Journal of Social Psychology最新文献

The prejudice reduction potential of face-to-face intergroup contact is widely established, but we know much less about computer-mediated intergroup contact (online contact) specifically via social media where interactions are less controlled and mostly asynchronous. Additionally, much of the work on online contact has focused on positive, controlled contact, neglecting the effect of negative contact. We examined the effects of mediated contact via online posts with differing valence (positive, negative, and neutral) in three experimental studies, in an imaginary scenario (Study 1: N = 120) and a real intergroup scenario with South and North Indians (Study 2: N = 296, Study 3: N = 336). Main effects of One way and factorial ANOVA showed that contact valence significantly affected outgroup attitudes in Study 1 & 2 but was not replicated in Study 3, where quality and quantity of past contact and status differences emerged as significant predictors of attitudes. Multiple mediation analysis revealed that intergroup anxiety and quality of contact explained changes in attitudes, which was less affected by valence and more by regional identity and history of contact. Findings are discussed in light of the possibilities and limitations of asynchronous mediated contact on social media.

An experimental method for assessing gender biases was used to compare Republicans' and Democrats' ratings of moral violations in the domains of justice vs. respect for authority. Four experimental conditions of a text-based survey instrument manipulated the gender of the protagonist and the location of the first instance of gender information in single-sentence moral violation vignettes. Results were consistent with the theoretical time course of neurolinguistic gender priming and the hypothesized influence of implicit stereotypes on moral judgments. Republicans demonstrated a gender bias in ratings of authority violations by rating violations committed by girls and women as worse when compared to a pronoun only condition. Democrats demonstrated the opposite bias by rating authority violations committed by boys and men as worse when compared to violations committed by girls and women. No significant bias was found for any of the justice violation conditions for either Republicans or Democrats.

Social influence processes by which women come to judge a hostile sexist attitude as relatively true and unprejudiced were examined. Based upon status characteristics theory, women's judgments were expected to be more strongly influenced by a man's than a woman's interpretation of the sexist attitude as true or prejudiced. Based upon self-categorization theory, women's judgments were expected to be more strongly influenced by a woman's than a man's interpretation. Support was primarily observed for the self-categorization theory prediction. This effect, however, was initially suppressed by participants' acceptance of the legitimacy of gender status differences. A post-hoc mediational analysis revealed two pathways by which in-group social influence affected women's acceptance the relative veracity of negative claims about their own group: a direct path from shared in-group membership with the influencing agent, and an indirect path through their acceptance of the legitimacy of gender status differences. The research highlights how women's endorsement of sexist views can have the capacity to minimize other women's challenges of these views as prejudice.

The aim of this study was to examine how positive meta-stereotypes impacted cognitive performance among disadvantaged groups and the mediating effect of negative emotions. In Experiments 1 and 2, Chinese migrant children and rural college students were randomly allocated to the positive meta-stereotype, negative meta-stereotype, or a non-meta-stereotype activation group to examine positive meta-stereotypes' effect on creativity and working memory performance. Both experiments revealed that positive meta-stereotypes had a choking under-pressure effect on cognitive performance, and negative emotions may act as significant mediators between meta-stereotypes and cognitive performance. The choking under pressure effect may occur under positive meta-stereotypes, necessitating more clarification on meta-stereotypes' negative effects.

Interrogative suggestibility has been suggested to grow in situations of isolation. The current study aimed to test this assumption for the first time in an experimental approach. We hypothesized that ostracism increases suggestibility, and assumed this relationship to be mediated by cognitive impairments or social uncertainty. To test these hypotheses, we conducted two studies. We manipulated the state of ostracism (vs. inclusion) using the O-Cam (Study 1) and Cyberball paradigm (Study 2), and measured suggestibility using the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scale. Results revealed an indirect link between inclusionary status and suggestibility. More precisely, there was no direct relationship between ostracism and suggestibility. However, ostracism induced weaker cognitive performances and this translated to increased suggestibility. Social uncertainty, on the other hand, did not serve as effective mediator. These findings indicate that each situation that is accompanied by (temporary) cognitive impairments, as is ostracism, might have the power to raise interrogative suggestibility.

The present research empirically examines the links between political knowledge, national narcissism, and climate change conspiracy beliefs. National narcissism (i.e., an unrealistic belief about in-group's greatness which is maladaptive both from the perspective of intra- and inter-group processes) was previously linked to conspiracy beliefs. In this research, we hypothesized that low theoretical political knowledge would boost national narcissism and further lead to adopting climate change conspiracy theories.

Methods: This hypothesis was tested in a two-wave study conducted among Polish participants (N = 558).

Results: We found negative effect of political knowledge on climate change conspiracy beliefs. Moreover, national narcissism mediated between theoretical political knowledge and conspiracy beliefs.

Conclusion: People having low political knowledge are prone to believe in climate change conspiracy theories. Moreover, those less informed about the way political system works in their country are more narcissistically identified with their nation and, thus, deny the climate change.

Although intergroup contact is effective at reducing prejudice, avoidance of intergroup contact often creates a barrier to prejudice reduction. The present study aimed to reduce majority members' desire to avoid intergroup interactions by devising an intervention aimed at altering cognitive appraisals. Majority group participants (156 Anglo Australians) were assigned to either the intervention or one of two control conditions. The intervention educated majority members about evidence-based techniques to improve interactions with minority members. Participants were provided with two interaction scenarios, one involving an outgroup minority and one involving an ingroup majority member. As predicted, the intervention reduced threat appraisal for the scenario involving outgroup minority member, but not for one involving ingroup majority member. The intervention similarly reduced avoidance desire, but this reduction was not restricted to the minority partner scenario; it was independent of the partner group. The importance of cognitive appraisals in improving intergroup relations is discussed.

A previously underappreciated factor, the specific letters used to label the groups, was found to influence the magnitude of the well-established illusory correlation (IC) effect . The typical IC effect of an association between the minority group and the rarer (negative) behavior was strong when the minority group was labeled with an infrequent letter (e.g. X, Z) and the majority group was labeled with a frequent letter (e.g. S, T), but the effect was eliminated (or reduced) with the reverse pairing of the majority group with an infrequent letter. The letter label effect was also found with the A and B labels most commonly used in this paradigm. The results were consistent with an explanation based on the affect associated with the letters due to the mere exposure effect. The findings reveal a previously unexplored way that the names for groups may influence stereotype formation, contribute to the debate on the mechanism underlying IC, and illustrate how arbitrarily chosen labels for groups and other objects in social research may bias processing in unexpected ways.

We investigate relations between benign and malicious in-group envy and the two types of national identity (i.e. secure national identification vs. national narcissism). In two studies (Ns = 1000 and 633), we found that secure national identification was negatively linked to malicious envy, while national narcissism was positively related to both malicious and benign envy. In Study 2, we additionally analyzed how in-group envy and two types of national identity shape in-group altruism. We found that low malicious envy significantly mediated the relationship between secure identification and in-group altruism. We discuss the role of envy in shaping the links between secure (vs. narcissistic) identity and positive intragroup attitudes.

Selectively integrating new information contributes to belief polarization and compromises public discourse. To better understand factors that underlie biased belief updating, I conducted three pre-registered studies covering different controversial political issues. The main hypothesis was that cognitively devaluing new information hinders belief updating. Support for this hypothesis was found in only one of the three issues. The only factor that consistently influenced belief updating across issues was the discrepancy between prior beliefs and new information. These results suggest that usually people do use evidence to correct their beliefs, but may refuse to do so if doubts about its generalizability arise.