Macro-Economic Inequality and National Stereotypes in 45 Non-Western Countries

Abstract

The assumption that people favor ingroups and disfavor outgroups is based largely on theory and research from Western countries. However, groups subjected to economic exploitation and inequality might come to favor more advantaged outgroups. The present large-scale study (N = 12,339) involving 45 non-Western countries explored ingroup stereotypes and stereotypes of relatively advantaged and disadvantaged outgroups (Western Europeans and Western Africans, respectively) and their relation to macroeconomic conditions. Compared with their national ingroup, participants stereotyped advantaged outgroups as more competent (exhibiting outgroup favoritism) but less warm; they stereotyped disadvantaged outgroups as less competent but neither more nor less warm. Nationals of poorer and more exploited countries exhibited stronger outgroup favoritism on competence and stronger ingroup favoritism on warmth. This work provides preliminary evidence for the structural origins of national stereotypes: macroeconomic inequalities can override habitual ingroup favoritism and lead national groups to exhibit outgroup favoritism.

Keywords

economic exploitation social inequality stereotyping outgroup favoritism world systems theory

“An objective class status is only a reality insofar as it becomes a subjective reality for some group or groups, and if it ‘objectively’ exists, it inevitably will be felt ‘subjectively.’” Immanuel Wallerstein, 1979 (p. 225)

Many social theorists have argued that social, economic, and political inequalities are, in many ways, self-sustaining, in the sense that objective disparities create dynamics of domination and subordination—or, in the cultural sphere, hegemony and consent—that are experienced subjectively (e.g., Elias, 1939/2000; Jost, 2020; Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). One example, among many throughout human history, concerns European colonization of the Global South, which produced a lasting set of detrimental social and psychological effects on those who were colonized (Biko, 1996; Fanon, 1963; Memmi, 1957/2021). People who were colonized frequently internalized their oppression, developing distortedly negative ingroup stereotypes and beliefs about their own bodies, culture, identity, and ways of life (for a recent review, see Jost et al., 2025).

Similar observations about the internalization of inferiority were made in other areas of philosophy and social psychology throughout the middle of the 20th century (Allport, 1979). Kurt Lewin (1948), for instance, described cases of “self-hatred” among Jews, and the classic doll studies by Clark and Clark showed that African American children often preferred to play with white rather than black dolls (Clark & Clark, 1950). Several contemporary studies also support the hypothesis that members of socially devalued groups (e.g., women, minorities, people with disabilities) experience internalized oppression, which has been linked to serious mental health problems (e.g., David, 2013; David & Okazaki, 2006; Garcia et al., 2019; Graham et al., 2016; Nikalje & Çiftçi, 2023).

A seemingly related phenomenon has been observed in the study of intergroup relations, whereby members of low-status or disadvantaged groups sometimes depart from the supposedly universal norm of ingroup favoritism (e.g., Hammond & Axelrod, 2006; Romano et al., 2021; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and instead favor members of other, higher-status, or more objectively advantaged outgroups (e.g., Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2003; Axt et al., 2018; Essien et al., 2021; Jost et al., 2002; Rudman et al., 2002; Santos & Pereira, 2021). According to system justification theory, which was inspired in part by critical, anti-colonial, and social-structural theorists, and psychological evidence of what used to be called “group self-hatred,” members of lower-status or disadvantaged groups may come to support and justify the existing social order (i.e., status quo), even if the consequences of their support are at odds with other personal and ingroup interests (Jost, 2001, 2020; Jost & Banaji, 1994). In the present research program, we explore the possibility that disadvantaged groups might develop or internalize stereotypes and belief systems that justify global as well as local inequalities. This is a likely possibility, given the legacy of historical oppression and the current neoliberal regime of global capitalism, under which some (mostly Western) countries are far wealthier and more powerful than other (mostly non-Western) countries.

Indeed, a few studies investigated feelings of inferiority in the Global South, such as Puerto Rico (Capielo Rosario et al., 2019; Rivera Pichardo et al., 2022; Varas-Díaz & Serrano-García, 2003) and Ghana (Utsey et al., 2015). One of the most notable, in our view, investigated the “national inferiority complex” in Brazil, based on the idea that the “typical nature of the Brazilian people. . . is [a] type of generalized feeling of collective inferiority intrinsic to Brazilian culture, which encourages people to place higher value on those from foreign countries than on Brazilians themselves typically” (Santos & Pereira, 2021). In their studies, Santos and Pereira investigated how much money Brazilians would compensate the victim of police violence as a function of the victims’ national origin. They observed that Brazilians compensated Brazilian victims more than African victims. This form of ingroup bias is in line with social identity theory, which emphasizes the tendency to favor members of one’s own group over others, as well as system justification theory, which emphasizes the tendency to favor members of groups higher (vs. lower) in the social order. However, Brazilians compensated Brazilian victims less than European victims, thereby exhibiting outgroup rather than ingroup favoritism. This finding is in line with system justification theory: when the outgroup is the dominant group—that is, highly advantaged in terms of status, power, prestige, or privilege—members of dominated (or subordinated) groups often show a preference for the outgroup, thereby accepting and reinforcing the social status quo (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Santos & Pereira, 2021).

Whereas previous research was limited largely to a specific vision of internalized oppression based on race, ethnicity, or religion within a given country, we believe that outgroup favoritism is far from unique to these contexts. This is because the psychological and ideological legacies of coloniality, social domination, economic exploitation, and political inequality persist everywhere (e.g., Adams et al., 2015; Amin, 2014; Rivera Pichardo et al., 2022; Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). According to Wallerstein’s (1979, 2004) world-systems theory, Western powers have maintained hegemonic control over non-Western countries and regions for centuries and, indeed, continue to benefit from the unequal exchange of goods and resources. For example, it is estimated that the Global North appropriated a total of US$242 trillion from the Global South over a single 25-year period from 1990 to 2015 (Hickel et al., 2021). By synthesizing insights from system justification and world-systems theories, we hypothesize that objective social and economic inequalities under global capitalism will be subjectively associated with stereotype internalization and national outgroup favoritism on the part of non-Western citizens, thereby diminishing their expression of national ingroup favoritism. As noted by Jost (2020), “Once events produce certain social arrangements, whether by historical fiat or human intention, the resulting arrangements tend to be explained and justified, often in inherent terms . . . simply because they exist” (pp. 83-84, emphasis in original).

Internalized oppression and outgroup favoritism have been observed not only in Brazil, Puerto Rico, and Ghana, but also in other countries in the Global South. In African and Asian contexts, outgroup favoritism often manifests itself in terms of beauty standards that favor European features over native features as well as potentially dangerous methods used to attain those standards, such as skin-bleaching chemicals (Blay, 2011; Choma & Prusaczyk, 2018). Importantly, outgroup favoritism is not limited to non-European countries. In Serbia, a broader cultural discourse sometimes labeled as “auto-chauvinism” reflects the belief that the Serbian population is inherently backward and corrupt and will never reach the level of Western Europeans (Gligorić & Obradović, 2024; Russell-Omaljev, 2016). This is also the case in other Balkan nations: the term “Balkanism” is sometimes used to characterize the supposed savagery and barbarism of people living in this region (Todorova, 2009). Other Eastern European nations are sometimes stereotyped and self-stereotyped as dirty, corrupt, and prone to stealing (Marc, 2010; Veličković, 2020). Given the history of Western and Northern hegemony in Europe, it is to be expected that people in Eastern and Southern Europe would display outgroup favoritism. By focusing on the phenomenon of “national outgroup favoritism” in this research program, we refrain from making generic assumptions about complex social psychological processes—such as whether upward social comparisons stem from negative ingroup evaluations and/or positive outgroup evaluations (Axt et al., 2018; Calanchini et al., 2022).

In the present research program, we follow recent calls to greatly expand social psychology’s database beyond Western borders (e.g., Adams et al., 2015; Bou Zeineddine et al., 2022; Henrich et al., 2010; Readsura Decolonial Editorial Collective, 2022). We do so by examining national outgroup favoritism in 45 non-Western countries, a phenomenon that has yet to be explored in mainstream (Western) psychology. We measure outgroup favoritism in two ways. First, we adapted the scenario used in the study on the national inferiority complex in Brazil (Santos & Pereira, 2021), measuring perceived injustice and compensation of ingroup vs outgroup members. Second, we investigated general social evaluations (i.e., stereotypes) as pervasive and structured beliefs to detect general patterns associated with perceptions of advantaged and disadvantaged groups (Jost, 2001).

Decades of research have revealed that social stereotypes can be reduced to two major dimensions—horizontal (such as warmth or communion) and vertical (such as competence or agency)—which are thought to be largely universal across many cultures and target groups (e.g., Asch, 1946; Fiske et al., 2002, 2007). More recently, it has been shown that these two dimensions each include two facets, yielding a four-dimensional model of group evaluations or stereotypes. Thus, individuals and groups are typically evaluated on dimensions of competence and assertiveness (the agency factor), and morality and warmth (communion factor; see Abele et al., 2016, 2021). Using these four dimensions, in the present research we examined national ingroup stereotypes as well as stereotypes of relatively advantaged (Western European) and disadvantaged (Western African) outgroups in 45 non-Western countries. Because of ongoing structural inequalities, we also investigated the role of macroeconomic conditions in these social evaluations, by examining how stereotype contents relate to gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and degree of economic exploitation. The study was pre-registered, but in this article we are focusing on only one part of a larger project; see https://osf.io/b4c38. A detailed discussion of pre-registration (and specific deviations from it) is included in the supplementary information.

Method

Participants and Procedure

To confirm that this research program complied with all relevant ethical regulations, ethical approval was obtained by the first author from the Institutional Review Board at the University of Amsterdam, covering data collection in all countries. All participants read an information letter and provided informed consent before taking part in the study. After the study, participants were thanked and debriefed. To comply with ethical regulations, participants were asked at the end of the session if they wanted to withdraw their participation because the study used deception. In total, 22 participants withdrew their participation, so their data was removed permanently.

To address our research questions, we attempted to collect data from at least 20 non-Western countries. Our collaborators were recruited through personal networks and an open call on Twitter. In total, the study, which took place from June 2023 to March 2024, included N = 12,339 participants (38% male, 62% female, M_age = 33.51, SD_age = 13.83) from 45 non-Western countries, after removing speeders (those who completed the survey in less than 60 seconds; n = 13). Information about the power analysis, size and composition of samples is included in the supplement. Collaborators translated materials and obtained diverse samples in terms of composition; however, recruitment was based on existing social networks or participant pools. We aimed to achieve diversity in terms of sex, age, and education (and adjusted for these variables) and compare results across various countries.

Design and Materials

Each participant completed the same study materials translated (back-and-forth) into their country’s primary language. The only exception was the violence scenario, which had an alternative version in some countries (see below). The study was administered online via Qualtrics and lasted approximately 5 minutes. After reading general information and giving consent, participants completed socio-demographic questions about sex (male or female), age, and education [whether they completed (1) elementary school or less, (2) high school, are (3) currently studying, or completed an (4) undergraduate/bachelor’s degree, or (5) postgraduate/master’s or PhD degree].

Next, participants were presented with the violence scenario. We used a between-group design with three conditions, inspired by the study on the national inferiority complex in Brazil. Participants were presented with what appeared to be a newspaper excerpt describing a worker in a restaurant who was unjustly arrested and injured. For one-third of the participants, the victim was described as Western European; for another third, the victim was described as Western African; for the final third, the victim’s nationality matched the participants’ own. We selected “Western Europeans” as a target group (rather than simply “Europeans”) because (a) Western Europeans are socially, economically, and politically advantaged relative to Eastern Europeans, and (b) we were especially interested in the phenomenon of national outgroup favoritism among citizens of Eastern European countries, who are historically and socio-psychologically different from citizens of Western countries (Lášticová & Kende, 2023). We selected “Western Africans” as the other target group (rather than simply “Africans”) to (a) match the specificity of the “Western European” label, and (b) be more specific for African participants (two of the three African countries sampled were Eastern African). The exact phrasing of the scenario is provided in the supplement.

In some countries, researchers felt that the description of police violence raised either credibility concerns about whether participants would believe that police officers in their country would engage in unwarranted violence against foreigners or ethical concerns about the danger of discussing police violence. For these countries, we adapted the scenario so that the perpetrators were customers rather than police officers (see supplement for alternative wording). After reading the scenario, participants indicated the extent to which they believed the act was just or unjust using a 7-point scale (perceived injustice). They were also asked to estimate the amount of money the victim should receive as compensation by entering a number (in the respondent country’s currency). For our primary analysis, the amount was converted to euros, based on the exchange rate of the day most participants completed the survey in a given country. At the request of an anonymous reviewer, we conducted a secondary analysis that took into account Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) for each country.

For social evaluations (i.e., stereotypes), participants rated the perceived competence, assertiveness, morality, and warmth of the three groups (Western Europeans, Western Africans, and ingroup nationals) on separate pages in randomized order. Participants were asked to think about an average member of the ingroup and outgroup and to indicate how much they believed such a person would be competent, assertive, moral, and warm (1 = fully disagree to 7 = fully agree).

Regarding social-structural variables, we selected two country-level variables. First, we selected GDP per capita for the most recently available year (2022) from the World Bank (log-scaled because of skewed distributions). Second, we selected the exploitation intensity index (EII), which measures unequal exchanges across countries in the context of imperialistic international relations (i.e., how much a country benefits or loses from taking part in the world economy; see Cogliano et al., 2024). EII is centered at e ^ν ₁ = 1, so countries with e ^ν ₁ > 1 are considered “exploited,” and countries with e ^ν ₁ < 1 are considered “exploiters.” Thus, higher values indicate that a country loses more than it gains when participating in the world economy.

Results

Perceived Injustice and Compensation

To analyze whether perceived injustice and compensation depended upon the victim’s country, we built two multilevel linear models: the two DVs were predicted by the target group (Western European, Western African, or national ingroup) while adjusting for sex, age, and education. Both models included random slopes (effects of the conditions) to vary across countries. Contrary to predictions, the victim’s national origin did not affect perceived injustice (βs < .020, ps > .072) or compensation either when converting national currencies to euros (βs < .012, ps > .439) or when using country-specific PPP-adjusted values (βs < .007, ps > .609). There was, instead, an overall lack of variability across countries, indicating that our use of this paradigm failed to capture either ingroup or outgroup favoritism—even in Brazil, where it was initially developed (Santos & Pereira, 2021). Thus, we do not discuss ratings of perceived injustice or compensation judgments any further.

Social Evaluations

To analyze how stereotypes varied across countries, we built multilevel linear models in which the four dimensions (competence, assertiveness, morality, warmth) were predicted by the target group (Western European, Western African, or national ingroup; national ingroup was set as a reference group) while adjusting for sex, age, and education. We allowed the random intercept and random slope (effect of the target group) to vary across countries, as well as random intercept to vary across participants. Aggregating across all 45 non-Western countries, participants stereotyped the typical Western European as more competent (β = .195, p < .001) and assertive (β = .496, p < .001) than the typical member of the national ingroup, reflecting outgroup favoritism. At the same time, they stereotyped Western Africans as less competent (β = –.168, p < .001) than the ingroup, but neither more nor less assertive (β = .078, p = .119).

As shown in Figure 1, citizens in 26 non-Western countries exhibited significant outgroup favoritism on the dimension of competence when drawing comparisons with the more advantaged outgroup (Western Europeans), whereas citizens in only one country (Chile) exhibited significant outgroup favoritism when drawing comparisons with the less advantaged outgroup (Western Africans). Conversely, citizens in 20 of these countries exhibited significant ingroup favoritism when drawing comparisons with Western Africans, whereas citizens in only 6 countries exhibited significant ingroup favoritism when drawing comparisons with Western Europeans.

As shown in Figure 2, citizens in 36 non-Western countries exhibited significant outgroup favoritism on the dimension of assertiveness when drawing comparisons with the more advantaged outgroup (Western Europeans). Citizens in 17 countries exhibited significant outgroup favoritism when drawing comparisons with the less advantaged outgroup (Western Africans). Citizens in seven countries exhibited significant ingroup favoritism when drawing comparisons with Western Africans, whereas citizens in only one country (Montenegro) exhibited significant ingroup favoritism when drawing comparisons with Western Europeans.

With respect to judgments of morality, ingroup nationals did not stereotype Western Europeans or Western Africans as more or less moral than their own group (β = .074, p = .176, β = .104, p = .054, respectively), although there was considerable heterogeneity across countries, as shown in Figure 3. Finally, participants stereotyped Western Europeans as less warm than the ingroup, exhibiting ingroup favoritism (β = –.516, p < .001). They did not stereotype Western Africans as more or less warm than the ingroup in general (β = –.099, p = .102). As shown in Figure 4, citizens in 35 countries exhibited significant ingroup favoritism on the dimension of warmth when drawing comparisons with Western Europeans, and citizens in 24 countries exhibited significant ingroup favoritism when drawing comparisons with Western Africans.

Macroeconomic Conditions and Social Evaluations

Next, we investigated the role of macroeconomic conditions, so we correlated log-scaled GDP per capita and the exploitation intensity index (EII) with ingroup/outgroup favoritism (estimated from the multilevel models described above) toward Western Europeans and Western Africans. This analysis revealed that, for stereotypes of competence, poorer (in terms of log-scaled GDP; r = –.341, p = .022) and more exploited countries (in terms of EII; r = .335, p =.030) exhibited stronger outgroup favoritism toward Western Europeans on the dimension of competence (see Figure 5A and B, respectively). Respondents from most of the non-Western countries stereotyped Western Europeans as more competent than the ingroup, but respondents from poorer and more exploited countries were especially likely to do so. Likewise, respondents from non-Western countries tended to stereotype Western Africans as less competent than the ingroup, but respondents from poorer (r = –.372, p = .012) and more exploited (r = –.372, p = .048) countries exhibited weaker ingroup favoritism (see Figure 5C and 5D).

For stereotypes of warmth, however, respondents from poorer (r =.454, p = .002) and more exploited (r = –.371, p = .016) countries exhibited stronger ingroup favoritism when drawing comparisons with Western Europeans (see Figure 6A and B). A similar pattern was observed for comparisons with Western Africans; respondents from poorer (r = .517, p < .001) and more exploited (r = –.450, p = .003) countries again showed stronger ingroup favoritism (see Figure 6C and D). It is possible that these respondents compensated for social identity threat arising from comparisons on the dimension of competence (see Jost, 2001; Van Bezouw et al., 2021).

Unlike stereotypes of competence and warmth, macro-economic conditions were not significantly associated with country-level differences in ratings of assertiveness (rs < .267, ps > .05) or morality (rs < .094, ps > .05). Figures for these analyses are included in the supplement (Figures S1 and S2).

At the recommendation of an anonymous reviewer, we examined the robustness of results after excluding outliers. The pattern of findings did not substantially change after removing outliers at participant or country levels of analysis (see supplement).

Discussion

Mainstream psychology and social sciences have been criticized as Western-centric and hegemonic, effectively excluding the majority of the world population (Adams et al., 2015; Bou Zeineddine et al., 2022; Henrich et al., 2010; Quijano, 2000; Readsura Decolonial Editorial Collective, 2022). In the present research program, which aimed to overcome this limitation, we investigated the phenomenon of national outgroup favoritism in 45 non-Western countries.

While the scenario developed to measure perceived injustice and compensation did not yield any significant effects, we did obtain evidence of simultaneous outgroup favoritism (on dimensions of competence and assertiveness) and ingroup favoritism (on dimensions of warmth) with respect to stereotypes or social evaluations. Specifically, non-Western nationals stereotyped the more advantaged outgroup (Western Europeans) as more competent and more assertive but less warm, compared with their own group. Conversely, they stereotyped the relatively disadvantaged outgroup (Western Africans) as less competent (but not less assertive, moral, or warm) than the ingroup. Cross-national variations in these stereotypes were partially explained by macroeconomic factors: people in poorer and more exploited countries showed stronger outgroup (or weaker ingroup) favoritism for stereotypes of competence, and stronger ingroup (or weaker outgroup) favoritism for stereotypes of warmth. In summary, then, this research program provides some of the first global evidence that aspects of the world economy predict stereotypical comparisons involving outgroups that are objectively more vs. less economically advantaged in comparison with the national ingroup.

Macroeconomic Conditions and Social Evaluations

Because our datasets are cross-sectional in nature, we cannot draw causal conclusions about the effects of GDP and economic exploitation on stereotyping per se. However, it is certainly more plausible that the direction of causality runs from macroeconomic conditions to social evaluations than vice versa. This direction of causality is also more consistent with existing theoretical and empirical work (Durante et al., 2017; Jost, 2020; Koenig & Eagly, 2014). For example, research on social role theory, including experimental research, suggests that stereotypes of men as competent and assertive and women as warm and communal stem from the gendered division of labor (Eagly & Koenig, 2021; Koenig & Eagly, 2014, 2019) Likewise, Jost (2001) manipulated university students’ perceptions of economic success vs. failure (compared with students from a rival university) and demonstrated that those students who were led to believe that their rivals were more economically successful came to stereotype themselves as less competent but warmer than the high-status students. Many other objectively disadvantaged groups, such as African Americans and Roma people, are stereotyped in a complementary (or ambivalent) way as incompetent but warm (Fiske, 2012; Jost, 2020).

According to system justification theory, people are motivated to explain and justify the overarching social system in such a way that their underlying needs for certainty, security, and social acceptance are met (Jost, 2020). This can lead members of disadvantaged groups to internalize beliefs and stereotypes that serve to legitimize and rationalize the status quo, even if those beliefs and stereotypes are potentially detrimental to themselves and their groups (e.g., see Jost et al., 2004). We extend these observations by demonstrating that the same general stereotypes of relatively advantaged and disadvantaged groups are endorsed across dozens of non-Western countries and are linked to those countries’ positions in the world economy.

Why did macroeconomic conditions predict stereotypes of competence and warmth, but not assertiveness and morality? One possibility is that people care more about assessing competence and warmth in others, which may be more closely tied to biological survival, compared with other dimensions of social judgment (Fiske, 2018; Fiske et al., 2007). It is also possible that stereotypes about assertiveness and morality are more strongly influenced by cultural factors. Morality judgments, in particular, draw on variegated conceptions and may be associated with specific traditional or religious values, as well as culturally embedded notions of freedom and equality, care for others, and so on (e.g., Atari et al., 2023; Cameron et al., 2015).

Country-Specific Patterns of Social Evaluations

Whereas the primary focus of our research program was to document general patterns of stereotyping that characterize respondents from many different non-Western countries, we do not mean to diminish the importance of country-specific patterns. There were six countries, for instance, in which participants exhibited ingroup favoritism on the dimension of competence when drawing comparisons with Western Europeans: India, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore. Five of these are East Asian countries with strong and growing economies, and four of them are known as “Asian Tigers.” According to rankings published by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), these countries are known for their highly competitive educational systems and work cultures, which could also contribute to heightened feelings of national competence.

It is not entirely clear why evidence of outgroup favoritism on the dimension of competence was relatively weak in certain countries that suffered greatly during the colonial period and that remain highly disadvantaged under the current global economic order (e.g., Nigeria, Kenya, and India). This suggests that national stereotypes about competence might not be straightforwardly determined by economic factors in all cases. In some cases, for instance, decolonization and nationalist movements may have increased national pride. Likewise, strong intellectual traditions and cultural successes (e.g., such as Bollywood in India and Nollywood in Nigeria) could attenuate, and even reverse, outgroup favoritism.

Accuracy of National Stereotypes

One of the thorniest questions in social science is about whether group-based stereotypes are correct. Previous research suggests that some social stereotypes are reasonably accurate when it comes to describing central tendencies: on average, young people are indeed more impulsive, rebellious, and open to experience than older people (Chan et al., 2012); and, in general, women are more open, agreeable, conscientious, and emotionally reactive than men (Löckenhoff et al., 2014). However, national stereotypes—beliefs that people in certain countries possess more pronounced personality characteristics (e.g., Germans are conscientious, Italians are extraverted)—are often quite inaccurate (McCrae et al., 2013; Terracciano et al., 2005). We found that ingroup and outgroup stereotypes were correlated with a nation’s position in the global economic order. This is in line with the idea that complementary stereotypes (“poor but happy“, “incompetent but warm”)—whether true or false—serve to explain and justify inequality (in this case, macro-economic inequalities between countries under global capitalism), thereby maintaining support for the world economic order (e.g., see Durante & Fiske, 2017; Jost, 2001, 2020; Wallerstein, 1979, 2004).

Limitations and Future Directions

Our study is not without limitations. For one thing, the scenario designed to elicit differences in perceived injustice and compensation did not capture either ingroup or outgroup favoritism. Thus, we failed to replicate previously published findings from Brazil (Santos & Pereira, 2021). While there are probably several possible reasons why we detected no significant effects, including the fact that our scenario was not identical to the original Brazilian one, we believe that future studies should develop other methods to capture more subtle behavioral forms of outgroup favoritism (e.g., see Jost et al., 2002). One possibility would be to home in on the dimension of competence and investigate preferences for more advantaged outgroup members when competence is especially relevant (e.g., when selecting a doctor or airplane pilot).

Another limitation is that we used the four-facet model of stereotypes (Abele et al., 2021), which was developed in Western psychology and may not adequately capture social evaluations in other parts of the world (e.g., see Adams et al., 2015; Readsura Decolonial Editorial Collective, 2022; Stanciu et al., 2017). At the same time, our study takes an important step in advancing the psychology of the majority, insofar as it investigates an overlooked, yet readily observable phenomenon in non-Western countries, as well as its connection to macro-economic conditions and the global world order. Because this project was inspired in part by decolonial perspectives and world systems theory, we focused on non-Western countries. However, it would be useful to investigate national ingroup and outgroup favoritism in Western countries as a function of macro-economic conditions.

Conclusion

To our knowledge, this research program represents the first systematic investigation of the phenomenon of national outgroup favoritism. As such, it offers global evidence that historically embedded aspects of macro-economic structure, including the degree of exploitation in the world economy, relate to (and possibly shape) national stereotypes, with a majority of non-Westerners exhibiting outgroup favoritism toward higher-status groups, coming to believe that they are themselves less competent than the citizens of other, more economically successful nations.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251370424 – Supplemental material for Macro-Economic Inequality and National Stereotypes in 45 Non-Western Countries

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spp-10.1177_19485506251370424 for Macro-Economic Inequality and National Stereotypes in 45 Non-Western Countries by Vukašin Gligorić, John T. Jost, Iva Mićanović, Odeta Tase, Emerson Araújo Do Bú, Camilo Arévalo-Romero, Alisa Balabanova, Pilar Baracaldo, Tatiana Basáñez, Hakan Çakmak, Manuel Capella, Tzu Yun Chen, Lameese Eldesouky, Emir Erhan, Tengku Nila Fadhlia, Eman Farahat, Anneke Farías-Yapur, Md. Omar Faruk, Saima Ghazal, Biljana Gjoneska, Theofilos Gkinopoulos, Ana-Maria Gore, Hirotaka Imada, Candela I. Jantus, Yvonne Yaqi Jin, Jelena Kalinić, Fatima Kamran, Anna Kende, Zahra Khosrowtaj, Suhaavi Kochhar, Aituar Kospakov, Staša Lalatović, Barbara Lášticová, Anca Lazar, Sera Lee, Ma. Elizabeth Macapagal, Karine Malysheva, Kunalan Manokara, Marta Marchlewska, Nushka Marinova, Andreas Michael, Konradas Mikalauskas, Adriana Miranda, Chanki Moon, Denis Mukhortov, Bojan Musil, Mizuki Nakagoshi, Jennifer Namutebi, Joaquin Navajas, Chioma Mildred Ojiaku, Morenike Esther Olaleru, Cícero Roberto Pereira, Agustin Espinosa Pezzia, Nejc Plohl, Wojciech Podsiadłowski, Ştefan Popov, Dora Popović, Xenia-Daniela Poslon, Charis Psaltis, Camilo Rincón-Unigarro, Rachmayati Eka Safitri, Darius Salaum, Ilya Strelets, Stylianos Syropoulos, Dagmara Szczepańska, Fiona Yunqian Tian, Adele Tijusaite, Lorena Tirla, Luka Todorović, Chayanit Trakulpipat, Anastassia Vivanco Carlevari, Ching Wan, Juthatip Wiwattanapantuwong, Illia Yahiiaiev, Luiza Yuan and Jessica V. Schaaf in Social Psychological and Personality Science

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank the editor, two anonymous reviewers, and J. Alana Bertin, Nicolette Dakin, Katherine A. Mason, Graham Stevenson, and H. Annie Vu for extremely helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Handling Editor: Tal Eyal

Author Contributions

Vukašin Gligorić dev the initial idea, conception, and research design; led and managed the project; conducted data analyses and interpretation; and drafted the article and revised it critically for intellectual content.

John T. Jost worked on the research design; project supervision; data interpretation; drafted the article and revised it critically for intellectual content.

Iva Mićanović supported project conception and interpretation.

Odeta Tase supported project conception and management.

Jessica Schaff supported data analysis and interpretation.

All other authors (including V.G., I.M, O.T) translated materials and collected data in their respective countries (see the to see contributions by country). These authors were sorted alphabetically.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Parts of data collection in India and Kenya were funded by the Besample grant. Data collection in Japan was funded by the Murata Science Foundation Research Grants (M23助人007). The Bulgarian recruitment team would like to thank Dr. Anna Tselova, Prof. Asen Zlatorov, and Bulgarian forum BG-mamma for their help with participant recruitment.

Data availability

Data associated with this article is available at the Open Science Framework (). The shared dataset includes all variables necessary to reproduce the analyses and findings reported in the article. Data on two additional variables—political ideology and national system justification—were also collected as part of the broader survey, but they are neither analyzed nor discussed in this article and are therefore not included in the dataset.

Code availability

R code used for analyses is archived by the Open Science Framework ().

ORCID iDs

Vukašin Gligorić

Emerson Araújo Do Bú

Alisa Balabanova

Biljana Gjoneska

Barbara Lášticová

Kunalan Manokara

Marta Marchlewska

Chanki Moon

Ilya Strelets

Supplemental Material

The supplemental material is available in the online version of the article.

Author Biographies

Vukašin Gligorić is a Political and Social Psychologist currently working as a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Department of Psychology at NYU Abu Dhabi. His research explores political ideology, intra- and inter-group relations, stereotypes, and belief systems. He is especially interested in how overarching societal structures—such as neocolonialism and neoliberalism—shape these psychological and social processes.

John T. Jost is Professor of Psychology and Politics and a Faculty Affiliate in Sociology and the Center for Data Science, as well as Co-Director of the Center for Social and Political Behavior at NYU. His research, which addresses stereotyping, prejudice, intergroup relations, political ideology, social justice, social media usage, and system justification theory, has been funded by the National Science Foundation and has appeared in top scientific journals and received national and international media attention.

Iva Mićanović is an Independent Researcher and a former Research MA student at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her research investigates sound heritage, with a specific focus on archives from a decolonial perspective.

Odeta Tase is a former MSc student at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Emerson Araújo Do Bú is a Researcher at the Institute of Social Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Portugal. His research areas are social and health psychology, applied social psychology, and psychological assessment.

Camilo Arévalo-Romero is a Researcher at the Universidad Diego Portales, Chile, and the director of the Instituto de Neurociencias e Investigación.

Alisa Balabanova is a PhD candidate at Nottingham Trent University, UK. She investigates individual differences in facial expression and social networks in humans.

Pilar Baracaldo is an Assistant Professor at the Universidad de La Sabana, Colombia.

Tatiana Basáñez is an Assistant Professor at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, the US. Her research focuses on culture, media, and intergroup relations.

Hakan Çakmak is a PhD candidate at the University of Groningen. His research centres on understanding the motivations behind advantaged group members behaving both anti- and pro-socially towards disadvantaged groups.

Manuel Capella is an Associate Professor at the Universidad Católica del Uruguay. He investigates the intersection between collective mental health and peacebuilding, with a current focus on the deep prevention of greed.

Tzu Yun Chen is a Researcher at the National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan.

Lameese Eldesouky is an Assistant Professor at the American University in Cairo, Egypt. Her research focuses on emotion regulation.

Emir Erhan is a former MSc student at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Tengku Nila Fadhlia is a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Eman Farahat is a Researcher at the University of Warwick.

Anneke Farías-Yapur is a Professor at Universidad Panamericana and works at the Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics at the same university.

Md. Omar Faruk is a PhD candidate at the Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, the US.

Saima Ghazal is a Professor at the Institute of Applied Psychology at the University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

Biljana Gjoneska is a Researcher at the Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, North Macedonia.

Theofilos Gkinopoulos is an Assistant Professor at the Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland. His research interests focus on understanding the intraindividual and intergroup antecedents and consequences of people’s beliefs and behaviors in times of crises.

Ana-Maria Gore is a PhD candidate at Maastricht University.

Hirotaka Imada is a Lecturer at Royal Holloway, University of London, and a Visiting Associate Professor at the Research Institute for Future Design at the Kochi University of Technology. His research interests lie in social and evolutionary psychology, and he is interested in understanding cooperation, especially in intergroup contexts.

Candela I. Jantus is a Research Assistant at the Laboratorio de Neurociencia, Escuela de Negocios, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Argentina. Her research explores moral decision-making, collective behavior, and how group identity and belief systems shape both moral judgments and social dynamics.

Yvonne Yaqi Jin is a former MSc student at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Jelena Kalinić is a Data Analyst and a former MSc student at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Fatima Kamran is an Associate Professor at the University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

Anna Kende is a Professor of Social Psychology at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. Her research revolves around issues of intergroup relations.

Zahra Khosrowtaj is a Psychologist and Researcher with a PhD from the University of Marburg, Germany.

Suhaavi Kochhar is a PhD candidate at the BSI, Radboud University Nijmegen. She has interests in intervention science and addiction, with a strong background in methodology.

Aituar Kospakov is a Senior Lecturer at Astana IT University, Astana, Kazakhstan, and a PhD candidate at Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan. His research focuses on LGBTQ+ identity, coming out, inclusion, subjective well-being, and mental health.

Staša Lalatović is a Neuropsychologist and a PhD candidate and Teaching Assistant at the Faculty of Special Education and Rehabilitation at the University of Belgrade, Serbia.

Barbara Lášticová is a Senior Researcher and Director of the Institute for Research in Social Communication of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. Her research has focused on social identities in various contexts (EU integration, transnational migration), on normative underpinnings of stereotypes and prejudice (anti-Gypsyism, anti-immigrant prejudice), and on interventions aimed at mitigating them.

Anca Lazar is a Research Assistant and PhD student in the Department of Psychology at West University of Timisoara. Her main research interests are evaluative conditioning, learning biases, and personality.

Sera Lee is a Researcher at Chonnam National University, South Korea.

Ma. Elizabeth Macapagal is an Associate Professor at Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines. Her research interests include Peace and Political Psychology and other Social Psychological Issues, Social Identity and Culture.

Karine Malysheva is an Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv.

Kunalan Manokara is a Postdoctoral Researcher at Duke University, United States of America. His research is situated at the intersection of emotion and identity.

Marta Marchlewska is Head of the Political Cognition Lab, Associate Professor, and Lecturer at the Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences. In her projects, she concentrates mainly on the functions that different forms of psychological threat play in the way of perceiving the world of politics.

Nushka Marinova is a Researcher at the University of Bath, UK.

Andreas Michael is a PhD candidate at the University of Cyprus, Cyprus. His doctoral thesis centers on examining “Justification mechanisms of the status quo, perceptions of transitional justice, and strategies for resolving the Cyprus problem: A bi-communal study within the Cypriot context.”

Konradas Mikalauskas is a Junior Researcher at the University of Amsterdam. His work focuses on social media use in adolescents and its effects on their well-being.

Adriana Miranda is a Researcher at the Centro de Ciencias del Comportamiento, Paraguay.

Chanki Moon is an Associate Professor of Social and Cultural Psychology at Jeonbuk National University, South Korea. His research is in the area of social and cultural psychology, and his primary research interests focus on how individuals’ values and norms, as well as emotional, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes associated with power and status in social interactions, can be shaped by culture.

Denis Mukhortov is an Assistant Professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), Moscow, Russian Federation.

Bojan Musil is a Full Professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Maribor.

Mizuki Nakagoshi is a Researcher at Kwansei Gakuin University, Japan.

Jennifer Namutebi is a Ugandan Psychologist and Consultant currently serving as a lecturer at Nkumba University School of Business and Information Technology.

Joaquin Navajas is an Associate Professor at the Business School at Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, where he directs a research center called the Neuroscience Lab.

Chioma Mildred Ojiaku is a Researcher at the University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria.

Morenike Esther Olaleru is a Researcher at the University of Nigeria Nsukka, Nigeria.

Cícero Roberto Pereira is a Senior Researcher at the Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa (ICS-ULisboa). His research explores prejudice and discrimination, homophobia, social comparison, intergroup relations, and racism.

Agustin Espinosa Pezzia is a Full Professor at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Peru. His research areas are social and political psychology.

Nejc Plohl is an Assistant Professor at the University of Maribor, Slovenia. His research areas are social psychology, health psychology, and applied psychology.

Wojciech Podsiadłowski is a PhD candidate at the Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences.

Ştefan Popov is a Psychologist and Psychotherapist from the Moldova State University, Moldova.

Dora Popović is a Research Assistant at the Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences, Croatia.

Xenia-Daniela Poslon is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Slovakia. Her research interests include political psychology, intergroup relations, social cognition, and educational psychology.

Charis Psaltis is a Professor of Social and Developmental Psychology at the University of Cyprus. His research interests include social interaction, cognitive development, intergroup relations, intercultural education, and the development of national identities and collective memory.

Camilo Rincón-Unigarro is an Assistant Professor at the Universidad de La Sabana, Colombia.

Rachmayati Eka Safitri is a Researcher at the Islamic University of Riau, Indonesia.

Darius Salaum is an Associate Professor at the University of the Philippines Visayas, Philippines.

Ilya Strelets is an Associate Professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), Moscow, Russian Federation.

Stylianos Syropoulos is an Assistant Professor in the College of Global Futures at Arizona State University and a director of the Intergenerational Decisions and Effective Action (IDEA) Lab.

Dagmara Szczepańska is a Researcher at the Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences. Her research interests include different forms of political behaviour, such as women’s movements, citizen participation, and collective action.

Fiona Yunqian Tian is a PhD candidate at the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.

Adele Tijusaite is a Teaching Assistant at the Amsterdam Business School of the University of Amsterdam.

Lorena Tirla is a PhD candidate at the West University of Timişoara, Romania.

Luka Todorović is a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. His research investigates the impact of digital media use on the well-being of adolescents.

Chayanit Trakulpipat is a Researcher at the Faculty of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.

Anastassia Vivanco Carlevari is a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her research focuses on motives and outcomes of exploring the suffering of strangers.

Ching Wan is an Associate Professor at the Division of Psychology at Nanyang Technological University. Her major research interest is in the role of culture and knowledge representation in psychological processes.

Juthatip Wiwattanapantuwong is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University. Her research areas include psychology, disaster management, and public health.

Illia Yahiiaiev is an Associate Professor at the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine.

Luiza Yuan is a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her research areas include epistemology and philosophy of science.

Jessica V. Schaaf is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands.

References

Abele

A. E.

Ellemers

Fiske

S. T.

Koch

Yzerbyt

(2021). Navigating the social world: Toward an integrated framework for evaluating self, individuals, and groups. Psychological Review, 128(2), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000262

Abele

A. E.

Hauke

Peters

Louvet

Szymkow

Duan

(2016). Facets of the fundamental content dimensions: Agency with competence and assertiveness—Communion with warmth and morality. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1810. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01810

Adams

Dobles

Gómez

L. H.

Kurtiş

Molina

L. E.

(2015). Decolonizing psychological science: Introduction to the special thematic section. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i1.564

Allport

G. W.

(1979). The nature of prejudice: 25th anniversary edition. Basic Books.

Amin

(2014). Capitalism in the age of globalization: The management of contemporary society. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Asch

S. E.

(1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41(3), 258–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0055756

Ashburn-Nardo

Knowles

M. L.

Monteith

M. J.

(2003). Black Americans’ implicit racial associations and their implications for intergroup judgment. Social Cognition, 21(1), 61–87. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.21.1.61.21192

Atari

Haidt

Graham

Koleva

Stevens

S. T.

Dehghani

(2023). Morality beyond the WEIRD: How the nomological network of morality varies across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(5), 1157–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000470

Axt

J. R.

Moran

Bar-Anan

(2018). Simultaneous ingroup and outgroup favoritism in implicit social cognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 275–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.08.007

10.

Biko

(1996). I write what I like: A selection of his writings. Bowerdean Press.

11.

Blay

Y. A.

(2011). Skin bleaching and global white supremacy: By way of introduction. Journal of Pan African Studies, 4(4), 4–46.

12.

Bou Zeineddine

Saab

Lášticová

Kende

Ayanian

A. H

. (2022). “Some uninteresting data from a faraway country”: Inequity and coloniality in international social psychological publications. Journal of Social Issues, 78(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12481

13.

Calanchini

Schmidt

Sherman

J. W.

Klein

S. A. W.

(2022). The contributions of positive outgroup and negative ingroup evaluation to implicit bias favoring outgroups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119(40), Article e2116924119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2116924119

14.

Cameron

C. D.

Lindquist

K. A.

Gray

(2015). A constructionist review of morality and emotions: No evidence for specific links between moral content and discrete emotions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314566683

15.

Capielo Rosario

Schaefer

Ballesteros

Rentería

David

E. J. R

. (2019). A caballo regalao no se le mira el colmillo: Colonial mentality and Puerto Rican depression. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000347

16.

Chan

McCrae

R. R.

De Fruyt

Jussim

Löckenhoff

C. E.

De Bolle

Costa

P. T.

Sutin

A. R.

Realo

Allik

Nakazato

Shimonaka

Hřebíčková

Graf

Yik

Brunner-Sciarra

De Figueroa

N. L.

Schmidt

Ahn

. . . Terracciano

(2012). Stereotypes of age differences in personality traits: Universal and accurate? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(6), 1050–1066. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029712

17.

Choma

B. L.

Prusaczyk

(2018). The effects of system justifying beliefs on skin-tone surveillance, skin-color dissatisfaction, and skin-bleaching behavior. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317747845

18.

Clark

K. B.

Clark

M. P.

(1950). Emotional factors in racial identification and preference in Negro children. The Journal of Negro Education, 19(3), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.2307/2966491

19.

Cogliano

J. F.

Veneziani

Yoshihara

(2024). The dynamics of international exploitation. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 56(5), 1420–1446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X231224618

20.

David

E. J. R.

(2013). Internalized oppression: The psychology of marginalized groups. Springer Publishing Company.

21.

David

E. J. R.

Okazaki

(2006). The Colonial Mentality Scale (CMS) for Filipino Americans: Scale construction and psychological implications. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.2.241

22.

Durante

Fiske

S. T.

(2017). How social-class stereotypes maintain inequality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.033

23.

Durante

Fiske

S. T.

Gelfand

M. J.

Crippa

Suttora

Stillwell

Asbrock

Aycan

Bye

H. H.

Carlsson

Björklund

Dagher

Geller

Larsen

C. A.

Latif

A.-H. A.

Mähönen

T. A.

Jasinskaja-Lahti

Teymoori

(2017). Ambivalent stereotypes link to peace, conflict, and inequality across 38 nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(4), 669–674. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611874114

24.

Eagly

A. H.

Koenig

A. M.

(2021). The vicious cycle linking stereotypes and social roles. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30(4), 343–350. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211013775

25.

Elias

(2000). The civilizing process: Sociogenetic and psychogenetic investigations (Revised ed.). Blackwell. (Original work published 1939)

26.

Essien

Calanchini

Degner

(2021). Moderators of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups: A comprehensive test of predictions from system justification theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(5), 1204–1230. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000302

27.

Fanon

(1963). The wretched of the earth ( Farrington

, Trans.). Grove Press.

28.

Fiske

S. T.

(2012). Managing ambivalent prejudices: Smart-but-cold and warm-but-dumb stereotypes. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 639(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716211418444

29.

Fiske

S. T.

(2018). Stereotype content: Warmth and competence endure. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(2), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417738825

30.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005

31.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878

32.

Garcia

G. M.

David

E. J. R.

Mapaye

J. C.

(2019). Internalized racial oppression as a moderator of the relationship between experiences of racial discrimination and mental distress among Asians and Pacific Islanders. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/aap0000124

33.

Gligorić

Obradović

(2024). Active rejection or passive indifference? Mixed-methods evidence on national (dis)identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27(7), 1519–1540. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241229981

34.

Graham

J. R.

West

L. M.

Martinez

Roemer

(2016). The mediating role of internalized racism in the relationship between racist experiences and anxiety symptoms in a Black American sample. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 22(3), 369–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000073

35.

Hammond

R. A.

Axelrod

(2006). The evolution of ethnocentrism. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 50(6), 926–936.

36.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61–83.

37.

Hickel

Sullivan

Zoomkawala

(2021). Plunder in the post-colonial era: Quantifying drain from the Global South Through Unequal Exchange, 1960–2018. New Political Economy, 26(6), 1030–1047. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2021.1899153

38.

Jost

J. T.

(2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justification: An experimental paradigm for investigating the effects of socio-economic success on stereotype content. In Moskowitz

(Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Erlbaum.

39.

Jost

J. T.

(2020). A theory of system justification. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv13qfw6w

40.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

(1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33(1), 1–27.

41.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. R.

Nosek

B. A.

(2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919.

42.

Jost

J. T.

Pelham

B. W.

Carvallo

M. R.

(2002). Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 586–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00505-X

43.

Jost

J. T.

Rivera Pichardo

E. J.

Bertin

J. A.

Armange

Kerber

(2025). Internalization of prejudice and racialized social systems from Frantz Fanon to system justification theory [Manuscript submitted for publication].

44.

Koenig

A. M.

Eagly

A. H.

(2014). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(3), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037215

45.

Koenig

A. M.

Eagly

A. H.

(2019). Typical roles and intergroup relations shape stereotypes: How understanding social structure clarifies the origins of stereotype content. Social Psychology Quarterly, 82(2), 205–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272519850766

46.

Lášticová

Kende

(2023). The psychology of politically unstable societies: An introduction. In Kende

Lášticová

(Eds.), The psychology of politically unstable societies (pp. 1–14). Routledge.

47.

Lewin

(1948). Self-hatred among jews. In Lewin

G. W.

(Ed.), Resolving social conflicts and field theory in social science (pp. 186–200). Harper & Brothers.

48.

Löckenhoff

C. E.

Chan

McCrae

R. R.

De Fruyt

Jussim

De Bolle

Costa

P. T.

Sutin

A. R.

Realo

Allik

Nakazato

Shimonaka

Hřebíčková

Graf

Yik

Ficková

Brunner-Sciarra

Leibovich

Figueora

Schmidt

. . . Terracciano

(2014). Gender Stereotypes of Personality: Universal and Accurate? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(5), 675–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022113520075

49.

Marc

(2010). What’s so eastern about eastern Europe? Oldcastle Books.

50.

McCrae

R. R.

Chan

Jussim

De Fruyt

Löckenhoff

C. E.

De Bolle

Costa

P. T.

Hřebíčková

Graf

Realo

Allik

Nakazato

Shimonaka

Yik

Ficková

Brunner-Sciarra

Reátigui

Leibovich

Figueora

Schmidt

. . . Terracciano

(2013). The inaccuracy of national character stereotypes. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 831–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.08.006

51.

Memmi

(2021). The colonizer and the colonized. Profile Books. (Original work published 1957)

52.

Nikalje

Çiftçi

(2023). Colonial mentality, racism, and depressive symptoms: Asian Indians in the United States. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 14(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/aap0000262

53.

Quijano

(2000). Coloniality of Power and Eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580900015002005

54.

Readsura Decolonial Editorial Collective. (2022). Decoloniality as a social issue for psychological study. Journal of Social Issues, 78(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12502

55.

Rivera Pichardo

E. J.

Jost

J. T.

Benet-Martínez

. (2022). Internalization of inferiority and colonial system justification: The case of Puerto Rico. Journal of Social Issues, 78(1), Article1. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12437

56.

Romano

Sutter

Liu

J. H.

Yamagishi

Balliet

(2021). National parochialism is ubiquitous across 42 nations around the world. Nature Communications, 12(1), 4456.

57.

Rudman

L. A.

Feinberg

Fairchild

(2002). Minority members’ implicit attitudes: Automatic ingroup bias as a function of group status. Social Cognition, 20(4), 294–320.

58.

Russell-Omaljev

(2016). Divided we stand: Discourses on identity in “first” and “other” Serbia. Ibidem-Verlag

59.

Santos

M. F. D.

Pereira

C. R.

(2021). The social psychology of a selective national inferiority complex: Reconciling positive distinctiveness and system justification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, 104118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104118

60.

Sidanius

Pratto

(2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.

61.

Stanciu

Cohrs

J. C.

Hanke

Gavreliuc

(2017). Within-culture variation in the content of stereotypes: Application and development of the stereotype content model in an Eastern European culture. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(5), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1262812

62.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), Organizational identity: A reader (Vol. 56, pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

63.

Terracciano

Abdel-Khalek

A. M.

Ádám

Adamovová

Ahn

C. -k.

Ahn

H. -n.

Alansari

B. M.

Alcalay

Allik

Angleitner

Avia

M. D.

Ayearst

L. E.

Barbaranelli

Beer

Borg-Cunen

M. A.

Bratko

Brunner-Sciarra

Budzinski

Camart

. . . McCrae

R. R.

(2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310(5745), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1117199

64.

Todorova

(2009). Imagining the Balkans. Oxford University Press.

65.

Utsey

S. O.

Abrams

J. A.

Opare-Henaku

Bolden

M. A.

Williams

(2015). Assessing the psychological consequences of internalized colonialism on the psychological well-being of young adults in Ghana. Journal of Black Psychology, 41(3), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798414537935

66.

Van Bezouw

M. J.

Van Der Toorn

Becker

J. C

. (2021). Social creativity: Reviving a social identity approach to social stability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(2), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2732

67.

Varas-Díaz

Serrano-García

(2003). The challenge of a positive self-image in a colonial context: A psychology of liberation for the Puerto Rican experience. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023078721414

68.

Veličković

(2020). “Eastern Europeans” and BrexLit. Journal of Postcolonial Writing, 56(5), 648–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449855.2020.1816692

69.

Wallerstein

(1979). The capitalist world-economy. Cambridge University Press.

70.

Wallerstein

(2004). World-systems analysis: An introduction. Duke University Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.60 MB