Journal of Applied Social Psychology最新文献

Mass media allows groups to convey messages to many outgroup members simultaneously. Unfortunately, such messages are often overlooked, hindering intergroup communication. This is unfortunate, since maintaining openness to outgroup messages is a key component in advancing communication and promoting group goals and intergroup reconciliation. One factor that influences openness to other groups is the expression of emotions. This research examines the impact of personal sadness expressions depicting one's misfortune, on openness between groups in power asymmetry conditions. Across three studies, we explore both expectations and actual responses to such emotional expressions in intergroup contexts. Study 1 examined individuals' expectations about how they would respond to a sad outgroup member themselves. Study 2 assessed how participants believed members of an outgroup would respond to a member of their own group expressing personal sadness. In both cases, participants expected sadness to foster greater openness only when expressed by a low power group member. Yet surprisingly, in Study 3, we found that actual reported responses revealed a similar increase in openness following outgroup sadness expression for both low and high power groups. These results suggest that there may be a disjunction between expected and actual social consequences of expressing sadness in intergroup contexts. While people anticipate that sadness will only increase openness when coming from a low power group member, actual responses suggest a broader receptiveness. The results underscore the nuanced social utility of personal emotional expression as a tool for increasing openness to the outgroup.

Over the past two decades, weight stigma has remained a pervasive form of bias. Healthcare providers are among the most frequent sources of weight-based discrimination, with significant consequences for patient trust, healthcare utilization, and outcomes. To address these biases early in professional development, the present study tested a brief, theory-driven intervention targeting both implicit and explicit anti-fat attitudes in premedical undergraduates. Grounded in cognitive dissonance theory and integrating principles from attribution theory, social identity theory, and sociocultural theory, components of the intervention included educational materials, a counterattitudinal essay, and a public pledge. Participants (N = 51) were randomly assigned to an intervention or control condition and completed pre- and posttest measures of implicit and explicit bias via an implicit association test (IAT) and surveys. Results indicated significant reductions in both implicit and explicit anti-fat bias among participants in the intervention condition, with medium–large effect sizes. Moderation analyses showed that intervention effects on implicit attitudes were strongest among individuals low in weight bias internalization. These findings suggest that dissonance-based interventions, particularly when supplemented with bias-relevant content, can reduce weight stigma at both explicit and automatic levels. The present study demonstrates a single-session strategy capable of reducing bias in pre-health populations, with implications for early intervention in healthcare training.

Britain's exit from the European Union has divided the public, making it crucial to understand its implications for wellbeing. In two survey studies (N = 280, April 2020; N = 575, Nov 2020–July 2021) we examined how subjective wellbeing (mental wellbeing, MW; life satisfaction, LS) is predicted by Brexit attitudes and strained intergroup relations between UK Remainers and Leavers. We further tested whether positive intergroup contact is associated with wellbeing outcomes, via intergroup anxiety. Wellbeing was higher among Leavers than Remainers in Study 2. Negative intergroup emotions predicted lower MW for Remainers (Study 1). Perceived outgroup respect predicted higher MW for both groups, more so for Leavers (Study 2). Brexit identity negatively predicted wellbeing (Study 2), while contact quality positively predicted wellbeing (MW, Studies 1 and 2; LS, Study 2), via intergroup anxiety. Positive Brexit attitudes predicted greater wellbeing, especially for Leavers (Study 2). Greater wellbeing among Leavers may be attributed to the congruence between personal and perceived environmental values in the aftermath of Brexit. Strained intergroup relations were linked with lower wellbeing and positive contact was associated with higher wellbeing, via intergroup anxiety. Our research offers insights for interventions aimed at promoting wellbeing in polarized contexts by considering intergroup dynamics.

Intractable intergroup conflicts are often sustained by ingroup-biased cognition and outgroup derogation, which perpetuate cycles of retaliation and violence. This study examined how intellectual humility (IH)—the recognition of the limits and potential fallibility of one's knowledge—relates to factors that promote healthier intergroup relations during periods of conflict. Amid an acute escalation in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 158 Jewish Israeli participants completed measures of IH, empathy toward and identification with both Israelis and Palestinians, perceptions of collective victimhood, and support for peaceful conflict resolution. Higher IH was indirectly associated with stronger support for peaceful conflict resolution and lower collective victimhood through greater inclusive empathy that extended beyond group boundaries and broader group identification (mutuality). These findings suggest that IH is linked to lower ingroup favoritism, more balanced and humane appraisals of the conflict, and a greater willingness to pursue nonviolent solutions during acute intergroup conflict.

Engaging in behavior to facilitate personal growth or collective change is a form of “positive risk-taking.” Going against the status quo entails a risk of social disapproval and can raise discomfort. When will this impede or benefit the achievement of behavioral change? Across two studies, we investigated responses during and after group sessions with a motivational speaker, in which behavioral exercises encouraged positive risk-taking behavior. In Study 1, we investigated the moderating role of challenge and threat appraisals on the relationship between discomfort and positive risk-taking intentions among 133 employees of 3 organizations. We hypothesized that the relationship between experienced discomfort and positive risk-taking intentions would be positive (negative), if the discomfort was evaluated as a challenge (threat). In Study 2, we experimentally manipulated the type of discomfort (“control,” “self-experienced discomfort,” “observed discomfort”) and measured positive risk-taking behavior before, immediately after, and 3 weeks after the event among 146 university students. Results revealed that challenge appraisals significantly predicted positive risk-taking intentions and long-term behaviors. Notably, these effects were obtained regardless of whether discomfort was experienced personally or observed in others. Our research highlights the importance of challenge appraisals in motivating immediate and long-term positive risk-taking in group contexts. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

When gender bias arises at work, inaction all too often follows. Can simple prompts to consider inclusion or leadership orient observers toward combatting bias? Four experiments using six samples (three preregistered; N = 4712) tested effects of a focus manipulation among people observing workplace sexism. Before viewing a video of a sexist episode, participants were randomly assigned via a one-sentence instruction (Studies 1 and 2) or questions about their workplace (Studies 3 and 4) to focus on inclusion, leadership, or no specific focus (control). In mega-analyses across studies, focusing on inclusion (vs. leadership) led participants to perceive more gender bias in the situation, blame the target of sexism less, and spontaneously express target support intentions. Focusing on inclusion (vs. leadership) improved impressions (Studies 1–3), affiliation (Studies 2 and 3), and pay allocation (Study 4) for the target relative to the perpetrator. We discuss implications for fostering more inclusive workplace environments.

A key to a leader's effectiveness lies in their ability to convey information about their traits and abilities to their followers by means of charismatic signaling. The traits followers might signal in turn have, however, not yet been observed. Focusing on one of the most salient and potent nonverbal behaviors and the most valued follower trait in the organizational context, we investigated the potential of eye-directed gaze behavior to signal follower conscientiousness. Using mobile eye-tracking we unobtrusively measured participants' gaze behavior in a naturalistic yet standardized leader-follower interaction. Our findings indicate conscientiousness to shape followers' eye-directed gaze behavior which, in turn, affects observers' impressions of conscientiousness. While other traits were also related to gaze behavior, they were not inferred from gaze. Importantly, more conscientious followers appear to specifically instrumentalize their gaze when speaking and direct it at the leader to support their own arguments. Thus, this study underscores the importance of investigating followers' signaling of their traits and abilities, identifies eye-directed gaze as a potential signal of conscientiousness, and further emphasizes the significance of gaze behavior as a particularly potent social cue in the organizational context.

Even though ethnic discrimination after resume screening has received much research attention, it is not well understood under which conditions it is particularly likely to occur. Biased resume screening is often based on prejudice. However, prejudice does not always translate into discriminatory behavior. Building on the Justification-Suppression Model of Prejudice, we examine two moderating factors of the relationship between prejudice and biased evaluations of job applicants. First, we propose that making selection decisions under time pressure hinders the suppression of prejudice. Second, we propose that a diversity-unfriendly organizational climate acts as a justification for prejudice expression. We conducted two studies to test these expectations. In the first study, 482 Dutch participants evaluated a resume of a Dutch-Moroccan or Dutch job applicant while we experimentally manipulated time pressure. We then assessed participants' prejudice towards Moroccans or Dutch and their current organizations' diversity climate. For Dutch-Moroccan applicants, we found that more prejudice was associated with a lower self-reported invitation likelihood only under high time pressure or in a climate that is relatively diversity-unfriendly. For Dutch applicants, we found no association between prejudice and invitation likelihood. Unfortunately, data from the second study (n = 255) failed to replicate these results. While the replication study indicates that more research is needed, the results of study one suggest that organizations might be able to prevent biased resume screening of minority applicants by creating an environment that supports prejudice suppression and removes opportunities for prejudice justification.