating role of threats on collective action tendencies and outgroup attitudes. Overall findings suggest that advantaged and disadvantaged groups might not always have disparate psychologies regarding collective action and incorporating perceived threats as antecedents of collective action can help to explain collective action tendencies among both groups especially in conflictual contexts.
The association between physicians’ and patients’ racial attitudes and poorer patient–physician communication in racially discordant medical interactions is well-documented. However, it is unclear how physicians’ and patients’ racial attitudes independently and jointly affect their behaviors during these interactions. In a secondary analysis of video-recorded medical interactions between non-Black physicians and Black patients, we examined how physicians’ explicit and implicit racial bias and patients’ perceived past discrimination influenced their own as well as one another’s affect and level of engagement. Affect and engagement were assessed with a "thin slice" method. For physicians, the major findings were significant three-way interactions: physicians’ affect and engagement were influenced by their implicit and explicit racial bias (i.e., aversive racism), but only when they interacted with patients who reported any incidence of prior discrimination. In contrast, patients’ affect was influenced only by perceived discrimination. Theoretical and clinical implications of current findings are discussed.
Similar to non-Hispanic Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos experience a range of psychosocial and physical health challenges, including high rates of poverty, neighborhood segregation, discrimination, poor healthcare access, and high rates of obesity, diabetes, and undiagnosed and late-stage diagnosed diseases. Despite such risks, Hispanics generally experience better physical health and lower mortality than non-Hispanic Whites, an epidemiological phenomenon commonly referred to as the Hispanic or Latino health paradox. With the basic phenomenon increasingly well-established, attention now turns to the sources of such resilience. The current aims are to briefly examine the epidemiological paradox and highlight potential sociocultural resilience factors that may contribute to the paradoxical effects. We conclude with presentation of a framework for modeling sociocultural resilience and discuss future directions for psychological contributions.
Research on the effects of intergroup competition has relied on various conceptual approaches and has produced inconsistent findings. Following a review of the intergroup competition literature, we propose a framework which emphasizes that the influence of intergroup competition varies primarily according to participants’ construal of potentially competitive events. We assess this via two variables: competitive intergroup perceptions (CIP), the perception that one’s ingroup and another group(s) in the current situation are attempting to gain a reward at each other’s expense; and competitive intergroup motivations (CIM), the individual desire for one’s group to do better or acquire more of a reward than the other group(s). In four studies that presented participants with an ambiguously competitive intergroup setting and administered CIP and CIM scales adapted for the context, both variables were empirically nonredundant (Studies 1–4) and showed unique relations with intergroup outcomes: CIM, rather than CIP, was directly associated with greater intergroup bias (Studies 2–4), discriminatory intentions (Study 3), and discriminatory behavior (Study 4). CIP consistently registered an indirect effect on intergroup bias and behavior through CIM. Our results suggest that in ambiguous group contexts, CIM facilitates the pursuit of goals for the ingroup, which may involve expressing intergroup bias and more antisocial outgroup behavior, and that these tendencies are quite sensitive to corresponding changes in CIP. The current framework offers more precise insights into the influence of competitive group dynamics, and can easily be integrated with other research paradigms to determine how and when intergroup competition produces intergroup bias and discrimination.
Two experiments suggest that newcomers’ structural role (permanent vs. temporary appointment) in the groups they enter conditions the extent to which their use of language-based identity strategies (integrating vs. differentiating) influences groups’ willingness to accept them and utilize their dissenting task knowledge. For newcomers with permanent future prospects, the use of integrating pronouns leads to greater acceptance than the use of differentiating pronouns, and newcomer acceptance is in turn a key mediator of groups’ willingness to utilize their knowledge. For newcomers with temporary future prospects, however, the use of integrating pronouns (vs. differentiating pronouns) does not positively influence their acceptance, nor does newcomer acceptance determine the willingness of groups to utilize their knowledge. The theory supported by these studies advances group socialization literature by elucidating when and how groups are receptive to dissenting newcomers.
Which antecedents and group processes are beneficial to creativity in groups? Taking a component-based approach of individualism–collectivism (I-C), we proposed that the combination of collectivistic value orientation and independent self-representation of group members enhances group creativity. In an interactive group brainstorming experiment (N = 68 triads), we manipulated group members’ value orientation and their self-representation via priming methods and examined group creativity using both a consensual and an objective measure of idea originality. Results indicated that groups generated ideas that are more original when members combined a collectivistic value orientation with independent self-representation than with interdependent self-representation. In contrast, differences in self-representation did not have a significant effect when an individualistic value orientation was activated. We also identified specific group processes characteristic of the predicted combinatorial effect: In creative groups, there was more open communication. Implications of these findings for research on group creativity and future directions are discussed.
Research has shown that collective angst (i.e., concern for a group’s future vitality) triggers ingroup protective responses. The current studies examined whether group members seek to protect their group by dissenting from collective angst-inducing group norms. We hypothesized that strong (vs. weak) identifiers holding non-normative opinions would be more willing to dissent, but only when the normative opinion elicited collective angst. In Study 1, as predicted, strongly (vs. weakly) identified Republicans who held non-normative opinions about Obamacare were more willing to dissent, but only when collective angst was high. In Study 2, we manipulated rather than measured collective angst and examined a different political issue: the deployment of American ground troops to fight terrorism overseas. We observed the same pattern of dissent detected in Study 1. This research contributes to current understandings of dissent in groups and the motivating power of collective angst.
When detecting deviations from group norms, observers often respond by attempting to exclude the deviates or by leaving the group. Despite the commonalities between these two impactful responses, they have rarely been addressed simultaneously. Therefore, three experiments investigated how deviant behavior in small groups relates to observers’ intentions to exclude the deviate from the in-group and to leave that group themselves. Exclusion intentions are evoked by severe deviations from core elements of the group norm, mediated by heightened identity subversion (Studies 1–3). Study 3 demonstrated that leaving becomes more likely when perceived situational control is low—here evoked by acceptance of the deviant behavior by other in-group members, suggesting that aggravating conditions must be present for this response. Observing deviations seems to trigger leaving and exclusion intentions, yet they result from two distinct processes. We discuss our results in relation to work on group schism and literature on social exclusion.
Although moral and collective concerns have been found to predict expressions of dissent, little research has examined conditions under which dissenters are perceived as acting out of such concerns. Three studies tested whether judgments of dissenters who expose group misconduct can depend on subtle labeling differences. In Study 1, participants rated their actions as more morally based, and themselves as more likely to express dissent, after reading a scenario in which they were labeled a "whistle-blower" (vs. "leaker"). In Studies 2–3, participants who read a passage describing an employee of an organization (Study 2) or a well-known individual (Edward Snowden, Study 3) as a "whistle-blower," relative to "leaker," viewed these individuals as more morally and collectively concerned, which in turn mediated perceived deservingness of punishment. Implications for the factors that lead dissenters to be judged positively, for psychological effects of labels, and for generalizability across contexts are discussed.
Two studies examined participants’ evaluations of ingroup or outgroup normative and deviant members and changes in agreement with a prescriptive norm. In Experiment 1 (N = 51), the normative target was either a full or marginal ingroup or outgroup member, and the deviant was a full member. In Experiment 2 (N = 113), both targets were full or marginal members, or one was a full member and the other was marginal. As predicted, maximal upgrading of normative members and downgrading of deviant members, as well as endorsement of the norm, occurred when both targets were full ingroup members. In contrast, the deviant was derogated least and the deviant’s position was endorsed most when the deviant target was a full ingroup member and the normative target was a marginal ingroup member. Evaluations of normative and deviant ingroup members mediated the effects of their role on participants’ agreement with the norm.
Employees who violate significant organizational norms are organizational deviants engaged in organizational deviance. Yet, few acts of organizational deviance involve all members of an organization; in many cases, many people are uninvolved. The current research examined the responses of the nondeviant actors. Several literatures led us to predict that organizational deviance would cause nondeviants to experience cognitive dissonance, especially its vicarious form, and redouble their own work effort in response. Yet, we also predicted that low levels of identification with the deviant actors would weaken this effect. Three studies with multiple samples and methods supported these predictions, showing that nondeviants experience deviants’ dissonance and increase their own work effort, but only when more rather than less identified with deviants. In addition to extending and connecting theories of deviance and dissonance, these findings suggest that organizational deviance may have unexpected benefits for groups and organizations.
Drawing upon a social identity approach, three studies focus on the elicitors of intergroup admiration by investigating the relationship between admiration for an outgroup and this outgroup’s prototypicality for a superordinate category. In Study 1 (N = 314), we find empirical support for a positive association between prototypicality and admiration in cross-national survey data. In Study 2 (N = 52), we provide experimental evidence for the relationship between admiration and prototypicality by manipulating different facets of prototypicality: admiration for an outgroup occurs only when the group is perceived as prototypical in relation to the ideal of the superordinate category, but not in relation to the category average. Study 3 further explores the importance of prototypicality for a superordinate category. We present an analysis of online comments to news articles (N = 477) referring to positive regard of outgroups and highlight the role of prototypicality in these discussions. Overall, we contribute to research on admiration by showing that the elicitation of admiration is dependent on the social identities involved, providing an identity-situated analysis of this positive group-based emotion.
There is a debate about whether racial slurs operate primarily as descriptives (of the ethnicity of targets) or expressives (of negative emotions toward targets). In three studies (overall N = 471), we examined whether different racial slurs used in different situations led to slurs being perceived as descriptive versus expressive, and whether this distinction was related to the perceived offensiveness of the slurs. Our results showed the descriptive and expressive natures of racial slurs are directly related to their perceived offensiveness. Specifically, as the perceived offensiveness of slurs increase in intensity, the slurs are perceived as more negatively expressive, more descriptive, less positively expressive, and comparatively less descriptive and more expressive.
In this research, we examined how people cope with threats to personal control related to the global economic crisis. Three studies (one correlational and two experimental) tested the prediction that blaming social outgroups could serve as a means to restore a threatened sense of personal control. We found that outgroup blaming attributions are related to higher levels of personal control over the effects of the economic crisis (Study 1). Further, blaming outgroups helps to restore a sense of personal control (Study 2) only when blaming attributions are related to specific versus global causes (i.e., outgroups but not the economic system; Studies 2 and 3). We discuss individual and social implications of outgroup blaming as a form of coping with lack of control in the context of economic crises.
Many studies have focused on mediated paths by which social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) predict prejudice; fewer have identified factors that moderate their effects. We applied social cognitive domain theory to test whether different ways of reasoning about antigay discriminatory acts moderated the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning antigay discrimination. Moral reasoning (e.g., emphasizing fairness, equality) and personal reasoning (e.g., emphasizing individual interests, qualifications) attenuated the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning discriminatory resource denial in general and religious-specific contexts. Conventional reasoning (e.g., emphasizing group norms, rules) magnified the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning resource denial, but only in a religious-specific context. Findings highlight the need to examine moderators of SDO and RWA effects in effort to disrupt discrimination by those most likely to engage in it.
Focusing on the two fundamental dimensions underlying stereotype content (warmth/competence), the major aim of the present research was to test implicit stereotyping toward persons with disability. We hypothesized that persons with disability are associated with less warmth than persons without disability and with less competence, especially when a competence-relevant context is activated (work context). Three experimental studies were conducted using two different priming paradigms: conceptual priming (Study 1) and evaluative priming (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 3, context (work vs. control) was introduced as an additional factor. Our results showed that persons with disability were systematically associated with less warmth than persons without disability, and with less competence when priming a work context. These results provide a more comprehensive understanding of discriminatory behaviors toward people with disability, despite legislation promoting equal rights.
This research examined bias and accuracy in judging hostile and benevolent sexism during mixed-gender interactions. Bias is defined as underestimation or overestimation of a partner’s sexism. Accuracy is defined as covariation in two different ways, as (a) the strength of the association between a dyad member’s judgment and their partner’s sexism, across dyads, and (b) the ability to differentiate sexism between multiple targets. In Studies 1 and 2, members of mixed-gender dyads rated their own and their partners’ benevolent and hostile sexism. Overall, there was no covariation, across dyads, between perceptions and the partner’s self-reported sexism. However, women overestimated men’s hostile sexism; there was no evidence of biases for women judging men’s benevolent sexism. Men underestimated women’s hostile sexism and overestimated benevolent sexism. In Study 3, participants watched brief videos of male or female students (targets) from Study 1 and completed benevolent or hostile sexism items for each target as they thought the target would fill them out. Accuracy for detecting sexism across multiple targets (using sensitivity correlations) was significantly above chance for both forms of sexism. Male and female participants were more accurate at detecting hostile sexism in male targets than female targets. Participants were more accurate at detecting benevolent sexism of same-gender targets than opposite-gender targets. When judging targets of opposite gender, women’s judgments were significantly above chance for both forms of sexism, but men were not accurate for either forms of sexism. These studies suggest that there is bias and accuracy in first impression judgments of sexism.
Perceived discrimination is associated with increased engagement in unhealthy behaviors. We propose an identity-based pathway to explain this link. Drawing on an identity-based motivation model of health behaviors (Oyserman, Fryberg, & Yoder, 2007), we propose that perceptions of discrimination lead individuals to engage in ingroup-prototypical behaviors in the service of validating their identity and creating a sense of ingroup belonging. To the extent that people perceive unhealthy behaviors as ingroup-prototypical, perceived discrimination may thus increase motivation to engage in unhealthy behaviors. We describe our theoretical model and two studies that demonstrate initial support for some paths in this model. In Study 1, African American participants who reflected on racial discrimination were more likely to endorse unhealthy ingroup-prototypical behavior as self-characteristic than those who reflected on a neutral event. In Study 2, among African American participants who perceived unhealthy behaviors to be ingroup-prototypical, discrimination predicted greater endorsement of unhealthy behaviors as self-characteristic as compared to a control condition. These effects held both with and without controlling for body mass index (BMI) and income. Broader implications of this model for how discrimination adversely affects health-related decisions are discussed.
Many people who endorse gender equality do not personally identify as feminists. The present research offers a novel explanation for this disconnect by examining people’s attitudes toward feminist prototypes—the central, representative feminist that comes to mind when they think of feminists as a group. Results from two samples support the hypothesis that both implicit and explicit attitudes toward feminist prototypes predict unique variance in feminist identity beyond gender-equality attitudes. Results from a second study show feminist identity to mediate between implicit prototypes and self-reported willingness to engage in feminist behaviors. Lastly, a third study shows feminist identity to mediate between implicit prototypes and actual feminist behavior. This is the first study to specifically examine the role of implicit attitudes and prototype favorability in understanding feminist identity and behavior, and the results suggest that promoting positive prototypes of feminists may be an effective route to encouraging feminist identity.
In two studies we tested whether racial progress is threatening to Whites and whether perceiving anti-White bias assuages that threat. Study 1 revealed that Whites primed with racial progress exhibited evidence of threat (lower implicit self-worth relative to baseline). Study 2 replicated the threat effect from Study 1 and examined how perceiving discrimination may buffer Whites’ self-worth. After White participants primed with high racial progress attributed a negative event to their race, their implicit self-worth rebounded. Participants primed to perceive low racial progress did not experience fluctuations in implicit self-worth. Furthermore, among those primed with high racial progress, greater racial discounting (attributing rejection to race rather than to the self) was associated with greater self-worth protection. These studies suggest that changes to the racial status quo are threatening to Whites and that perceiving greater racial bias is a way to manage that threat.
Discrimination of immigrant groups is an important social problem in many societies around the world. This study examines the moderating role of cultural diversity beliefs on the relation between dual identity and the intention to protest against immigrants’ discrimination. An experimental study was conducted among national samples of the three main immigrant-origin groups in the Netherlands. It was found that dual identity predicted the intention to protest against discrimination more strongly within a context of multicultural recognition compared to a context of assimilation or interculturalism. This demonstrates that multicultural recognition is a facilitating condition for dual identifiers to get involved in collective action for social change.
Because of the innocence and dependence of children, it would be reassuring to believe that implicit racial prejudice against out-group children is lower than implicit prejudice against out-group adults. Yet, prior research has not directly tested whether or not adults exhibit less spontaneous prejudice toward child targets than adult targets. Three studies addressed this issue, contrasting adults with very young child targets. Studies 1A and B revealed that participants belonging to an ethnic majority group (White Europeans) showed greater spontaneous favorability toward their ethnic in-group than toward an ethnic out-group (South Asians), and this prejudice emerged equally for infant and adult targets. Study 2 found that this pattern occurred even when race was not a salient dimension of categorization in the implicit measure. Thus, there was a robust preference for in-group children over out-group children, and there was no evidence that this prejudice is weaker than that exhibited toward adults.
Health disparities between groups remain even after accounting for established causes such as structural and economic factors. The present research tested, for the first time, whether multiple social categorization processes can explain enhanced support for immigrant health (measured by respondents’ behavioral intention to support immigrants’ vaccination against A H1N1 disease by cutting regional public funds). Moreover, the mediating role of individualization and the moderating role of social identity complexity were tested. Findings showed that multiple versus single categorization of immigrants lead to support their right to health and confirmed the moderated mediation hypothesis. The potential in developing this sort of social cognitive intervention to address health disparities is discussed.
This study tests whether entertainment portrayals of international medical graduate physicians may influence attitudes toward such physicians among television viewers. Given the growing importance of international physicians in U.S. health care delivery, such effects would have the potential to impact significant numbers of patient–physician interactions. From a theoretical and methodological standpoint, this examination extends existing work on entertainment portrayals of often-stigmatized minorities and its impact on minorities for whom stereotypes may be in some respects favorable. An experiment manipulating positive versus negative portrayals of the communicative and professional competence of an Asian Indian female physician on the program ER found that exposure had no effect on conventional, deliberative measures of attitude toward such physicians. However, use of attitude-accessibility measurement suggested that viewers (to the extent that they identified with the narrative character, an Asian Indian physician) who saw the negative portrayal were slower to respond that they liked other Asian Indian female physicians who were presented in photos in a judgment task afterwards—in other words, the negative portrayal inhibited an approach response to other similar physicians. An implication of this finding is that such television portrayals may have the potential to influence affective responses to medical providers from the same demographic as the character portrayed, in ways viewers are likely to be unaware of. Such responses may well influence patient expectations and interactions with such physicians.
The present work examines whether people assume that those who have faced hardship feel less pain than those who have not, and whether this belief contributes to the perception that Blacks feel less pain than Whites. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants received information about a Black and/or White target person’s life hardship and then rated the target person’s pain. Participants reported that the target individual would feel less pain if s/he had experienced greater hardship. Importantly, racial bias emerged but only when hardship information was consistent with expectations about race and life hardship; that is, participants reported that the Black (vs. White) target individual would feel less pain only if s/he had experienced greater hardship. In Experiment 3, participants read that hardship either toughens or weakens the body, and then rated a Black or White target person’s pain. Racial bias emerged but only when supported by lay beliefs. Specifically, participants reported that the Black (vs. White) target individual would feel less pain but only if they endorsed the belief that hardship leads to toughness. Taken together, these findings suggest that perceptions of hardship shape perceptions of pain and contribute to racial bias in pain perception. These findings also suggest that eliminating this racial bias will require challenging lay beliefs; it will require the recognition that people who have faced great hardship feel just as much, if not more, pain.
Compensation refers to the fact that a group perceived as higher than another on one of the fundamental dimensions of social judgment (competence and warmth) is also perceived as lower than the other group on the other dimension. Relying on a full-crossed design, the present work tested compensation in a real-life situation using existing groups involved in an ongoing relation. As predicted, compensation emerged when (a) the difference between the groups, and thus the perceived legitimacy of the status difference, was large as opposed to small, and (b) the relation between the groups was asymmetrical. In contrast, the smaller the difference (the lesser the legitimacy), the more ingroup bias emerged.
We investigated how and when gender dissimilarity relates to two highly important individual work outcomes: social inclusion and absenteeism. We collected survey data among 397 employees from a university of applied sciences and combined these with data from the organization’s personnel administration. Our results indicate that dissimilarity was negatively related to perceived work group inclusion. In addition, this negative effect was stronger when the group was perceived to have a negative diversity climate. Finally, there was a conditional indirect effect of gender dissimilarity on absenteeism through inclusion. That is, being different from other group members in terms of gender was associated with higher absenteeism through lower levels of perceived inclusion, but only when the group was perceived to have a negative diversity climate. Together, the present research demonstrates that sometimes being different is associated with more absences and underlines the importance of establishing a positive climate for gender diversity.
This study examines the impact of relative group size on linguistic ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation. Members of minority, majority, and equal-size groups freely described outcome allocations made by either ingroup or outgroup members. The abstraction and valence of the terms used were analyzed. Majority members expressed ingroup favoritism by describing the majority ingroup with positive terms at a higher level of abstraction than negative terms. They also provided more favorable descriptions of ingroup members than minority members did. Minority members expressed ingroup favoritism, but also outgroup derogation, by referring to the majority outgroup with negative terms at a higher level of abstraction than positive terms. These findings highlight the distinct consequences of minority and majority memberships on these two facets of intergroup discrimination.
Vegetarianism and veganism are increasingly prevalent in Western countries, yet anecdotal expressions of negativity toward vegetarians and vegans are common. We empirically tested whether bias exists toward vegetarians and vegans. In Study 1 omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans equivalently or more negatively than several common prejudice target groups (e.g., Blacks). Bias was heightened among those higher in right-wing ideologies, explained by heightened perceptions of vegetarian/vegan threat. Vegans (vs. vegetarians) and male (vs. female) vegetarians/vegans were evaluated more negatively overall. In Study 2 omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans more negatively than several nutritional outgroups (e.g., gluten intolerants) and evaluated vegan/vegetarians motivated by animal rights or environmental concerns (vs. health) especially negatively. In Study 3, vegetarians and especially vegans reported experiencing negativity stemming from their diets. Empirically documenting antivegetarian/vegan bias adds to a growing literature finding bias toward benign yet social norm-challenging others.
Two studies investigate the relationship between racial attitude (dis)similarity and interpersonal liking for racial minorities and Whites in same-race and cross-race pairs. In nationally representative and local samples, minorities report personally caring about racial issues more than Whites do (Pilot Study), which we theorize makes racial attitude divergence with ingroup members especially disruptive. Both established friendships (Study 1) and face-to-face interactions among strangers (Study 2) provided evidence for the dissimilarity-repulsion hypothesis in same-race interactions for minorities but not Whites. For minorities, disagreeing with a minority partner or friend about racial attitudes decreased their positivity toward that person. Because minorities typically report caring about race more than Whites, same-race friendships involving shared racial attitudes may be particularly critical sources of social support for them, particularly in predominately White contexts. Understanding challenges that arise in same-race interactions, not just cross-race interactions, can help create environments in which same-race minority friendships flourish.
Stereotypes may function as standards, such that individuals are judged relative to within-category expectations. Subjective judgments may mask stereotyping effects, whereas objective judgments may reveal stereotype-consistent patterns. We examined whether gender stereotypes about parenting lead judges to rate women and men as equally "good" parents while objective judgments favor women and whether parenting performance moderates this pattern. Participants evaluated a mother or father who successfully or unsuccessfully performed a parenting task. Subjective judgments of parent quality ("s/he is a good parent") revealed no parent gender effects, but objective estimates of parenting performance favored mothers. In a hypothetical divorce scenario, participants also favored mothers in custody decisions. However, this pro-mother bias decreased when the mother failed at the parenting task (through her own fault). Performance did not affect custody decisions for fathers. We suggest parenting quality matters more for evaluations of mothers than for fathers because negative performance violates stereotyped expectations.
Three studies investigated how politicized collective identification affects individuals’ reactions towards others. We hypothesized that a strong politicized identity tends to be accompanied by a moral conviction about the politicized cause, which in turn determines how the politicized respond to those less committed to their cause. Consistent with this, Study 1 showed that politicized (feminist) identification is associated with lower identification with women who place moderate (vs. high) moral value on gender equality. Study 2 showed that politicized identification was associated with negative emotions towards people who disagree with this cause and this was mediated by the extent to which participants saw supporting the activist goal as morally obligatory. Study 3 showed that politicized identification, to the extent to which it implied holding a moral conviction about the activist cause, is associated with a desire for more social distance to an attitudinally dissimilar other, but not from an attitudinally similar other.
To enhance the prejudice-reducing effects of imagined contact we investigated a novel form of imagined contact ("balanced similarity") which emphasized both similarities and differences between the ingroup(er) and the outgroup(er). Experiment 1 compared balanced similarity with conditions inducing only differences or only similarities. "Balanced similarity" led to more positive outgroup attitudes; its differences with the "high similarity" condition were mediated by reduced distinctiveness threat, whereas its differences with the "low" similarity condition were mediated by higher perceived intergroup similarity. Experiment 2 compared the "balanced similarity" imagined contact scenario with the "standard" (positive) imagined contact scenario (Crisp, Stathi, Turner, & Husnu, 2008), and found that both conditions promoted equally favourable attitudes that were significantly more positive than in the control condition. However, only the "balanced similarity" imagined contact condition differed from the control condition on intergroup anxiety and contact self-efficacy. The "balanced similarity" condition also had an indirect effect (via self-efficacy) on positive action tendencies towards the outgroup. We discuss the utility of "balanced similarity" imagined contact, especially where contact is limited and conflict is present.
A growing body of work suggests that group-based dissimilarity limits the influence of empathy on helping across group boundaries. The present research examines under which conditions empathy becomes "dis-inhibited" as a motivator of out-group helping. We propose that, when intergroup dissimilarity is high, empathy’s influence on helping critically depends upon the out-group target’s perceived benevolence, i.e. sociability and trustworthiness. Study 1 (N = 123) and 2 (N = 176) manipulated an out-group target’s intercultural dissimilarity and his or her individual features. Results confirmed that when dissimilarity was high, the target’s sociability (Study 1) and benevolence (Study 2) had a facilitative effect on the empathy-helping intentions relationship. When dissimilarity was low, in contrast, empathy predicted helping intentions independent of the target’s individual features. Study 3 (N = 178) manipulated trustworthiness and sociability orthogonally and confirmed the primary role of the out-group target’s trustworthiness over the target’s sociability in dis-inhibiting the empathy-helping relationship among participants with a conservative political orientation.
Members of dehumanized groups are somehow accepted in a variety of menial roles. Three studies verified when and why people might approach members of animalistically and mechanistically dehumanized groups. In Studies 1 and 2, participants showed a greater intention to interact with (Study 1) and attributed higher ratings of success (Study 2) to members of an animalistically dehumanized group in a social context. On the contrary, participants expected that members of a mechanistically dehumanized group would be more successful and were preferred to interact with in a professional context. In Study 3, the psychological process underlying these preferences was investigated. Interestingly, results showed that the objectification of dehumanized group members led participants to interact with them. Taken together these studies show that people approach dehumanized others not because they are liked, but because they are objectified.
People collaborate to address tasks that can often be decomposed into smaller components. These components beg different forms of expertise and may differ in value to the group. We show that transactive memory structure is affected by the interaction between task component value, incentive framing (i.e., whether task incentives take the form of gains or losses), and the distribution of expertise with respect to task components. We find that when groups include a member with expertise in a highly valuable task component, that member is exceptionally motivated and puts forth high levels of effort. Only groups with such an expert successfully realized the potential performance benefit associated with high-value domains. Groups recalled more items under loss framing than under gains framing, but only when the potential losses were low and constant across components. We integrate our findings into the extant literatures on transactive memory and gains/loss framing.
In the context of sexual prejudice, in which group distinctiveness motivation is particularly strong for men, three studies tested the hypothesis that egalitarian norms can intensify reactive distinctiveness motives, and then paradoxically increase intergroup differentiation and prejudice. Depending on the studies, the egalitarian norm was experimentally manipulated or induced and kept constant. Group distinctiveness was manipulated through scientific support for the theory that a person’s sexual orientation is determined by biological factors in terms of the extant biological differences (high distinctiveness) versus biological similarities (low distinctiveness) between heterosexual and gay people. Egalitarian norms increased men’s (but not women’s) intergroup differentiation (Study 1) and prejudice (Study 2) when group distinctiveness was low (as compared to high). This pattern was specific to men with high gender self-esteem, and appeared when the biological theory was framed in terms of intergroup differences rather than the uncontrollability of sexual orientation (Study 3).
When people are aware that an ingroup member has an outgroup friend, they tend to improve their intergroup attitudes, which is known as the extended contact hypothesis. Thus far, no research has tested how the perceived degree of normativity of the intergroup interaction affects the evaluation of the ingroup member through which extended contact is experienced. Results of three studies showed that when contact was normative (i.e., positive contact with a liked outgroup, or negative contact with a disliked outgroup), the ingroup member was evaluated positively, while when the contact was counternormative (i.e., negative contact with a liked outgroup or positive contact with a disliked outgroup) the ingroup member was evaluated negatively. This effect was mediated by perceived threat posed by the ingroup member who experiences the intergroup contact and perceived similarity of the participant with the ingroup member (Experiments 2–3). In summary, the perceived normativity of the extended contact affects the perception of the ingroup member who experiences the contact, turning him/her into a "white" or a "black" sheep in the eyes of the ingroup.
This project addresses how and why behavior in a resource dilemma differs when one only knows the choices of others versus only knows the state of the resource. Study 1 suggested that resource information is more valuable than social information, in that if the resource can be monitored, whether or not others’ choices can also be monitored has no impact on behavior. However, if the state of the resource is not known, the ability to know what others are doing is critical for cooperation. This seems to be because resource information encourages planning and long-term thinking, and social information encourages comparative thinking. Study 2 replicated the behavior pattern, revealed—surprisingly—that warnings that a resource is critically low undermine (rather than promote) cooperation, and that such responses depend on the availability of social and environmental information. Discussion focuses on how incomplete information about a resource might be addressed.
People’s emotional states often depend on the emotions of others. Consequently, to predict their own responses to social interactions (i.e., affective forecasts), we contend that people predict the emotional states of others (i.e., empathic forecasts). We propose that empathic forecasts are vulnerable to stereotype biases and demonstrate that stereotypes about the different emotional experiences of race (Experiment 1) and sex groups (Experiment 2) bias empathic forecasts. Path modeling in both studies demonstrates that stereotype-biased empathic forecasts regarding how a target individual will feel during a social interaction are associated with participants’ affective forecasts of how they will feel during that interaction with the target person. These affective forecasts, in turn, predict behavioral intentions for the social interaction before it even begins. Stereotypes can therefore indirectly bias affective forecasts by first influencing the empathic forecasts that partly constitute them. In turn, these potentially biased affective forecasts determine social behaviors.
Accumulated research has shown that Western Christian religiosity often predicts prejudice toward various kinds of outgroups. On the contrary, initial recent evidence indicates that East Asian religiosity predicts tolerance of various outgroups—except atheists. To understand these differences, we investigated cognitive (intolerance of contradiction) and emotional (disgust) mechanisms possibly mediating the link between religiosity and prejudice versus tolerance. In Study 1 (295 Westerners of Christian tradition), high disgust contamination and, to some extent, intolerance of contradiction mediated the relationship between religiosity and prejudice against ethnic (Africans), religious (Muslims), moral (homosexuals), and convictional (atheists) outgroups. However, in Study 2 (196 Taiwanese of Buddhist or Taoist tradition), religiosity was unrelated to disgust, and predicted low intolerance of contradiction, and thus tolerance of the same religious, ethnic, and moral outgroups—but still not of atheists. Cultural differences in cognition and emotion seem to explain East–West differences in religious prejudice.
Three studies examined if people express negative implicit attitudes toward individuals with a tattoo near the face. In Study 1, participants who completed an Implicit Association Test (IAT) expressed moderately negative implicit attitudes toward individuals with a tribal tattoo on one side of the neck. Study 2 replicated Study 1 when the tattoo was symmetrical, suggesting that negative affect, and not processing fluency, underlies the implicit negative evaluation of individuals with a tribal tattoo near the face. Study 3 showed dissociation between explicit and implicit attitudes toward individuals with a tribal tattoo near the face, and that the negative implicit evaluation was attenuated if the tattoo image was an objectively positive symbol. The implications for displaying a tattoo near the face are discussed.
Four studies used three different implicit methods (the BriefIAT, Affect Misattribution Procedure, and Lexical Decision Task) to measure women’s gender stereotypes of violence, strength, competence, trustworthiness, and sociability. Analyses of response latencies in Study 1 (N = 100) showed that these stereotypes were based more in in-group favoritism than out-group derogation. Consistent with recent evidence that morality is central to the positive evaluation of in-groups, it was the implicit stereotype of women as more trustworthy that best predicted their implicit in-group favoritism across studies, r(249) = .27. Only by examining such specific stereotype content could we assess the moral stereotype of trustworthiness as distinctly tied to in-group favoritism. Alternative analyses of the two global dimensions of group evaluation (i.e., agency/competence and communion/warmth) obscured differences between the more specific stereotypes. Implications for theory and research on stereotype content, as well as the group favoritism of disadvantaged groups, are discussed.
Alcohol has been implicated in intergroup aggression and hostility. The effect of consuming alcohol relative to a placebo on hostile cognitive biases toward a social category typically stereotyped as threatening and hostile (i.e., Middle Eastern men) was tested. Undergraduates (N = 81) consumed either an intoxicating dose of alcohol (BrAC = .05% by vol.) or placebo. Then, they played a shooter game in which they were asked to shoot at targets holding guns, but not at targets holding harmless objects. Half of the targets were White and half were Middle Eastern. As predicted, alcohol consumption, relative to a placebo, increased participants’ bias to shoot Middle Eastern targets, but did not affect the shooter bias against White targets. Findings suggest that alcohol may heighten aggressive biases toward outgroups stereotyped as threatening and hostile.
Adding to a growing body of work on the psychology of social class, the present research examined implicit and explicit attitudes toward rich people, standing out from much previous work that has focused on negative evaluations of people with low socioeconomic status (SES). Across three studies, we found that participants (who typically identified as middle class) implicitly, but not explicitly, favored the rich over the middle class. Although financial resources represent a continuum objectively, attitudes toward the rich seem to be conceptually distinct from evaluations of low-SES people. Additionally, we demonstrated that implicit prorich attitudes uniquely predict leniency on a rich driver who causes a car accident, while explicit attitudes do not predict such judgments. This work expands and clarifies knowledge of implicit wealth attitudes and suggests that implicit prorich attitudes are an important factor in understanding how social class influences daily life.
The present article aims to show that collective memories could serve as a criterion in social categorization. We predicted that a target person who shares common collective memories will be perceived as similar (to the self), relatively more favorably and categorized as an ingroup member. We conducted four studies using memories of historical events or childhood objects. These studies consistently showed that a target who shares common memories is more likely to be perceived as an ingroup member than someone who does not. This effect is mediated by perceived similarity to the self. Finally, individuals who share common memories are perceived more favorably than when they do not. However, according to the type of collective memories (historical events vs. childhood memories) sharing memories impacts either perceived competence or perceived warmth. The current sets of studies support the idea that collective memory influences social categorization processes, exemplifying its group identity-defining function.
As family structures diversify, attitudes towards "nontraditional" families (e.g., same-sex-parent and cross-race families) appear to be becoming more favorable. Despite more favorable attitudes, we propose that explicitly and implicitly people view nontraditional families as less family-like than traditional (i.e., heterosexual, same-race) families. We also propose that people will hold the behavior of nontraditional (vs. traditional) families to higher standards. In Study 1, participants explicitly rated nontraditional (vs. traditional) family photos as less family-like and as less loving. In Study 2, using a reaction-time measure, participants took longer to correctly categorize nontraditional (vs. traditional) families into the family category, suggesting that at an implicit level people have greater difficulty recognizing nontraditional families as "family." In Studies 3 and 4, ambiguous (i.e., positive and negative) behavior licensed more harsh evaluations of a nontraditional family—but did not affect evaluations of a traditional family—relative to learning only positive family behavior. Despite survey data that suggest that people’s views of nontraditional families are becoming more favorable, our evidence indicates that people nonetheless harbor prejudice against certain family structures. Beyond documenting two biases against nontraditional families, this work highlights the need for prejudice researchers to examine meaningful levels of social identity, such as family units, that are intermediate between individuals and broad social classes.
Based on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) we examined the motivational consequences of intergroup status differences as a function of the legitimacy of these differences. Motivational responses were conceptualized in terms of challenge and threat and operationalized by their cardiovascular markers, as described by the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat (BPS-CT; Blascovich & Mendes, 2010). Participants (N = 104) were categorized in minimal groups. Group status and status legitimacy were manipulated in the context of an intergroup competition. High status elicited relatively more challenge (less threat) when status differences were legitimate than when they were illegitimate. Low status elicited relatively less threat (more challenge) when status differences were illegitimate than when they were legitimate. Cardiovascular reactivity in line with challenge mediated performance during the competition. Results are discussed in terms of the relationship between social status and stress, and the BPS-CT as novel and useful motivational framework for studying social identity processes.
Violating one’s expectations of inclusion may influence the pain of rejection. This is supported by neurological evidence on expectation violation processing (Somerville, Heatherton, & Kelley, 2006). We asked: Can an expectation of a specific social outcome affect how it feels to be rejected or included? We tested the premise that expectations for the outcome of an interaction are derived from social information. Participants were either liked or disliked following a get-acquainted exercise (Study 1), or were given inclusionary versus exclusionary cues (Study 2) or no social information (Study 3) in an imagined scenario before being rejected or included. Rejection felt worse than inclusion; however, we found rejected individuals felt increasingly worse after receiving inclusionary cues than receiving exclusionary cues. Included individuals felt an increase in need satisfaction and reduced negative affect when they initially expected to be rejected compared to when they expected to be included.
Men increasingly identify as victims of gender discrimination, but it is unclear how people react to men who claim to be victims of gender bias. We examined how status-legitimizing belief endorsement (SLBs) and gender identification (GID) moderated men and women’s reactions to a man who claimed to have lost a promotion because of anti-male sexism or another cause. Consistent with theory that claiming bias against high-status groups reinforces the status hierarchy, SLB endorsement was associated with more positive reactions toward an anti-male bias claimant for both men and women. Group identification, in contrast, affects group-specific concerns and thus differentially predicted male and female participants’ reactions. Men evaluated the claimant more positively the more strongly they identified with their gender. The more women identified with their gender, the more negatively they evaluated the male claimant. We also demonstrated that SLBs and GID moderated the extent to which the claimant was perceived as sexist. We discuss how these reactions may perpetuate gender inequality.
Creating a sense of interpersonal similarity of attitudes and values is associated with increased attraction and liking. Applying these findings in an intergroup setting, though, has yielded mixed support. Theorizing from a social identity perspective suggests that highlighting intergroup similarity may lead to increased antipathy to the extent that it is perceived as a threat to one’s unique social identity. To circumvent this process, we examine the influence of emotional similarity, rather than attitudinal or value similarity, with the expectation that the short-term nature of emotions may evoke less threat to one’s social identity. Moreover, given the importance of emotions in intergroup humanization processes, we expected that emotional similarity would be associated with greater conciliatory attitudes due to an increase in humanization of the outgroup. We report results from two studies supporting these predictions. Following exposure to an anger-eliciting news story, Jewish Israeli participants were given information that their own emotional reaction to the story was similar (or not) to an individual member of the outgroup (Study 1: Palestinian citizen of Israel) or the outgroup as a whole (Study 2: Palestinians of the West Bank). As predicted, emotional similarity was associated with increased humanization of the outgroup, and a subsequent increase in one’s willingness to support conciliatory political policies toward the outgroup. We conclude that emotional similarity may be a productive avenue for future intergroup interventions, particularly between groups where differences in attitudes and values are foundational to the intergroup conflict.
The aim of the present research was to investigate the psychological processes driving outgroup helping intentions among ethnic groups actually involved in natural disasters. We proposed that disaster exposure would be associated with different degrees of outgroup helping intentions depending on victim’s ethnic group of belonging. Specifically, based on an integration between the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) and the integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000), we hypothesized that perceived disaster exposure would be negatively associated with ethnic majorities’ altruistic intentions via increased outgroup threat, and it would be positively associated with ethnic minorities’ altruistic intentions via enhanced one-group perception. The findings of our research conducted with Italian natives (i.e., majority group) and immigrants (i.e., minority group) struck by the 2012 Northern Italian earthquakes fully supported our predictions. Implications of these findings for developing "altruistic" communities in postdisaster contexts are discussed together with the importance of considering the combined contribution of different psychological theories.
People of color who attribute rejection to racism and women who attribute rejection to sexism are perceived as troublemakers. Women of color may encounter racism and sexism simultaneously; however, it is unclear how compound discrimination claims are perceived. We examined interpersonal judgments of claimants and perceptions of the credibility of compound discrimination claims. In contrast to the double jeopardy perspective, which predicts that the consequences of multiple stigmas are cumulative, a Black woman (Study 1) was not perceived as a bigger troublemaker when she attributed rejection to compound discrimination versus either racism or sexism. Instead, racism and compound discrimination claims incurred similarly high interpersonal costs. Likewise, an Asian woman (Study 2) was not perceived as less credible when she attributed rejection to compound discrimination versus either racism or sexism. Instead, compound discrimination was the only discrimination attribution reliably judged as more credible and appropriate than baseline.
When people feel prejudice toward a group, they can justify their prejudice by perceiving the group as threatening. Three experiments tested the hypothesis that prejudice causes threat perception, using affective conditioning to create new prejudice toward unfamiliar groups. The experimentally created prejudice increased threat perception (Experiments 1–3), except when threat information was inconsistent with conditioned affect (Experiment 3). Consistency of affect and threat information is necessary in order for threat to be a plausible justification of prejudice. Mere prejudice can cause perception of threat in the absence of information about the group; this finding suggests threats are not necessarily inherent to the characteristics of the group. Threat perception can be used as a way to explain the experience of prejudice, rather than forming the source of the prejudice itself.
What is the role of culture in establishing young people’s pathways into gang membership? Italian criminal organizations (COs) exhibit adherence to codes of honor and masculinity, important values in the context where they originated. Here it is proposed that the embedding of these values at an individual level may lessen young people’s group-based opposition to such organizations, and indirectly, create a space in which such organizations can persist and recruit. In a study of young Southern Italians (N = 176; Mage = 16.17), we found that those who endorsed ideological beliefs related to the honorableness of male violence reported lower intentions to engage in antimafia activities. Consistent with the hypothesized mechanisms, this relationship was mediated by more positive attitudes toward COs, and lower reported vicarious shame in relation to the activities of COs. Directions for future research and implications for research on gangs are discussed.
The present research demonstrates that social dominance orientation (SDO) and trust propensity provide a valuable theoretical framework and methodological toolkit with which to both assess the concept of "defiant individualism," Sánchez-Jankowski’s trait theory of gang membership, and understand social-psychological gang processes. The research samples 95 gang members in London, UK, while looking at the effects of age, contact with the gang, and position in the gang on the presence of SDO and trust propensity. Using path analysis, the research demonstrates gang tenure and rank are strong predictors of high SDO and low trust propensity, independent of time spent in the gang, which also significantly predicts high SDO and low trust propensity. High SDO and low trust propensity in gangs are also positively correlated. Gang members, it seems, exhibit a "defiant individualist" social character and both selection and group socialization processes are accountable. Such, in turn, may help explain intergang relations.
This study investigates the role of team-based reward leadership in regard to team performance by considering the mediating role of team commitment and the moderating effect of abusive supervision. Using a multisource approach, data was gathered from 381 members and 101 immediate supervisors (which represents 101 work teams) in a public safety organization. Results of path analyses show that the relationship between team-based reward leadership and team performance is mediated by team commitment. Moreover, results of hierarchical regression analyses indicate that the relationship between team-based reward leadership and team commitment is moderated by abusive supervision, such that this relationship is stronger when the level of abusive supervision is low. On the whole, the findings of this study help to better understand why and when team-based reward leadership may enhance team performance.
Imagined intergroup contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009) is a new cognitive intervention designed to improve intergroup relations. In two studies, we examined whether it could also facilitate intercultural communication among international students and host country natives engaged in a college exchange program. In Study 1, international students who had recently arrived in Italy and participated in an imagined contact session displayed increased self-disclosure toward, and improved evaluation of, host country natives. In Study 2, Italian students mentally simulated positive contact with an unknown native from the host country prior to leaving for the exchange. Results from an online questionnaire administered on their return (on average, more than 7 months after the imagery task) revealed that participants who imagined contact reported spending more time with natives during the stay and enhanced outgroup evaluation, via reduced intergroup anxiety. Implications for enhancing the quality and effectiveness of college student exchange programs are discussed.
Some research has demonstrated that White perceivers direct more initial attention to Black relative to White target faces, while other work has failed to show this relationship. Several variables have been identified that moderate early attention to racial outgroup versus racial ingroup faces. In the current paper, two studies sought to extend this work by testing whether close contact with racial outgroup members moderates the amount of initial attention directed towards racial outgroup members relative to ingroup members using a dot-probe task. In Study 1, Whites’ attentional allocation to Black versus White faces was moderated by the amount of close and meaningful contact with Blacks. Study 2 extended these findings by demonstrating that Whites’ attentional allocation to Asian relative to White faces was moderated by close contact with Asians. These findings identify close outgroup contact as an additional moderating variable in the attentional capture of racial outgroup versus ingroup faces, for groups both associated and not associated with threat.
The proposal to build an Islamic mosque and community center near the site of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 on the World Trade Center produced widespread opposition. Although resistance among U.S. citizens was common, there was an ideological divergence, with liberals generally supporting the mosque and conservatives generally opposing it. We tested a theoretical model in which system justification mediated the effect of political ideology on level of support for the development of the "Ground Zero Mosque." Specifically, we conducted a survey of Americans near the site of the proposed mosque, and observed that, as hypothesized, greater conservatism was associated with stronger system justification, which was in turn associated with a lack of behavioral support for the mosque. These findings suggest that ideological differences in opposition to the "Ground Zero Mosque" are linked to system-justifying tendencies to preserve the American "way of life."
Gang violence, endemic to many communities in the United States and around the world is a very significant social problem. Given that the messages conveyed by, and the rivalries associated with, gang identities readily invoke constructs and processes familiar to the social psychological study of social identity, intergroup relations, and communication (Lauger, 2012), it is surprising that social psychologists have not advanced such an analysis of gangs. In attempt to fill this void and set a research agenda, this theoretical article examines the role social identity and identity-related communication play in promoting affiliation with gangs, particularly among youth who confront uncertainties and strive for family-like protection. The article discusses messaging communicated by gang members and reasons why youth adopt antisocial (e.g., violent) rather than prosocial behaviors. It also explores ways to diminish the allure of gang membership and raises questions for future research.
The common ingroup identity model (CIIM) holds that viewing former outgroup members as part of a larger shared ingroup can allow social categorisation to be harnessed for social cohesion. The ingroup projection model (IPM) suggests that even where shared identification occurs, social divisions can be transposed into superordinate groups. Here we explore the potentially inclusive national identity in a region (Northern Ireland) which has historically seen a high polarisation of identities. Using three data sets (N = 2000; N = 359; N = 1179), we examine the extent to which a superordinate inclusive national identity, Northern Irish, is related to conciliatory attitudes. We find a common ingroup identity is linked to more positive social attitudes but not to more positive political attitudes. We conclude by considering the complexities of applying psychological models in the real world where structural and historical social divisions and vexing oppositional political questions can be transposed into new social and political orders.
Workforces are becoming increasingly diverse and leaders face the challenge of managing their groups to minimize costs and maximize benefits of diversity. This paper investigates how leaders’ multiculturalism and colorblindness affect cultural minority and majority members’ experiences of connectedness (feeling accepted or distancing from group) and relationship conflict in their group. We collected data from 29 culturally diverse student work groups and their leaders. We used repeated measures (baseline and follow-up) of group functioning and independent measures of members’ and leaders’ diversity perspectives. Multilevel analyses revealed that leaders’ diversity perspectives affect work group functioning, controlled for members’ own perspectives: Leaders’ multiculturalism predicted feeling accepted in the group for minority members. In contrast, leaders’ colorblindness predicted distancing from the group and relationship conflict for minority members. There were no significant effects of leaders’ diversity perspective on majority members and no reverse effects of prior group functioning on leaders’ diversity perspectives.
In three experiments, we manipulated procedural fairness (Experiment 1) and group-based anger and group efficacy (Experiments 2 and 3) to investigate the independent pathways of anger and efficacy for collective action in China. In Experiment 3 we also examined pathways to "soft" (low-cost) and "hard" (high-cost) collective action. Our results supported the dual-pathway model of collective action: group-based anger and perceived group efficacy independently predicted collective action intentions to protest against increased school fees and unhygienic cafeteria conditions for Chinese university students. Group-based anger predicted soft collective action intentions; both anger and efficacy predicted hard collective action intentions. Identification with the disadvantaged group was found to moderate the problem-focused coping pathway for hard collective action intentions. For high but not low identifiers, manipulated group efficacy predicted hard collective action intentions. We discuss our findings with specific reference to collective action research in China.
Research on perceptions of discrimination has focused on group-based differential treatment that is widely accepted as being illegitimate (e.g., based on race or gender). The present research investigates how individuals interpret less obvious forms of group-based exclusion based on age (Study 1) and vision correction status (Study 2). We propose that individuals will not question the legitimacy of such treatment, unless they are provided with explicit cues to do so. Participants who merely encountered exclusion (baseline control) did not differ from those who were directed to consider the legitimate reasons for this treatment, with respect to perceived legitimacy, felt anger, and collective action intentions. In contrast, individuals who were directed to consider the illegitimate reasons for the exclusion perceived it to be less legitimate, felt more anger, and reported higher collective action intentions. Participants’ own status as potential victims or mere observers of the exclusion criterion did not influence their legitimacy perceptions or felt anger. Results suggest that when confronted with forms of group-based exclusion that are not commonly defined as discrimination, people do not perceive an injustice unless explicitly directed to seek it out.
Decision-making groups often fail to exploit their full potential because they do not integrate all relevant information. We propose to address this issue by interpreting group information processing as a motivational process that is influenced by group goal structure. In line with this approach, we apply regulatory focus theory to decision-making groups. Specifically, we investigate the effects of a promotion versus a prevention focus framing on group decision quality and information processing. Sixty-three-person groups solved five decision-making tasks based on the "stranded in the desert" scenario. Regulatory focus was manipulated via pay-off schemes and group interactions were videotaped. We found that groups in a promotion focus solved more tasks correctly than groups in a prevention focus. This effect on decision quality was mediated by group information processing. Finally, we show that regulatory focus influences group interaction patterns, which represents an important extension of regulatory focus research in groups.
Individuals with a high need for cognitive closure, or a preference for knowledge that is certain and clear, tend to adopt conservative system-justifying ideologies. Nevertheless, few studies have examined the intervening orientations responsible for this relationship. While conservatism is anchored in values that both support tradition and oppose equality, we suggest that the need for closure is linked primarily with the former. In three studies, we found (a) that the need for closure is more strongly related to support for tradition than opposition to equality, and (b) that the indirect effect of the need for closure on conservatism is stronger via the former than the latter. By clarifying the links between the need for closure and multiple antecedents of ideology, these findings provide new insight into the psychological foundations of political belief by suggesting that the need for closure is not equally relevant to all aspects of system justification.
The present research investigated the intergroup allocation behavior of members of low-status groups. In two studies where status relations were either relatively illegitimate (Study 1, N = 139) or legitimate (Study 2, N = 114), undergraduate students completed a minimal group resource allocation task that took into account the intergroup status hierarchy. In both studies, members of low-status groups showed two forms of in-group favoritism. They selected resource allocation choices that (a) compensated for their low status and led to intergroup fairness (compensatory favoritism) and (b) competed with the out-group for status and led to positive distinctiveness for the in-group (competitive favoritism). These results suggest that members of low-status groups use in-group favoritism to make their group (a) as good as the high-status out-group and (b) better than the high-status out-group. The findings support the idea that in-group favoritism can serve different functions.
System justification theory (SJT) posits that people are motivated to believe that the social system they live in is fair, desirable, and how it should be, especially in contexts that heighten the system justification motive. Past researchers have suggested that opposition to feminists may be motivated by the threat that feminism presents to the legitimacy of the status quo, but this hypothesis has not been tested empirically. In this article, we present three studies that directly test the idea that antifeminist backlash can be motivated by system justification. Studies 1 and 2 experimentally manipulated the SJ motive and a female target’s feminist identification (feminist vs. nonfeminist). Study 3 tested the hypothesis by measuring participants’ SJ motivation via an individual difference measure. Participants disagreed more with identical statements about gender issues made by the feminist target than the nonfeminist target, but only when the system justification motive was heightened (Study 2) or chronically high (Study 3).
Based on system justification theory, we hypothesized that, when the salience of system justification concerns are high, both men and women would bias estimates of their own and their group’s academic competence so as to make them more congruent with complementary gender stereotypes concerning mathematical and verbal abilities. Results show that, compared to men, women reported lesser competence and recalled lower achievement scores in math following the activation of system justification concerns, while at the same time reporting greater competence in verbal domains, albeit less strongly. Concerning perceptions of their group’s competence, men endorsed complementary gender stereotypes more strongly in the high (vs. low) system justification salience condition. However, women were less prone to endorse abstract gender stereotypes when system justification was made salient, which may suggest reactance rather than acquiescence.
The present research investigated the relationship between system justification beliefs and the endorsement of ambivalent sexist attitudes toward men. In Study 1 (web-based questionnaire, N = 220) we explored the relationship between system justification (SJ), and hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men (HM and BM). Results showed that SJ was positively related to BM but not to HM. In Study 2 (paper-and-pencil questionnaire, N = 158), we tested the mediating role played by BM and HM in the relationship between SJ and the preference for male candidates. We replicated Study 1 results and showed that BM, but not HM, was positively related to the dependent variable; moreover SJ exerted an indirect and positive effect on the preference for male candidates as mediated by BM. Finally, supplementary analyses showed that the relationship between SJ and BM was positive and significant for women only. Results are discussed in light of system justification theory and of BM as an additional form of legitimization and maintenance of the status quo.
Compared to the conventional order of hypocritical actions—saying one thing and then doing another—merely reversing the order of these actions can mitigate whether an individual is judged to be a hypocrite (Barden, Rucker, & Petty, 2005). The present research examines how factors extraneous to a target’s own actions—specifically, group membership—influence hypocrisy judgments. Three experiments provided consistent evidence that reversing the order of statement and behavior mitigated hypocrisy judgments to a greater extent when observers judged ingroup targets compared to outgroup targets. This pattern was observed across two distinct groups (i.e., gender and political party). In addition, mediational evidence suggested that the greater mitigation for ingroup targets stemmed from the observer’s greater tendency to make attributions that ingroup targets had genuinely changed for the better.
Integrating research on social exclusion with the broader literature on system justification and flexible responses to threats, we propose a novel coping strategy that individuals may use in the face of social exclusion. In particular, we suggest that because exclusion often feels unexpected, it will lead individuals to bolster the system-justifying worldview that people get what they deserve, as excluded individuals attempt to cognitively cope with the threatened order and predictability of their world. Supporting our prediction, in Study 1, social exclusion (vs. inclusion) led participants to increasingly endorse descriptive meritocratic beliefs suggesting that hard work leads to success in society. This effect was mediated by the perceived unexpectedness of the interaction outcome, providing key evidence for our hypothesized process. Study 2 used individual differences in rejection sensitivity to provide further support for our unexpectedness account, demonstrating that exclusion heightens meritocratic beliefs only insofar as participants tend to find exclusions unexpected. The results expand our understanding of the cognitive mechanisms by which people cope with social exclusion and highlight the malleability of system-justifying ideologies in response to interpersonal factors.
Research demonstrates that religiosity and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) are positively correlated (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992). The extent to which this relationship holds across the population, however, is unknown. Because support for conformity and tradition—values fostered by religion (Saroglou, Delpierre, & Dernelle, 2004) and consonant with RWA (Altemeyer, 1996)—may be facilitated by the perception that the status quo is fair, endorsement of system-justifying beliefs should moderate the relationship between religiosity and RWA. We tested this hypothesis in a national probability sample of religiously identified New Zealanders (N = 1,600). As predicted, church attendance was associated with a steep initial increase, followed by a gradual plateau, in RWA. This relationship was, however, stronger for those who were high (vs. low) in system justification. These findings provide the first demonstration that system-justifying beliefs strengthen the relationship between religiosity and RWA, while simultaneously broadening the scope of system justification theory.
It is a common belief that high offers are more readily accepted than low offers. In contrast to this general notion, the current set of studies shows that there is a limit to the beneficial effects of making high offers and that becoming too generous may backfire. This paradoxical finding is observed when offers are made in an ambiguous situation of asymmetric information. In three studies, we found that when bargaining opponents had private information over the total amount that was to be distributed, participants became suspicious about high offers (i.e., offers that were beneficial to themselves), but not about low or equal offers. Due to suspicion, participants rejected high offers more often than equal offers.
Recent research on intergroup helping has shown that receiving and seeking help can be a way in which groups assert or challenge the existing hierarchy. The present research, consisting of two studies conducted in the Arab–Jewish Israeli context, examined how the manipulated perceived stability of social hierarchy and dispositional levels of system justification (SJ) influence the willingness of Arab participants to seek assistance from a Jewish helper (representing low- and high-status groups in Israel, respectively). As expected, findings indicate that Arab participants who perceive the social hierarchy as just and stable, show a significantly higher preference to seek dependency-oriented help from Jews. On the other hand, those characterized as low SJs report overall low willingness to seek help from Jewish group members, but show some readiness to seek autonomy-oriented help when status relations between Arabs and Jews are perceived as stable. Theoretical and practical implications for intergroup helping relations are discussed.
In the context of daily food consumption, individuals have to evaluate their health and environmental risks based on information provided by the institutions governing food security. At the same time, they have to trust the institutions that both protect them and provide risk information. Study 1 examined how trust in EU policies that assure food safety as well as trust in the information provided by the EU about food risks is associated with risk concern and the perceived personal control of food risks. Eurobarometer 73.5, providing data about Finnish citizens (N = 1,007), was analyzed with structural equation modeling (SEM). Trust in EU policies was associated with a low level of risk concern and a high level of risk control, whereas trust in information was associated with a high level of risk concern and a low level of risk control. Study 2 examined how system justification tendencies are associated with the perceived climate risks of one’s own food system, the perception of climate change as a national threat, as well as climate-friendly food choices. University students’ (N = 350) responses to a questionnaire were analyzed with SEM. The perception of climate change as a national threat was associated with food system justification and denial of climate change, whereas knowledge was associated with climate-friendly food choices indirectly through decreased food system justification. These findings increase our understanding of system justification in the context of risk perception and suggest how its effect could be overcome with interventions that reduce perceiving risks as national threats.
Diversity initiatives aim to improve outcomes for low-status groups in organizations. Yet they also may ironically act as legitimizing cues, leading to an assumption of fairness and reducing the detection of discrimination. We explored how group status (high-status majority vs. low-status minority) and beliefs about the fairness of the system influence when the mere presence of a diversity initiative will de-legitimize claims of discrimination against a company. Non-Hispanic Whites and Latino participants (N = 135) read a profile of a company that had or had not received diversity awards, and then read a discrimination claim brought against the company by a Latino employee. Whites in general, and Latinos high in system-justifying beliefs, saw the company with diversity-awards as more respectful and fair to minorities than the company with neutral awards and also derogated the discrimination claimant more. Perceived fairness mediated the effect on claimant derogation. Implications are discussed.
Although men are typically considered to have more power than women, women are more likely than men to be primary decision makers in the household domain. We argue that the portrayal of women’s traditional role as representing a form of power, albeit limited in scope, is widespread in popular culture, and that this power is perceived as desirable and providing a subjective sense of control (Study 1). Yet power over household decision making may also function to reduce women’s objections to a status quo in which they have less power overall, outside their traditional role. Two experiments (Studies 2 and 3) showed that power over household decisions (but not mere domestic tasks) reduced women’s interest in achieving power in the workplace. Men’s interest in workplace power, on the other hand, was unaffected by the degree to which they wielded power at home.
Despite the fact that groups and organizations often portray themselves as more diverse than they really are, the consequences of such practices for the minority who is overrepresented are not well understood. Focusing on Asian university students in Australia, we conducted three experiments to examine minority group members’ perceptions when the superordinate group (the university) overrepresents the minority group in advertising. Minority group members tended to be less favorable toward overrepresentation compared to other types of representation (Studies 1 and 2), an effect that was most pronounced for those who strongly identified with their minority group (Study 3). The negative effect of minority overrepresentation was not detected among majority group members. If anything, in Study 1, majority group members were more positive toward overrepresentation and were more willing to help the superordinate group in an overrepresentation than a no minority representation condition. Future research directions and practical implications are discussed.
Although previous research has theorized about team interaction differences between the German and U.S. cultures, actual behavioral observations of such differences are sparse. This study explores team meetings as a context for examining intercultural differences. We analyzed a total of 5,188 meeting behaviors in German and U.S. student teams. All teams discussed the same task to consensus. Results from behavioral process analyses showed that German teams focused significantly more on problem analysis, whereas U.S. teams focused more on solution production. Moreover, U.S. teams showed significantly more positive socioemotional meeting behavior than German teams. Finally, German teams showed significantly more counteractive behavior such as complaining than U.S. teams. We discuss theoretical and pragmatic implications for understanding these observable differences and for improving interaction in intercultural teams.
We sought to examine the fluidity of ethnic identification and test shared reality’s hypothesis concerning the effects of interpersonal relationships on ethnic identification. To investigate the effects of ethnicity of spouse on ethnic identification, Asian-American women (66 from same-ethnicity marriages, 46 from mixed-ethnicity marriages) completed several measures of ethnic identification after thinking about positive aspects of their relationship with either their spouse or their mother. Women in same-ethnicity marriages reported equivalent levels of ethnic identification whether they thought about their mother or their spouse. Women in mixed-ethnicity marriages reported lower ethnic identification when they thought about their different-ethnicity spouse; but when thinking about their mother, they reported high ethnic identification equivalent to the levels reported by women in same-ethnicity marriages. Mediational analyses revealed that, consistent with shared reality theory, shared understanding of one’s ethnic identity with one’s spouse partially mediated the relationship between same- and different-ethnicity spouses and ethnic identification. Implications for theories of ethnic identity and for individuals in mixed-ethnicity romantic relationships are discussed.
This paper compares affective meanings of various stereotyped social groups in U.S., German, and Japanese cultures along the three basic dimensions of emotional experience (evaluation, potency, and activity). Analyses exploring similarities in affective meanings between respondents revealed considerable consensus within cultures, but less across cultures. These analyses indicated greater consensus for the U.S. and German sample than for the Japanese sample, supporting past research which indicates that Japanese social perception is more contextualized than in Western cultures. Analyses of cross-cultural differences also identified meaningful patterns of culture-specific deviation, interpretable in terms of the placement of each national sample on cultural dimensions such as power distance, masculinity, and individualism/collectivism. We argue that affective meanings reflect the social order of specific cultures, making variations in consensus significant as affective meanings guide intergroup behavior and emotion.
We investigated the bias accentuation effect of group decision-making. Previous studies have shown that individuals were more likely to endorse the guilty verdict when the prosecution evidence was presented in a temporal order (story condition) than when the same evidence was presented in a nontemporal order (witness condition). We expected that group deliberation would accentuate this biasing effect of evidence order through a majority-wins process. Sixty-six 3-person groups engaged in a mock jury task either in the story or witness condition. As predicted, group deliberation accentuated the difference in the verdict judgments between the two conditions through a majority-wins/leniency asymmetry process. This accentuation effect was not moderated by how juries deliberated (evidence-driven vs. verdict-driven). Some theoretical and practical implications of these findings were discussed.
The present research sought to determine whether young female chess players would demonstrate stereotype threat susceptibility in a naturalistic environment. Data from 12 scholastic chess tournaments indicated that females performed worse than expected when playing against a male opponent, achieving 83% of the expected success based on their own and their opponent’s prerating. These effects were strongest for the youngest players in lower elementary school but also present for those in upper elementary. Stereotype threat susceptibility was most pronounced in contexts that could be considered challenging: when playing a strong or moderate opponent and when playing someone in a higher or the same grade. As evidence of disengagement, those most vulnerable to stereotype threat were less likely to continue playing in future chess tournaments. These results were not found in a matched comparison male group suggesting the outcomes were unique to stereotype threat and not universal to young chess players.
Two studies examine how social distance toward Mormons is affected by the relative recency of the Mormon religion. In Study 1, we found that the perceived age of the Mormon religion predicted social distance toward Mormons such that people who perceived Mormonism as more recent wanted more social distance from Mormons. In Study 2, we manipulated the antiquity or recency of the Mormon religion. We found that emphasizing the long history of the religion reduced social distance from Mormons (relative to emphasizing the religion’s newness), an effect that was mediated by perceived legitimacy of the Mormon religion. These findings support past research showing that the longevity of a practice implies its goodness and that this inference extends to practitioners as well.
In three studies we examined the importance of cultural continuity for attitudes towards Muslim immigrants. Study 1 showed that perceiving national culture to be temporally enduring predicted opposition to Muslim expressive rights, and this effect was mediated by perceptions of continuity threat. Studies 2 (survey) and 3 (experiment), examined whether attitudes towards Muslim immigrants are dependent on the specific content of cultural continuity. Study 2 showed that a stronger perception of religious tolerant continuity was associated with lower opposition to Muslims, via reduced levels of continuity threat, whereas a Christian continuity representation was associated with higher continuity threat and more opposition. In Study 3, the causal effect of religious tolerant continuity was the same, but the salience of Christian continuity only resulted in more opposition to Muslims among younger adults. Together, these findings illustrate the importance of perceptions and representations of cultural continuity for the understanding of current intergroup dynamics.
We created the conditions necessary for cognitive representations to develop by presenting individuals and groups with word lists consisting of items high and low in associative strength. Strong cognitive representations were found to promote more schema-consistent memory errors than weaker representations. Moreover, strong cognitive representations resulted in more of these errors for groups than individuals. Weak cognitive representations, in contrast, resulted in fewer of these errors for groups than individuals. We find that variation in the frequency of memory errors between individuals and groups is influenced by the strength of shared representations that interfere with the ability of groups to correct schema-consistent memory errors among their members. Further analyses suggest that strong shared representations also aid correct recall relative to weak shared representations. We conclude that despite general advantages of collaboration, select circumstances that allow for strong shared representations may promote schema-consistent memory errors in groups.
Previous research has emphasized the importance of shared cognitions such as team mental models (TMM) for high performance in teams. The most prominent approaches to measure TMMs are based on indices of within-group agreement (e.g., rWG, r*WG, and aWG). However, a major shortcoming of these indices is the missing separation of team-specific agreement. Recent indices overestimate the existence of team-specific mental models if there is a common agreement beyond team borders. In this paper, we discuss team situations in which this team specific agreement is most important (e.g., competitive negotiation or action teams) and introduce the TMM index (rRG) that is based on random group resampling. The advantage of this index is its focus on team specific agreement rather than on common agreement. We demonstrate the usefulness of the rRG by comparing it to other agreement indices theoretically and by means of Monte Carlo simulation. Finally, limitations and fields of application are discussed.
Women experience workplace penalties when they become mothers, whereas men who become fathers are not penalized. We explored whether a working mother’s self-professed devotion to work over family would undermine the "motherhood penalty." Male and female business students evaluated an applicant for an industrial engineering job. The applicant was always described as married, with 2 children. Depending on random assignment, the candidate was male or female, and expressed devotion to work or to family. Family-devoted mothers experienced strong hiring discrimination (with lower ratings than all other candidates), but work-devoted mothers escaped the motherhood penalty and were rated as highly as work-devoted fathers. We discuss the advantages and drawback to expressing work devotion to escape the motherhood penalty.
Two experiments examined the impact of ingroup extinction threat on willingness to compromise with an adversary group. Specifically, Israel’s ability to cope with a nuclear capable Iran was manipulated and Israelis’ willingness to compromise with Hamas (Experiment 1) or the Palestinian Authority (Experiment 2) was assessed. In Experiment 1, extinction threat decreased willingness to compromise with Hamas—an effect mediated by heightened collective angst. Conversely, in Experiment 2, extinction threat increased willingness to compromise with the Palestinian Authority, again via collective angst. The reason for this inverted effect in Experiment 2 was perceived reciprocal threat reduction—the belief that compromise with the Palestinian Authority would reduce the Iranian threat (a belief not relevant to the issue of compromise with Hamas). Implications for the understanding of intergroup conflicts and peace making are discussed within the context of the role played by collective angst.
The current study hypothesized that extended intergroup friendships improve outgroup attitudes in particular for people with initially unfavorable outgroup attitudes, and for those without direct intergroup friendships. In contrast, building on structural balance theory, it was hypothesized that extended contact in small social settings may also be related to less favorable outgroup attitudes. Hypotheses were tested longitudinally among Dutch students (n = 661) who just entered multiethnic middle schools. Adopting concepts from social network analysis, an extended intergroup friendships measure was proposed which excludes direct intergroup friendships. Multilevel panel analyses showed that the effect of extended intergroup friendships with Turkish peers did not depend on whether adolescents had direct Turkish friends. Extended intergroup friendships were only related to improved outgroup attitudes for students with relatively unfavorable outgroup attitudes. Additional analyses show, in line with structural balance theory, that extended friendships within classrooms can also be related to outgroup attitudes negatively for students with favorable initial attitudes.
We examined how appeals to collective guilt and pride can motivate people to help members of a disadvantaged outgroup. Results from two experiments supported the prediction that appeals to collective pride are more effective than appeals to collective guilt in prompting high identifying group members’, but not low identifying group members’ willingness to help the outgroup. Study 2 demonstrated that, as expected, pride appeals generated more empathy for the disadvantaged group than guilt appeals, particularly among high identifiers, and empathy mediated the relationship between emotional appeals and helping. The results complement existing research on collective guilt by demonstrating how high identifiers can be persuaded to help members of a disadvantaged outgroup even in the context of historical harmdoings.
Research has linked experiences of personal discrimination with negative mental health consequences, but less is known about the role of group stigma (perceived stigma against one’s group as a whole). The theoretical literature has offered mixed predictions. The present study examined the independent and interactive effects of group stigma and personal discrimination on depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation in a sample of gay and bisexual men (N = 986). Experiences of personal discrimination predicted depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation regardless of group stigma. However, group stigma was associated with depressive symptoms contextually—only when level of perceived personal discrimination was low. Personal discrimination may be a relatively more powerful force in the lives of stigmatized group members that overwhelms the influence of group stigma in harming mental health.
Perceptions of the relevance of race in everyday situations may matter for intergroup relations. Extending previous research, this work examines Blacks’ and Whites’ perceptions of race relevance in positive versus negative everyday situations affecting Black or White individuals. It also examines whether Black and White participants expect more intergroup disagreement regarding those perceptions than actually exists (i.e., interracial pluralistic ignorance). In Study 1, White participants saw significantly more race relevance in negative situations affecting Black (rather than White) individuals, whereas positive events seemed only marginally more race relevant when they featured Blacks. Study 2 replicated this pattern among White and Black participants. Furthermore, Study 2 uncovered interracial pluralistic ignorance: both Black and White participants expected to agree with their racial ingroup more than their racial outgroup, even though both groups reported similar race relevance perceptions. Participants’ own race relevance ratings and symbolic racist attitudes moderated the degree of expected disagreement.
In diverse groups, minority members often indicate lower levels of identification and perceived acceptance than majority members. To date, we know relatively little about how the cognitive definition of the self may impact on identification with a diverse group. In this research, we argue that when minority members shape a cognitive group bond based on the personal self (i.e., self-anchoring) rather than the social self (i.e., self-stereotyping) this may boost their level of identification and perceived value in diversity. To test this, we assigned participants to a majority or minority position in a diverse group and manipulated self-anchoring and self-stereotyping via mindset priming (plus a control condition). As expected, only minority, but not majority members’ self-anchoring led to higher identification and value in diversity compared to self-stereotyping (and the control condition). Thus, a focus on the personal self in shaping a cognitive relation with a group enables minority members to belong while being different.
The study adopted a group status perspective to examine the relationships between social dominance orientation (SDO), prejudice, and "Vladimir’s choice" tendency. It was hypothesized that for high-status group members (Israeli Jews), high SDO levels will be followed by increases in prejudice and "Vladimir’s choice" tendency, while for the low-status group (Israeli Arabs), a negative relationship should appear between SDO and the intergroup measures. The research sample comprising 100 Israeli Jews and 85 Israeli Arabs completed SDO and prejudice questionnaires, and performed a resource allocation task. As hypothesized, group status moderated the relationship between SDO and group prejudice. Contrary to our expectations, however, both samples exhibited a positive relationship between SDO and negative group prejudice. A positive relationship was also found between SDO and the positive prejudice factor in the Jewish sample, while no significant relationship was found between SDO and the positive prejudice factor in the Arab sample. Only group status correlated with Vladimir’s choice preferences.
Research has shown that intergroup contact is one of the most powerful approaches for improving outgroup attitudes. Further, it has been revealed that contact exerts its effects on prejudice reduction mostly by inducing positive affective processes. The present study (N = 146) investigated whether stereotype content enhancement along the core dimensions of competence, sociability, and morality might represent a basic cognitive mechanism driving the contact effects. Results showed that face-to-face encounters with immigrants increased their perceived competence, sociability, and morality. However, only increased perceived outgroup morality mediated the effect of contact on outgroup responses. Our findings extend prior research on the mediators of intergroup contact, showing the key role of perceived morality in driving the contact effects. The importance of these findings for improving intergroup relations is discussed.
Imagined intergroup contact represents a new indirect contact strategy to reduce intergroup bias. Extending the literature on imagined contact, we tested whether the inclusion of cooperation into the imagination task would outperform the standard imagined contact scenarios used in previous research. 87 participants were instructed to imagine a neutral versus a positive versus a cooperative interaction with an out-group member. As predicted, after imagining a cooperative intergroup interaction, participants showed more empathy and trust toward the out-group than participants in the remaining experimental conditions. Furthermore, they also reported reduced prejudice and intergroup anxiety. Taken together, implementing cooperation in the imagined contact paradigm reduced intergroup bias, above and beyond basic imagined contact effects. Finally, the perceived quality of the imagined interaction with an out-group member mediated the experimental effects. Theoretical and practical implications of these novel findings will be discussed.
Outgroup dehumanization figures centrally in historical intergroup violence, yet little is known about the factors that promote dehumanized perceptions of others. Drawing on research highlighting the importance of disgust-relevant social categorizations and disgust sensitivity to outgroup dehumanization, the authors hypothesized that feelings of disgust causally facilitate dehumanized social cognition. To test this hypothesis, participants (N = 94) were randomly assigned to receive inductions of disgusted, sad, or neutral emotions. We then assessed their implicit associations between animals and an arbitrary outgroup created with a minimal-groups procedure. Results showed that although all participants demonstrated dehumanizing biases, disgusted participants showed the strongest associations between the outgroup and animals (and the ingroup with humanity). Participants in the sad and neutral groups did not differ. Disgust thus appears to have the unique capacity to foster the social-cognitive dehumanization of outgroup members.
Social identity complexity (SIC) as defined by Roccas and Brewer is an individual’s subjective representation of the combination of his or her multiple ingroup memberships. Almost all prior research on SIC and its relationship to intergroup attitudes has been conducted with members of ethnic majority groups. The present research assesses SIC and its correlates among ethnic majority group members (Anglo-Australian students) and members of a salient ethnic minority group (Asian-Australian students). Study 1 found that Asian-Australians perceived significantly more overlap among their ingroups (lower SIC) than did Anglo-Australians, despite the fact that objective overlap is actually greater for majority than minority ethnic groups. Study 2 replicated this difference and found that perceived overlap was predicted by proportion of ingroup friends. Further, for the majority group, low SIC is associated with less inclusive Australian identity, but for minority group members, SIC and Australian identity inclusiveness are essentially independent. Results are discussed in terms of the social-structural environment in which multiple identities are managed.
When rational actors believe that their group can achieve its goals through collective action (i.e., when they have strong group efficacy beliefs), they should not participate in it because they expect little benefit from their own participation. Paradoxically, however, research shows that individuals are more likely to participate when their group efficacy beliefs are stronger. In contrast to approaches that explain this paradox by invoking different psychological mechanisms (e.g., group identity, group-based anger), we provide a novel efficacy-based explanation by introducing the notion of participative efficacy beliefs (i.e., beliefs that one’s own actions will "make a difference" to collective efforts aimed at achieving group goals). Three correlational studies supported the construct and predictive validity of participative efficacy beliefs across different samples and contexts. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this notion for the psychology of collective action and social change.
Two studies examined the cognitive costs of blatant and subtle racial bias during interracial interactions. In Study 1, Black participants engaged in a 10-minute, face-to-face interaction with a White confederate who expressed attitudes and behaviors consistent with blatant, subtle, or no racial bias. Consistent with contemporary theories of modern racism, interacting with a subtly biased, compared with a blatantly biased, White partner impaired the cognitive functioning of Blacks. Study 2 revealed that Latino participants suffered similar cognitive impairments when exposed to a White partner who displayed subtle, compared with blatant, racial bias. The theoretical and practical implications for understanding the dynamics of interracial interactions in the context of contemporary bias are discussed.
When people make important decisions, such as selecting a job candidate or graduate school applicant based on how well they fit with that imagined ideal. In two experiments we provide evidence that imagining the ideal has unintended consequences. Imagining an ideal candidate for a professional job led participants to preferentially imagine a White candidate (Experiment 1) and to preferentially hire a White candidate over a Black candidate with matched qualifications (Experiment 2). These effects were independent of explicit prejudice, suggesting that even low-prejudice individuals may be affected by this bias. However, an alternative imagery strategy—imagining a variety of suitable applicants—was effective at remediating the bias. In some cases discrimination may result not from prejudiced attitudes but from failures of the imagination.
Identity denial, or having one’s group membership go unrecognized by others, is a form of discrimination and a common experience for ethnic minorities whose national identities are routinely questioned. Three studies found that being denied one’s national identity generated greater negative emotions for second+ generation (i.e., U.S.-born) compared to first generation (i.e., foreign-born) Asian Americans, and for those first generation Asian Americans who arrived to the USA earlier in their lives compared to later. Negative emotions in response to identity denial were mediated by American identification, specifically greater self-stereotyping as American, among second+ generation Americans. The present work thus identifies which group members are most vulnerable to the negative effects of identity denial and further suggests that identity denial is a self-definitional threat in which one’s view of oneself is not validated by others.
Gender egalitarian men are vital for women’s progress, yet attitudes toward and beliefs about them are underinvestigated. In three experiments, women liked gender egalitarian men more so than men did, but both genders stigmatized them as more feminine, weak, and likely to be gay, compared with control male targets. This was true even when the gender egalitarian was an actual presidential candidate for the American Psychological Association (Experiment 3). We examined whether stigmatization was due to (a) gender egalitarians’ presumed affiliations with women and/or gay men (stigma-by-association); (b) the gay male feminist stereotype; or (c) a threat to men’s gender identity. Results supported stigma-by-association, but only for affiliations with women (not gay men). The gay male feminist stereotype was robust, but did not account for stigmatization, and men’s reactions to male gender egalitarians were independent of their gender identity. Implications of these findings for gender equality are discussed.
Meta-stereotypes, the stereotypes believed to be held about one’s ingroup by an outgroup, represent barriers to positive intergroup contact. Little is known, however, about factors accounting for meta-stereotypes. Although previous researchers have speculated on conceptual overlap between social projection (perceiving one’s personal attitudes to be commonly held) and meta-stereotypes, these constructs are typically studied separately. We propose the notion that meta-stereotypes can be explained by social projection processes. We examined Whites’ "bias meta-stereotypes" (perceptions that Blacks consider Whites biased) across two studies. Participants projected personal biases onto both their ingroup (Whites) and outgroup (Blacks); in turn, both ingroup and outgroup bias perceptions uniquely predicted bias meta-stereotypes. Overall, the positive relation between personal bias perceptions and bias meta-stereotypes was fully mediated (i.e., explained) by heightened perceptions of ingroup (White) and outgroup (Black) bias. Overall, there is considerable value in integrating basic social projection within intergroup domains, particularly with regard to meta-stereotyping.