“You're overreacting!”: The ambiguity of Asian American microaggressions delegitimizes collective action

Asian Americans are lauded as the model minority who are intelligent and industrious. Simultaneously, they are deemed as perpetual foreigners. The current research examines how racial microaggressions expressed by a White American source toward an Asian American target affect perceptions of the perpetrator and target. White Americans and Asian Americans read about an interaction between two college students, where the racial microaggression made was either an ambiguous expression of the model minority myth (MMM; all studies), an ambiguous perpetual foreigner stereotype (all studies), an unambiguous MMM (all studies), or no racial bias (Studies 2 and 3). Findings indicate that both Whites and Asian Americans respond differently—when exposed to the aforementioned conditions—regarding perceived racism of the White perpetrator and appropriateness of response by the Asian American target; however, they respond similarly regarding perceived legitimacy of collective action by the target. Nevertheless, Whites and Asian Americans deemed the ambiguous microaggression against the target as a model minority not racist relative to unambiguous MMM. Our findings show that ambiguous forms of bias toward Asian Americans go “under the radar” of both Whites and Asian Americans as being racist and contribute to the maintenance of the racial status quo.     

Inclusive victim consciousness predicts minority group members’ support for refugees and immigrants

What motivates minority group members to support other minorities, rather than compete for resources? We tested whether inclusive victim consciousness —i.e., perceived similarities between the ingroup's and outgroups’ collective victimization—predicts support for other minority groups; and whether personal and family experiences of group‐based victimization moderate these effects. Study 1 was conducted among members of historically oppressed groups in India. As hypothesized, inclusive victim consciousness predicted support for refugees. Personal experiences of group‐based victimization moderated this effect. Conceptually replicating these findings, in Study 2 (among Vietnamese Americans, mostly second‐generation immigrants) inclusive victim consciousness predicted less hostility toward other refugees and immigrants, and greater perceived responsibility to help victims of collective violence. This effect was moderated by family experiences of victimization.     

How we have fallen: implicit trajectories in collective temporal thought

ABSTRACT

Memory may play a critical role in the ability to imagine events in the future. While most work on this relation has concerned episodic memory and simulated episodic events in the future, the current study examines how collective memories relate to imagination for the collective future. Two thousand American participants provided events for (1) America’s origins, (2) normative events that all Americans should remember, and (3) events in America’s future. Each event was rated for emotional valence. Whereas collective memories – particularly origin events – showed pronounced positivity biases, there was a negativity bias in collective future thought, indicating an implicit trajectory of decline in Americans’ representations of their nation across time. Imagination for the social future may not be simulated based on the template of collective memories, but may rather relate to the past in a way that is mediated by cultural narrative schemata.     

Damned if you do,damned if you don’t: Effects of empathy and responsibility in Muslim leaders’ mediated responses to extremist attacks

ABSTRACT

Muslim American leaders are often called upon to publicly respond to violent attacks carried out by Muslim extremists. Yet it is unclear what types of responses are most likely to satisfy non-Muslim Americans and ultimately improve attitudes toward Muslim Americans as a group. In three experiments, we examined how expressions of empathy and responsibility within Muslim leaders’ mediated responses to extremism affect response satisfaction. We did so immediately after real terrorism incidents carried out internationally (Study 1) and domestically (Study 2), as well as within a controlled fictional incident (Study 3). Across studies, expressing (vs. not expressing) empathy decreased the perception that the issued statement was motivated by external pressure, which was associated with (a) increased response satisfaction and trust in Muslim Americans and (b) decreased perceptions that Muslim Americans were collectively responsible for the incident. In contrast, accepting (vs. denying) responsibility increased the perception that the response was issued out of a sense of collective guilt, which, in Study 3, led to (a) decreased response satisfaction and trust in Muslims and (b) increased Muslim collective responsibility. These findings illustrate the perilous task facing group leaders who use the media to publicly respond to actions of extremist ingroup members.     

THE ENTANGLEMENT OF RACE AND COGNITIVE DIS/ABILITY

Abstract: To consider blackness and cognitive disability together is paradoxical. On one hand, supposed black intellectual deficit has been used by white elites as a justification for antiblack oppression. On the other, both black children who are struggling in school and black adults labeled with developmental disabilities are less likely than their white counterparts to access the best support services available. These problems cut across a commonly drawn—but, I argue, erroneous—divide between the "judgment" categories of mild cognitive impairment into which black children are disproportionately placed and the "organic" categories of severe cognitive impairment. This division is itself part of the contemporary collective denial of the racialized history and construction of our notion of intellect that ends up harming black Americans.     

Collectivism and coping: Current theories,evidence, and measurements of collective coping

A burgeoning body of cultural coping research has begun to identify the prevalence and the functional importance of collective coping behaviors among culturally diverse populations in North America and internationally. These emerging findings are highly significant as they evidence culture's impacts on the stress‐coping process via collectivistic values and orientation. They provide a critical counterpoint to the prevailing Western, individualistic stress and coping paradigm. However, current research and understanding about collective coping appear to be piecemeal and not well integrated. To address this issue, this review attempts to comprehensively survey, summarize, and evaluate existing research related to collective coping and its implications for coping research with culturally diverse populations from multiple domains. Specifically, this paper reviews relevant research and knowledge on collective coping in terms of: (a) operational definitions; (b) theories; (c) empirical evidence based on studies of specific cultural groups and broad cultural values/dimensions; (d) measurements; and (e) implications for future cultural coping research. Overall, collective coping behaviors are conceived as a product of the communal/relational norms and values of a cultural group across studies. They also encompass a wide array of stress responses ranging from value‐driven to interpersonally based to culturally conditioned emotional/cognitive to religion‐ and spirituality‐grounded coping strategies. In addition, this review highlights: (a) the relevance and the potential of cultural coping theories to guide future collective coping research; (b) growing evidence for the prominence of collective coping behaviors particularly among Asian nationals, Asian Americans/Canadians and African Americans/Canadians; (c) preference for collective coping behaviors as a function of collectivism and interdependent cultural value and orientation; and (d) six cultural coping scales. This study brings to light the present theoretical and methodological contributions as well as limitations of this body of literature and the implications it holds for future coping research.     

Not quite human: infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing

The present research examines how awareness of violence perpetrated against an out-group by one's in-group can intensify the infrahumanization of the out-group, as measured by a reduced tendency to accord uniquely human emotions to out-groups. Across 3 experiments that used different in-groups (humans, British, White Americans) and out-groups (aliens, Australian Aborigines, and Native Americans), when participants were made aware of the in-group's mass killing of the out-group, they infrahumanized the victims more. The perception of collective responsibility, not just the knowledge that the out-group members had died in great numbers, was shown to be necessary for this effect. Infrahumanization also occurred concurrently with increased collective guilt but was unrelated to it. It is proposed that infrahumanization may be a strategy for people to reestablish psychological equanimity when confronted with a self-threatening situation and that such a strategy may occur concomitantly with other strategies, such as providing reparations to the out-group.     

Group Threat, Collective Angst, and Ingroup Forgiveness for the War in Iraq

We examine the consequences of threat to the ingroup for emotional reactions to ingroup harm doing. It was hypothesized that reminders of a past threat to the ingroup would induce collective angst, and this emotional reaction would increase forgiveness of the ingroup for its harmful actions toward another group. In Experiment 1, Americans read an article about the war in Iraq that implied Americans would soon experience another attack or one where such implied future threat to the ingroup was absent. When the ingroup's future was threatened, forgiveness for the harm Americans have committed in Iraq was increased, to the extent that collective angst was induced. In Experiment 2, Americans experienced more collective angst and were more willing to forgive their ingroup for their group's present harm doing in Iraq following reminders of either the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, or the 1941 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor compared to when the victimization reminder was irrelevant to the ingroup. We discuss why ingroup threat encourages ingroup forgiveness for current harm doing.     

The two‐sided nature of individual and intragroup experiences in the aftermath of collective victimization: Findings from four diaspora groups

Most social psychological research on collective victimhood has examined its consequences for intergroup relations. Less attention has been paid to individual and intragroup processes associated with collective victimization, which the present study aimed to examine. We conducted eight focus group interviews among four diaspora communities (Armenian Americans, Burundian refugees, Jewish Americans, Nepali‐speaking Bhutanese refugees) with historical or more recent experiences of collective victimization. Thematic analysis revealed three major foci shared across communities (but with different emphases within each focus), which included juxtaposed themes that highlight the two‐sided nature of experiencing and coping with collective victimization and its aftermath: Vulnerability and struggle versus resilience and strength, loss versus continuity and renewal, and silence about versus transmission of knowledge about ingroup victimization. These findings illustrate how groups integrate seemingly opposite poles of collective victimization that characterize this complex and multifaceted experience, which has important theoretical implications.     

Racialized Religion and Judicial Injustice: How Whiteness and Biblicist Christianity Intersect to Promote a Preference for (Unjust) Punishment

America's judicial system is both exceptionally punitive and demonstrably unjust toward racial minorities. While these dual realities are structured into America's institutions, we propose they are also partially sustained by the intersection of ideologies that are both racialized and sacralized. Using multiple waves of the General Social Surveys and a unique measure that asks Americans to choose between two forms of judicial injustice (wrongful conviction or erroneous acquittal), we examine how white racial identity intersects with biblical literalism to bolster America's bent toward unjust punitiveness. In the main effects, Americans who affirm biblical literalism are more likely to show a preference for convicting the innocent, as are whites compared to Black Americans. Examining interaction effects, however, we find whiteness moderates the influence of biblical literalism such that only white biblical literalists (as opposed to non‐white biblical literalists or white non‐biblical literalists) are more likely to prefer wrongful conviction. Indeed, in our full model, being a white biblical literalist is the strongest predictor of preferring wrongful conviction. We theorize that preference for wrongful conviction over erroneous acquittal stems, at least in part, from the combination of sacralized authoritarianism and perceived racial threat.     

Community Storytelling Network,Neighborhood Context,and Civic Engagement: A Multilevel Approach

From a communication infrastructure theory perspective, the current study examined individuals’ civic engagement (neighborhood belonging, collective efficacy, and civic participation) as influenced by 2 multilevel components of the communication infrastructure—an integrated connectedness to a storytelling network (ICSN) and the residential context—focusing on ethnic heterogeneity and residential stability. Our multilevel analyses show that ICSN is the most important individual‐level factor in civic engagement—neighborhood belonging, collective efficacy, and civic participation—after controlling for other individual‐level and neighborhood‐level factors. In both ethnically homogeneous and heterogeneous areas and in both stable and unstable areas, ICSN is an important factor in civic engagement. As contextual factors, residential stability positively affects neighborhood belonging and collective efficacy, and ethnic heterogeneity is negatively related to collective efficacy. Our data do not show any direct contextual effects of residential stability or ethnic heterogeneity on civic participation. However, our HLM analysis showed that the relative importance of ICSN for the likelihood of participation in civic activities is significantly higher in unstable or ethnically heterogeneous areas than in stable or ethnically homogeneous areas.     

Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial

A structural equation model tested the role of degree of identification with a group (Americans) and level of collective self-esteem as determinants of outgroup derogation under identity-threatening and non-threatening conditions. High identification and reductions in collective self-esteem following a threat to that identity lead to outgroup derogation, but level of collective self-esteem did not predict outgroup derogation in the no-threat condition. The consequences of derogating both threat-relevant (Russians) and threat-irrelevant nationalities for subsequent self-esteem were assessed. As predicted by social identity theory, higher amounts of derogation of the threat-relevant outgroup in the identity-threatened condition elevated subsequent collective self-esteem. Derogation of threat-irrelevant outgroups did not have this positive esteem consequence; in fact, increased derogation of irrelevant outgroups reduced subsequent self-esteem. In the no-threat condition, amount of derogation directed towards either type of outgroup did not significantly influence subsequent self-esteem, with the overall pattern being opposite to what was observed in the threat condition. Implications for theories concerning self-processes as instigators of outgroup derogation and the consequences of intergroup comparisons for collective self-esteem are discussed.     

The settler colonial roots and neoliberal afterlife of Problem Behavior Theory

Problem Behavior Theory (PBT) is an influential psychosocial theory that has shaped—and continues to shape—much research on adolescent development in the United States and abroad. It is the product of over a half-century of research conducted by psychologists-cum-behavioral scientists Lee and Richard Jessor. This article engages two striking features of the history of PBT. First, it tracks how, and to what effect, a theory elaborated to explain the so-called “deviant behavior” of a group of Native Americans was extended to explain the “problem behavior” of white, middle-class, settler youth, before coming to circulate as a universal theory of adolescent behavior. Second, it explores how a theory that was meant to explain individual behaviors by connecting them to their larger social contexts came to be embraced by researchers who have been criticized for doing precisely the opposite. To do so, this article draws from Indigenous and Settler Colonial Studies scholarship and sheds light on how the logics of settler colonialism and neoliberalism have participated in the coproduction of PBT and its reception.     

Valuable and pernicious collective intellectual self-trust1

Recent years have seen a shift in epistemological studies of intellectual self-trust or epistemic self-trust: intellectual self-trust is not merely epistemologists’ tool for silencing epistemic skepticism or doubt, it is recognized as a disposition of individuals and collectives interesting in its own rights. In this exploratory article I focus on a particular type of intellectual self-trust—collective intellectual self-trust—and I examine which features make for valuable or pernicious collective intellectual self-trust. From accounts of the value of individual intellectual self-trust I take three frameworks for evaluating collective intellectual self-trust: an epistemically consequentialist, a virtue-theoretic and a prudential/pragmatic framework (§2). Then I introduce collective intellectual self-trust (§3). Against this background I explain what is distinctive of valuable collective intellectual self-trust (§4) and pernicious collective intellectual self-trust (§5) within the three frameworks. I close by discussing the relation between the three frameworks and argue that evaluating intellectual self-trust requires a multi-perspectival approach constituted by the three frameworks.     

An extension of the ‘two-baskets’ theory to Native Americans

A theory that private and collective self-cognitions are stored in separate locations in memory (Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991; Trafimow, Silverman, Fan, & Law, 1997) was tested with a sample of participants (Native Americans) that differed substantially from those in previous research. Two findings supported the theory. First, participants retrieved more private self-cognitions when the private self rather than the collective self was primed; but retrieved more collective self-cognitions when the collective self rather than the private self was primed. Second, people were more likely to retrieve a private self-cognition following another private self-cognition than following a collective one, but were more likely to retrieve a collective self-cognition following another collective one than following a private one. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

U.S. ethnic minorities' attitudes towards Whites: The role of shared reality theory in intergroup relations

In the current research, we suggest that shared reality, the belief that one perceives the world the same way as another group, can predict attitudes towards that group. We tested shared reality theory in the context of American ethnic minority groups' (i.e., African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinas/os) attitudes towards White Americans. In surveys of two samples recruited from different geographical locations in the USA, we tested predictions derived from different theories of intergroup relations. Using mediational analysis, we defined models to assess the extent to which shared reality theory predicted—directly and indirectly—prejudicial attitudes towards Whites. We tested the model derived from shared reality theory against other theoretical alternatives. Taken together, the results of the research indicated that shared reality predicts attitudes towards White Americans among these three ethnic groups. Thus, shared reality is a relevant, though largely overlooked, factor in intergroup dynamics.     

The Long Arm of Religion: Childhood Adversity,Religion, and Self‐perception Among Black Americans

Significant associations between childhood adversity and adult mental health have been documented in epidemiological and social science research. However, there is a dearth of research examining this relationship among black Americans, as well as into what cultural institutions and practices may help individuals in dealing with childhood adversity. This study suggests that religion may be an important resource for black Americans in the face of early‐life socioeconomic and health disadvantage. Using data from the National Survey of American Life, a nationally representative sample of both African Americans and black Caribbeans (n = 5,191), this study outlines a series of arguments linking childhood adversity, religiosity, and self‐perception among black Americans. The results suggest some support for religious involvement in moderating—or buffering—the harmful effects of childhood adversity on the self‐esteem and mastery among black Americans, specifically religious service attendance and religious coping. In addition, the results reveal that religion may also amplify the deleterious effects of childhood disadvantage on adult mental health. Study limitations are identified and several promising directions for future research are discussed.     

Personality and Attitudinal Predictors of Support of Proposition 187—California's Anti-Illegal Immigrant Initiative1

Right-wing authoritarianism, stereotypes about illegal immigrants relative to legal immigrants (and nonimmigrants), and collective self-esteem were investigated as predictors of attitude toward California's Proposition 187—the 1994 initiative making illegal immigrants ineligible for public services. Among both Latinos (n= 92) and Caucasians (n= 79), right-wing authoritarianism and negative stereotypes about illegal immigrants predicted Proposition 187 support and reported vote. For Latinos, low collective self-esteem and high levels of acculturation predicted support and vote in favor of Proposition 187. In contrast, high collective self-esteem among Caucasians was related to Proposition 187 support and vote. The results suggest that 3 perspectives on prejudice—personality, cognitive, and cultural—contribute to the understanding of attitudinal and behavioral support of Proposition 187.     

An ethnopolitical approach to working with people of color

North Americans have been expected to abdicate their ethnic backgrounds and blend into a single homogeneous identity. However, the United States President's Initiative on Race (1998) concluded that the greatest challenge facing North Americans is to accept and take pride in defining themselves as a multiracial democracy. With an ethnopolitical approach, the author studies effects of oppression, racism, and political repression on individuals, groups, and societies. She concludes that psychologists can help ameliorate racism in society by taking an antiracist stance, promoting a safe society where racial-social equity and justice prevail, and helping to formulate a collective identity that affords freedom to all members of society.