Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of white privilege

Thinking about the benefits gained from a privileged group membership can threaten social identity and evoke justification of the existing status difference between the ingroup and a disadvantaged group. For White Americans, racial privilege may be justified by concurring with modern racist attitudes. In Experiment 1, White Americans randomly assigned to think about White privilege expressed greater modern racism compared to those assigned to think about White disadvantage or a race‐irrelevant topic. In Experiment 2, we found that increased racism in response to thoughts of White privilege was limited to those who highly identified with their racial category. In contrast, when White racial identification was sufficiently low, thoughts of White privilege reliably reduced modern racism. We discuss the implications of these findings for the meaning of modern racism and prejudice reduction. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: the impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes

Among members of privileged groups, social inequality is often thought of in terms of the disadvantages associated with outgroup membership. Yet inequality also can be validly framed in terms of ingroup privilege. These different framings have important psychological and social implications. In Experiment 1 (N = 110), White American participants assessed 24 statements about racial inequality framed as either White privileges or Black disadvantages. In Experiment 2 (N = 122), White participants generated examples of White privileges or Black disadvantages. In both experiments, a White privilege framing resulted in greater collective guilt and lower racism compared to a Black disadvantage framing. Collective guilt mediated the manipulation's effect on racism. In addition, in Experiment 2, a White privilege framing decreased White racial identification compared to a Black disadvantage framing. These findings suggest that representing inequality in terms of outgroup disadvantage allows privileged group members to avoid the negative psychological implications of inequality and supports prejudicial attitudes.     

Physiological arousal and reactions to outgroup members during competitions that implicate an important social identity

Exposure to sports competitions, especially those involving violence, can elevate physiological arousal, potentially setting the stage for transforming hostile inclinations into aggressive behavior. Personality and cognitive factors that influence the interpretation given to such competitions may influence the impact of these events. The effects of exposure to a sporting competition that had high or low importance for subjects' social identity on pre- to post-film blood pressure and evaluations of outgroups were examined. Aggression may be particularly likely when arousal levels are elevated, and such arousal was expected to be determined by the importance of the identity at stake, regardless of the outcome of the competition. Individuals who were either strongly identified with America or were less identified viewed a boxing match where the American athlete lost the competition (and the Russian contestant won), or the Russian athlete lost (and the American won). Both diastolic and systolic blood pressure measures showed an increase pre- to post-film in the highly identified persons while no such change was observed in the low identitied individuals. Cognitive measures assessing evaluations of the Russian boxer, and Russians in general, showed effects parallel to the arousal indexes with high identified persons expressing more derogation of threat-relevant targets than did those low in identification. Arousal increases in only the highly identified viewers predicted derogation of Russians. Discussion centers on the role of identification with a sports team on physiological processes and their implications for spectator aggression.     

A three-factor scale of attitudes toward guns

Guns figure prominently in American culture. There is, however, considerable variability in attitudes toward guns. The beliefs and feelings that comprise attitudes toward guns may well be important moderators of numerous social behaviors. For this reason, a three-dimensional attitudes scale was constructed. The first factor consists of an abstract set of beliefs concerning the right of the American public to own or not own guns. The second and third factors tap more concrete beliefs about the consequences of gun ownership. Specifically, the second factor assesses the degree to which people believe gun ownership affords protection against crime. The third factor measures the degree to which people believe guns stimulate crime. Discriminant validity of the subscales is shown by the pattern of correlations obtained with the three dimensions and various other social and personality measures. Regression analyses indicate that the subscales are uniquely predicted by different social variables. Discussion centers on the usefulness of such a measure for future research on aggression, social policy, and attitude change.     

When do victim group members feel a moral obligation to help suffering others?

In four experiments, we assessed when the salience of ingroup historical victimization will encourage a sense of moral obligation to reduce the suffering of others. Historically victimized groups (Jews and women; Experiments 1 and 3) who considered the lessons of the past for their ingroup felt heightened moral obligation to help other non‐adversary victimized groups. However, when the suffering outgroup was an adversary, Jews (Experiment 2) and women (Experiment 4) who focused on the lesson of historical victimization for their ingroup reported lower moral obligation to reduce others' suffering. The lesson focus effect on moral obligation was mediated by benefit finding as well as perceived similarity to the outgroup. Means to facilitate moral obligation, as well as limiting factors, among victimized group members are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social identity and perceptions of torture: It's moral when we do it

Two studies examined the effects of social identity concerns on the moral justification of torture. British and American nationals read a media report concerning the torture of a terrorist suspect that they were led to believe had been perpetrated either by members of their own nation's security services or by another nation's security services. When the torture was perpetrated by the ingroup, participants described it as more morally justified than when the torture was perpetrated by the other nation's security services. This effect was mediated by participants' decreased empathy for the ingroup's torture victim (Study 1), as well as increased victim blame and perceiving the perpetrators as prototypical of their national group (Study 2). We consider how social identity concerns enable moral justification of harm doing.     

Observer perceptions of moral obligations in groups with a history of victimization

The authors investigated when observers assign contemporary group members moral obligations based on their group's victimization history. In Experiment 1, Americans perceived Israelis as obligated to help Sudanese genocide victims and as guiltworthy for not helping if reminded of the Holocaust and its descendants were linked to this history. In Experiment 2, participants perceived Israelis as more obligated to help and guiltworthy for not helping when the Holocaust was presented as a unique victimization event compared with when genocide was presented as pervasive. Experiments 3 and 4 replicated the effects of Experiment 1 with Cambodians as the victimized group. Experiment 5 demonstrated that participants perceived Cambodians as having more obligations under high just world threat compared with low just world threat. Perceiving victimized groups as incurring obligations is one just world restoration method of providing meaning to collective injustice.     

Looking young for your age: Perceptions of anti‐aging actions

Despite the potential benefits of looking young, we predicted that older adults who attempt to look younger than they are would threaten the distinctiveness of young adults' social identity and, for this reason, such “passers” would be evaluated negatively. In three experiments we found that both male and female young adults negatively evaluated older adults who attempt to look younger compared to older adults who do not attempt to do so. Both male and female targets who attempt to look younger were evaluated negatively (Experiment 2), and these negative evaluations were a function of experienced threat to young adults' social identities (Experiment 3). Older adults may attempt to look young to avoid age‐based prejudice or conform to existing standards, but doing so can result in negative evaluations by younger people. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Women's reactions to ingroup members who protest discriminatory treatment: The importance of beliefs about inequality and response appropriateness

Our goal was to identify factors that shape women's responses to ingroup members who protest gender discrimination. We predicted and found that women who perceived gender discrimination as pervasive regarded a protest response as being more appropriate than a no protest response and expressed greater liking and less anger towards a female lawyer who protested rather than did not protest an unfair promotion decision. Further, beliefs about the appropriateness of the response to discrimination contributed to evaluations of the protesting lawyer. Perceptions that the complaint was an appropriate response to the promotion decision led to more positive evaluations of an ingroup discrimination protester. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group

Two field studies examined the attributions made for the historically negative behaviour of a group as a whole, depending on whether the actions were committed by the ingroup or an outgroup. In the first study, Jewish people assigned more internal responsibility to Germans for their treatment of Jewish people during the Second World War than Germans assigned to their own group. In the second study, people attributed the negative historical actions of another nation more internally (and less externally) than similar negative historical actions committed by their own nation. This pattern of intergroup attributional bias was more pronounced among people who highly identified with their national ingroup. Outgroup homogeneity and perceptions of differences between the groups were also significantly predicted by ingroup identification. Links between social identity theory and the intergroup attribution bias are considered. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.