When being a model minority is good . . . and bad: realistic threat explains negativity toward Asian Americans

The current research explores the hypothesis that realistic threat is one psychological mechanism that can explain how individuals can hold positive stereotypical beliefs toward Asian Americans yet also express negative attitudes and emotions toward them. Study 1 demonstrates that in a realistic threat context, attitudes and emotions toward an anonymous group described by only positive, "model minority" attributes are significantly more negative than when the group was described using other positive attributes. Study 2 demonstrates that realistic threat significantly mediates the relationship between (a) the endorsement of the both the positive and negative stereotypes of Asian Americans and (b) subsequent negative attitudes and emotions toward them. Studies 3 and 4 conceptually replicate this effect in experimental situations involving interactions with Asian Americans in realistic threat contexts. Implications for understanding the nature of stereotyping and prejudice toward Asian Americans and other minority groups are discussed.     

Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups

A dual-process model of individual differences in prejudice proneness proposes that Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) will influence prejudice against particular outgroups through different motivational mechanisms. RWA should cause negative attitudes toward groups seen as threatening social control, order, cohesion, and stability, such as deviant groups, and negativity toward these groups should be mediated through perceived threat from them. SDO should cause negative attitudes toward groups that activate competitiveness over relative dominance and superiority, such as socially subordinate groups low in power and status, and negativity toward these groups should be mediated through competitiveness toward them. Findings from four student samples that assessed attitudes toward seven social groups selected as likely to vary systematically in social threat and social subordination supported these predictions. The findings have implications for reconciling intergroup and individual difference explanations of prejudice and for interventions to reduce prejudice.     

Predicting whether multiculturalism positively or negatively influences White Americans' intergroup attitudes: the role of ethnic identification

Multiculturalism, or the belief that racial and ethnic differences should be acknowledged and appreciated, has been met with both positive reactions (e.g., decreased prejudice) and negative reactions (e.g., perceptions of threat) from dominant group members. The present research proposes that multiculturalism can either positively or negatively influence White Americans' intergroup attitudes depending on their degree of ethnic identification. In Studies 1 and 2, White Americans primed with multiculturalism exhibited higher social dominance orientation (Study 1) and greater prejudice (Study 2), especially when they identified strongly with their ethnicity. In Study 3, perceptions of threat to group values were found to mediate the relation between multiculturalism, ethnic identification, and prejudice among White Americans. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for threat perceptions, ethnic identification, and conceptions of diversity.     

Perspective and prejudice: antecedents and mediating mechanisms

The present work investigated mechanisms by which Whites' prejudice toward Blacks can be reduced (Study 1) and explored how creating a common ingroup identity can reduce prejudice by promoting these processes (Study 2). In Study 1, White participants who viewed a videotape depicting examples of racial discrimination and who imagined the victim's feelings showed greater decreases in prejudice toward Blacks than did those in the objective and no instruction conditions. Among the potential mediating affective and cognitive variables examined, reductions in prejudice were mediated primarily by feelings associated with perceived injustice. In Study 2, an intervention designed to increase perceptions of a common group identity before viewing the videotape, reading that a terrorist threat was directed at all Americans versus directed just at White Americans, also reduced prejudice toward Blacks through increases in feelings of injustice.     

The effects of realistic threat and group identification on social dominance orientation

Based on social identity and intergroup threat theories, we argue that social dominance orientation (SDO) can increase as a result of realistic threat, or perceived obstacles to the ingroup’s position and general welfare. However, this effect should be strongest among highly-identified group members, who are particularly concerned with protecting their ingroup against threat. Study 1 found that among non-Asian Americans, racial group identification moderated the relationship between perceptions of realistic threat from Asian Americans and SDO. Study 2 replicated Study 1 using an experimental, rather than correlational, design. Using different social groups, Study 3 showed that non-science college majors who identified strongly with their field of study exhibited higher SDO after being made to feel threatened by science majors. The results from these studies have implications for research on the meaning and antecedents of SDO.     

When threat to society becomes a threat to oneself: Implications for right‐wing attitudes and ethnic prejudice

The relationships between threat on one hand and right‐wing attitudes and ethnic prejudice on the other were investigated in a heterogeneous sample (N = 588). Specifically, we considered the perception of economic and terroristic threats in terms of their consequences at the societal and personal levels. Previous studies revealed that societal consequences of threat, rather than personal consequences, are related to right‐wing attitudes. However, the present results challenge these findings. More specifically, three important results emerged. First, items probing the distinct threat levels loaded on separate dimensions for economic and terroristic threat, validating the distinction between societal and personal threat consequences. Second, consistent with previous research, this study revealed that perceived societal consequences of threat yield strong and robust relationships with all target variables. However, personal consequences of threat were also associated with higher levels of right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and ethnic prejudice in particular. Third, societal and personal consequences of threat interacted in explaining the target variables. More specifically, feeling personally threatened by terrorism was only related to higher levels of RWA in the presence of low levels of threat to society, whereas experiencing personal economic threat was only related to higher levels of SDO and ethnic prejudice when high societal economic threat was experienced. In sum, although the perception of societal consequences of threat plays a prominent role in explaining right‐wing attitudes and ethnic prejudice, the perception of being personally affected by threat is also associated with higher levels of RWA and SDO, and especially ethnic prejudice.     

Specific emotions as mediators of the effect of intergroup contact on prejudice: findings across multiple participant and target groups

Emotions are increasingly being recognised as important aspects of prejudice and intergroup behaviour. Specifically, emotional mediators play a key role in the process by which intergroup contact reduces prejudice towards outgroups. However, which particular emotions are most important for prejudice reduction, as well as the consistency and generality of emotion–prejudice relations across different in-group–out-group relations, remain uncertain. To address these issues, in Study 1 we examined six distinct positive and negative emotions as mediators of the contact–prejudice relations using representative samples of U.S. White, Black, and Asian American respondents (N?=?639). Admiration and anger (but not other emotions) were significant mediators of the effects of previous contact on prejudice, consistently across different perceiver and target ethnic groups. Study 2 examined the same relations with student participants and gay men as the out-group. Admiration and disgust mediated the effect of past contact on attitude. The findings confirm that not only negative emotions (anger or disgust, based on the specific types of threat perceived to be posed by an out-group), but also positive, status- and esteem-related emotions (admiration) mediate effects of contact on prejudice, robustly across several different respondent and target groups.     

A joke is just a joke (except when it isn't): cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives

Past research reveals preferences for disparaging humor directed toward disliked others. The group-dominance model of humor appreciation introduces the hypothesis that beyond initial outgroup attitudes, social dominance motives predict favorable reactions toward jokes targeting low-status outgroups through a subtle hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myth: cavalier humor beliefs (CHB). CHB characterizes a lighthearted, less serious, uncritical, and nonchalant approach toward humor that dismisses potential harm to others. As expected, CHB incorporates both positive (affiliative) and negative (aggressive) humor functions that together mask biases, correlating positively with prejudices and prejudice-correlates (including social dominance orientation [SDO]; Study 1). Across 3 studies in Canada, SDO and CHB predicted favorable reactions toward jokes disparaging Mexicans (low-status outgroup). Neither individual difference predicted neutral (nonintergroup) joke reactions, despite the jokes being equally amusing and more inoffensive overall. In Study 2, joke content targeting Mexicans, Americans (high-status outgroup), and Canadians (high-status ingroup) was systematically controlled. Although Canadians preferred jokes labeled as anti-American overall, an underlying subtle pattern emerged at the individual-difference level: Only those higher in SDO appreciated those jokes labeled as anti-Mexican (reflecting social dominance motives). In all studies, SDO predicted favorable reactions toward low-status outgroup jokes almost entirely through heightened CHB, a subtle yet potent legitimatizing myth that "justifies" expressions of group dominance motives. In Study 3, a pretest-posttest design revealed the implications of this justification process: CHB contributes to trivializing outgroup jokes as inoffensive (harmless), subsequently contributing to postjoke prejudice. The implications for humor in intergroup contexts are considered.     

Perceived discrimination as worldview threat or worldview confirmation: implications for self-esteem

In 3 studies, the authors tested the hypothesis that discrimination targets' worldview moderates the impact of perceived discrimination on self-esteem among devalued groups. In Study 1, perceiving discrimination against the ingroup was negatively associated with self-esteem among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview (e.g., believed that individuals of any group can get ahead in America and that success stems from hard work) but was positively associated with self-esteem among those who rejected this worldview. Study 2 showed that exposure to discrimination against their ingroup (vs. a non-self-relevant group) led to lower self-esteem, greater feelings of personal vulnerability, and ingroup blame among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview but to higher self-esteem and decreased ingroup blame among Latino Americans who rejected it. Study 3 showed that compared with women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is pervasive, women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is rare had higher self-esteem if they endorsed a meritocracy worldview but lower self-esteem if they rejected this worldview. Findings support the idea that perceiving discrimination against one's ingroup threatens the worldview of individuals who believe that status in society is earned but confirms the worldview of individuals who do not.     

Cultural pluralism and prejudice reduction

Predictions derived from models of cultural pluralism and cultural assimilation were tested. Previous research has shown that highlighting differences between ethnic groups, in conjunction with self-focus, can reduce prejudice. The presented research tested the following questions: (a) does highlighting differences function to reduce prejudice between groups that are dissimilar to each other as well as between those that are highly similar, (b) is prejudice reduction due to distinctiveness a function of the lessened ingroup positivity or lessened outgroup negativity, (c) does making distinctiveness salient reduce prejudice toward only the distinctive outgroups or to outgroups more generically, and (d) does the manipulation equally impact African American, Mexican American, Mexican National, and White American participants? Results demonstrated that highlighting differences while simultaneously focusing on the self reduces prejudice, although similarity mediates the relationship with those who are perceived as more different. Distinctiveness also reduced outgroup negativity and generalized to other outgroups. Finally, the manipulation reduced prejudice only for White Americans, Mexican Americans, and Mexican Nationals.     

Perceived threat to national values in evaluating stereotyped immigrants

The present research examined the psychological reasons behind Americans’ (un)willingness to accept immigrants. Participants read a scenario depicting immigrant groups allegedly expected to arrive in the United States and evaluated how much the immigrants would influence two types of American national values: civic values (e.g., political ideology) and ethnic values (e.g., shared culture and customs). Across three studies, competitive immigrant groups were stereotyped to be untrustworthy and perceived to threaten American civic values, but not ethnic values. Value threat then mediated the predicted competition–prejudice relationship in Study 3. Perceived vulnerability of in-group boundary might specify one motivated cause of derogating immigrants.     

Beliefs about group malleability and out‐group attitudes: The mediating role of perceived threat in interactions with out‐group members

Recent research suggests that inducing fixed (rather than malleable) beliefs about groups leads to more negative attitudes toward out‐groups. The present paper identifies the underlying mechanism of this effect. We show that individuals with a fixed belief about groups tend to construe intergroup settings as threatening situations that might reveal shortcomings of their in‐group (perceived threat). In the present research, we measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2) participants' lay theories about group malleability. We found that the extent to which individuals had an entity (versus an incremental) group theory influenced the level of threat they felt when interacting with out‐group members, and that perceived threat in turn affected their level of ethnocentrism and prejudice. These findings shed new light on the role of lay theories in intergroup attitudes and suggest new ways to reduce prejudice. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Relationship Between Group Identity and Intergroup Prejudice Is Moderated by Sociostructural Variation1

A theoretical model is developed that predicts a stronger relationship between group identity and intergroup prejudice for majority‐group members compared to minority‐group members. This model takes into consideration the sociostructural characteristics of the groups, the differential functions of group identity for majority versus minority‐group members, and the role of perceived intergroup conflict. The model is tested by examining the magnitude of group identity, perceived conflict, and ethnic prejudice expressed by White Americans, African Americans, and Asian Americans. Predictions derived from the model were largely supported. Theoretical implications are discussed and directions for future research are offered.     

A threat in the computer: the race implicit association test as a stereotype threat experience

Three experiments test whether the threat of appearing racist leads White participants to perform worse on the race Implicit Association Test (IAT) and whether self-affirmation can protect from this threat. Experiments 1 and 2 suggest that White participants show a stereotype threat effect when completing the race IAT, leading to stronger pro-White scores when the test is believed to be diagnostic of racism. This effect increases for domain-identified (highly motivated to control prejudice) participants (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, self-affirmation inoculates participants against stereotype threat while taking the race IAT. These findings have methodological implications for use of the race IAT and theoretical implications concerning the malleability of automatic prejudice and the potential interpersonal effects of the fear of appearing racist.     

Are emotionally intelligent people less prejudiced? The importance of emotion management skills for outgroup attitudes

People vary in their ability to understand, process, and manage information about one's own and others’ emotions, a construct known as Emotional Intelligence (EI). Past research highlighted the importance of EI in interpersonal relations as well as the key role of emotions underlying outgroup prejudice. Remarkably, hardly any research has investigated the associations between EI and outgroup prejudice. In three studies (total N = 922) conducted in Spain and the United Kingdom, we measured emotional intelligence using self-report and performance tests and prejudice toward a variety of outgroups. Results showed that those with stronger performance-based emotion management skills expressed lower generalized ethnic prejudice (Studies 1–3), more positive attitudes toward immigrants (Study 2a) and refugees (Study 2b), and less homophobic attitudes (Study 3). This negative association between emotion management and prejudice was found with different performance-based EI measures and held after controlling for self-perceived EI (Study 1) and self-reported abilities to regulate emotions (Study 3). Study 3 further demonstrated that higher empathy partly accounted for the association between emotion management and prejudice. The findings suggest that emotion management abilities play an important, but so far largely neglected role in generalized prejudice.     

Property and prejudice: How racial attitudes and social‐evaluative concerns shape property appraisals

Property evaluations rarely occur in the absence of social context. However, no research has investigated how intergroup processes related to prejudice extend to concepts of property. In the present research, we propose that factors such as group status, prejudice and pressure to mask prejudiced attitudes affect how people value the property of racial ingroup and outgroup members. In Study 1, White American and Asian American participants were asked to appraise a hand‐painted mug that was ostensibly created by either a White or an Asian person. Asian participants demonstrated an ingroup bias. White participants showed an outgroup bias, but this effect was qualified. Specifically, among White participants, higher racism towards Asian Americans predicted higher valuations of mugs created by Asian people. Study 2 revealed that White Americans' prejudice towards Asian Americans predicted higher valuations of the mug created by an Asian person only when participants were highly concerned about conveying a non‐prejudiced personal image. Our results suggest that, ironically, prejudiced majority group members evaluate the property of minority group members whom they dislike more favourably. The current findings provide a foundation for melding intergroup relations research with research on property and ownership.     

Thinking of threats: Economic threat appraisals and health threat appraisals predict differential racial attitudes during COVID-19

We examined whether perceptions of the health and economic threats posed by COVID-19 predict different patterns of intergroup attitudes, using data gathered during the early phase of the pandemic. Using data from 1339 geographically and politically diverse White US residents, we show that subjective economic threat predicted general anti-outgroup attitudes, while subjective health threat predicted negative attitudes towards both Asian and Latinx (“stereotypically foreign”) outgroups but not towards other outgroups. Among 303 geographically and politically diverse Black US residents, the pattern instead suggested that threat (regardless of type) was associated with reduced evaluative differentiation between racial ingroups and outgroups.     

Testing a dual process model of prejudice: Assessment of group threat perceptions and emotions

Using American college student samples, two studies were conducted to establish the connection between perceptions of threat posed by people of the Muslim world and intergroup emotions toward this group. Study 1, a correlational study, situated these relationships within Duckitt??s (2001) dual process model. Path analyses revealed that perceptions of economic threat from Muslims were predicted by a motivation for hierarchical group relations, as manifested by social dominance orientation. Perceptions of value threat from Muslims were predicted by a motivation for social stability and security, as manifested by right-wing authoritarianism. These economic and value threat perceptions subsequently predicted the intergroup emotions of anger and disgust, respectively. Study 2, an experimental study, involved a manipulation of value threat from Muslims. Results showed that perceiving Muslims to pose a greater threat to Westerners?? values heightened feelings of disgust, which subsequently predicted behavioral inclinations to maintain traditional Western values.     

The threat of appearing prejudiced and race-based attentional biases

The current work tested whether external motivation to respond without prejudice toward Blacks is associated with biased patterns of selective attention that reflect a threat response to Black individuals. In a dot-probe attentional bias paradigm, White participants with low and high external motivation to respond without prejudice toward Blacks (i.e., low-EM and high-EM individuals, respectively) were presented with pairs of White and Black male faces that bore either neutral or happy facial expressions; on each trial, the faces were displayed for either 30 ms or 450 ms. The findings were consistent with those of previous research on threat and attention: High-EM participants revealed an attentional bias toward neutral Black faces presented for 30 ms, but an attentional bias away from neutral Black faces presented for 450 ms. These attentional biases were eliminated, however, when the faces displayed happy expressions. These findings suggest that high levels of external motivation to avoid prejudice result in anxious arousal in response to Black individuals, and that this response affects even basic attentional processes.     

Right-wing adherence and objective numeracy as predictors of minority group size perceptions and size threat reactions

Racial, ethnic, religious, and sexual minority populations are growing rapidly in the West. We investigate predictors and consequences of threat responses to perceived minority group size, and perceptions of minority group size itself. Study 1 (N = 274) finds that right-wing adherence predicts greater size threat, whereas lower numerical ability predicts larger perceived group size (confirmed in Studies 2–3). Study 2 (Sample 1, N = 124; Sample 2, N = 263) finds that the relation between right-wing adherence and prejudice toward minorities exhibits an indirect effect via group size threat (but not perceived size), explaining 35–66% of this relation. Study 3 (N = 310) finds a comparable indirect effect explaining 27–40% of this relation, even after statistically controlling for indirect effects of realistic, symbolic, and terroristic threat. These findings provide novel insights into psychological processes surrounding perceived minority group size, identifying size threat as especially crucial in understanding intergroup relations.