Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

By relying on literature on counter-stereotypes and media contact, we investigated whether media exposure is associated with counter-stereotypical gender perceptions. Focusing on the 2019 FIFA Women’s World Cup, we recruited samples (N = 2,228) from eight competing countries (China, France, Germany, Italy, Scotland, Spain, England, US) across three continents. We hypothesized that exposure to media coverage of the competition’s counter-stereotypical female exemplars would be associated with increased counter-stereotypical perceptions of women. Results revealed that media exposure was associated with greater communion and agency attributed to women. In turn, communion and agency were associated (negatively and positively, respectively) with attribution of stereotypically male abilities (abilities to engage in stereotypically male academic disciplines and jobs) to women compared to men. No effects emerged for perceptions of stereotypically female characteristics. Gender moderated these effects, with associations being stronger among male than among female respondents. Theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed.

New members are important sources of innovative perspectives in groups. However, it can be very difficult for newcomers’ ideas to be heard. It is likely that group members with high (vs. low) levels of need for closure (NFC) are more resistant to newcomers’ innovative ideas. Moreover, when group epistemic authority (EA) is high, members should “freeze” on the group’s ideas, regardless of the newcomer’s EA. In contrast, when group EA is low, members would be expected to “seize” the ideas proposed by newcomers with high EA. Study 1 confirmed that high (vs. low) NFC group members are more resistant to newcomers’ innovative ideas. In Study 2, in high NFC groups, evidence was obtained for seizing but not freezing. In Study 3, for group members with heightened NFC, both freezing and seizing results were obtained. Findings suggest that both NFC and EA play important roles in receptivity to newcomers’ ideas.

Intraminority solidarity research has previously focused on how similarities in discrimination experiences can facilitate stigma-based solidarity. Yet, research on a lay theory of generalized prejudice has demonstrated that people tend to perceive attitudes towards stigmatized social groups as co-occurring. Integrating these lines of research, the present studies sought to examine if the extent to which prejudices are perceived to co-occur can facilitate stigma-based solidarity for marginalized social groups, and in turn promote interest in coalitional justice. Recruiting heterosexual Black Americans (Study 1), White women (Studies 2–3), and White men (Study 4), the present research demonstrates that perceiving prejudices as co-occurring increases stigma-based solidarity that in turn produces greater interest in coalitional justice efforts that include the ingroup. The present findings demonstrate the importance of focusing on beliefs about perpetrators’ attitudes when examining intraminority solidarity and highlight the limitations of a lay theory of generalized prejudice to fight prejudices broadly.

Narratives about Africa as dark, depraved, and diseased justified the exploitation of African land and people. Today, these narratives may still have a hold on people’s fears about disease. We test this in three (pre-COVID-19) experiments (N = 1,803). Across studies, we find that participants report greater worry about a pandemic originating in Africa (vs. elsewhere). In turn, they report greater support for travel bans and for loosening abortion restrictions. We then document these narratives in an archival study of newspaper articles of the 2015–2016 Zika pandemic (N = 1,475). We find that articles were more negative—for example, they included more death-related words—if they mentioned Africa. Finally, we replicate the experimental results within the COVID-19 context, using a representative sample (N = 1,200). Taken together, the studies make clear that reactions to pandemics are biased, and in a way consistent with historical narratives about race and Africa.

COVID-19 has plagued the globe since January 2020, infecting millions and claiming the lives of several hundreds of thousands (at the time of writing). Despite this, many individuals have ignored public health guidance and continued to socialize in groups. Emergent work has highlighted the potential role that ideology plays in such behavior, and judgements of it. In response to this contemporary cultural phenomenon, we tested whether judgements of those allegedly flouting the guidance on social distancing were influenced by an interaction between the ideologies of those providing judgements and those allegedly breaking the rules. Our data suggest that judgements of those flouting social distancing guidance are influenced by ideology in a symmetrical way. That is, both liberals and conservatives condemn outgroup flouting more than ingroup flouting. We discuss this finding in the context of theoretical work into ideological symmetries, and the implications of growing ideological polarization in contemporary Western democracies.

The intergroup sensitivity effect (ISE) refers to individuals responding more negatively to criticism directed toward their ingroup if the criticism is delivered by someone outside the group. The ISE has never been examined for groups defined by race. In light of ongoing racial tensions in America, the purpose of the current research was to examine whether the ISE replicates among racial groups. Study 1 replicated the ISE among African American, European American, and Latinx American university students and, unexpectedly, found that European American participants responded more positively to praise delivered by a racial outgroup member. Study 2 replicated these results in a nonstudent sample and identified motivation to respond without prejudice as a moderator of the praise effect. In both studies, the ISE was mediated by perceptions of comment legitimacy/constructiveness but was not moderated by feelings toward the outgroup. Future directions and explanations for the praise effect are discussed.

In Western societies, generalized prejudice and anti-Muslim sentiments can be major drivers of the rejection of Muslim religious practices. However, people can also reject such practices for other reasons, such as concerns about civil liberties or the secular nature of the state. With national samples of German and Dutch majority members (N = 3,703), we used a multiple-acts-multiple-actors design to simultaneously examine attitudes toward four religious practices of three religious groups. Latent profile analysis revealed a subgroup of people that used a double standard and more strongly rejected Muslims than Christians and Jews engaging in the same practices (discriminatory rejection, 16.3%). However, four other subgroups responded to the practices independently of religious group (equal acceptance, 18.3%; equally moderate, 35%; equal rejection, 17.3%; and partial equal rejection, 13.1%). The five subgroups differ on key psychological correlates and self-reported reasons for rejection. We conclude that a multiple-acts-multiple-actors design provides a more nuanced understanding of how majority members evaluate Muslim minority practices in Western nations.

Social constructionist beliefs posit that sociocultural forces shape power-stratified social categories, whereas essentialist beliefs posit that social categories are defined by an immutable, natural essence shared by category members. Across three studies, we developed and validated the Social Constructionist and Essentialist Beliefs Scale (SCEBS) to assess the latent structure of ontological beliefs about two social categories: gender and race. In Study 1 (N = 598), we found a three-factor structure for SCEBS-Gender and SCEBS-Race, consisting of Social Constructionism, Essentialism, and Realism. In Study 2a (N = 300), we examined factor structure stability and criterion-related validity. We found incremental validity of SCEBS, and social constructionist beliefs particularly, for predicting modern sexism and symbolic racism beyond extant, essentialism-focused measures. In Study 2b (N = 218), we established 4-week test–retest reliability of SCEBS. Our research demonstrates the value of assessing both social constructionist and essentialist beliefs in the study of prejudice.

The global outbreak of novel coronavirus disease COVID-19 has caused intergroup discrimination associated with the disease to become increasingly prominent. Research demonstrates that the attitudes and behaviors of third-party observers significantly impact the progression of discrimination incidents. This study tested a parallel mediating model in which the attribution tendencies of observers influence their behavioral intentions through the mediating effect of the emotions of anger and contempt. The first two studies confirmed the proposed model with discrimination incidents reported against “returnees from Wuhan” and “returning workers from Hubei.” Study 3 further manipulated the attribution tendencies of observers, providing empirical evidence for the causality from attribution tendencies to emotions, confirming the validity of the model. These findings enrich the cognitive (attribution)–emotion–action model, further enhancing our understanding of the role of third parties in intergroup conflicts, with implications for the management of people’s emotions and behaviors in social crises.

Social justice movements often consist of both targets of bias (e.g., Black people) and nontarget allies (e.g., White people). However, little is known about what factors shape minorities’ perceptions of allies and their ally behaviors. Across four studies, we investigated Black participants’ perceptions of Whites’ motives to engage in ally behaviors. In Study 1, we found that Black participants perceived nontarget allies as both highly internally and externally motivated, suggesting ally motives may be ambiguous to Black perceivers. Studies 2–4 examined the effect of Black participants’ suspicion of Whites’ motives on perceptions of White allies’ sincerity and support for their ally efforts. As predicted, suspicious Black participants perceived White ally protestors, confronters, and political candidates as less sincere than similar Black targets and, in turn, were less supportive of White allies’ efforts. Discussion focuses on how perceived motives of White allies impact perceptions of allies and their ally efforts.

To explore the interrelationship between terrorist acts, terrorist ethnicity, and observer gender and cultural background in Israel, we recruited 211 participants aged 19–75 years. The majority were male (63%). As for the ethnic and religious cultural background, 40% were Jewish, 40% Druze, and 20% Muslim. The participants answered questions about their demographic characteristics, read three scenarios of terrorist acts, addressed attitudes toward terrorists, and suggested the length of imprisonment. We manipulated the type of act (shooting and killing/burning religious institutions/throwing stones at cars) and terrorist ethnicity (Arab/ Jewish). The results indicate significant main effects of the manipulated variables regarding attitudes toward terrorists. Also, Muslim Arab participants expressed more negative attitudes in cases of Jewish terrorists than Arab terrorists, whereas Jewish participants expressed more negative attitudes toward Arab terrorists than Jewish terrorists. Druze participants did not differentiate between Arab and Jewish terrorists. Furthermore, in cases of Arab perpetrators, Jewish participants suggested imprisonment terms 2.4 times longer than in cases of Jewish perpetrators. The discussion addresses the findings in the context of social identity theory and dual social identification. Regarding practical implications, the findings imply the need for education and training on ethnic bias among policymakers and practitioners.

Dislike of political opponents has increased over the past years in the US. This paper presents a preregistered study investigating the effect of kama muta (being moved by sudden closeness) on increasing warmth, social closeness, and trust toward political opponents through including them in a common American identity. Eight hundred forty-one U.S. Americans watched either a moving or a neutral video about the US or a different theme in a full-factorial design. We found main effects of emotion and theme on the increase of warmth, social closeness, and trust toward political opponents through viewing them as fellow Americans. Accordingly, the linear combination of moving U.S. videos showed the largest increase in warmth, social closeness, and trust. Exploratory analyses showed that moving U.S.-themed videos evoked the most kama muta from suddenly increasing one’s identification with the US. This suggests that kama muta is an important, and heretofore largely overlooked, emotional process promoting common in-group identification.