The primal warrior: Outgroup threat priming enhances intergroup discrimination in men but not women

Previous evidence suggests that, compared with females, male psychology and behavior is more strongly oriented toward intergroup conflict and competition. This study tested whether male coalitional psychology is so deeply ingrained that it could be activated even by subtle cues in the environment suggesting intergroup conflict. We used a priming method to test if being unwittingly exposed to an offensive message from an outgroup member in one type of intergroup context (i.e., inter-cultural) would enhance male’s and female’s intergroup discrimination in reward allocation in a completely irrelevant intergroup context (i.e., artificial laboratory group). The results showed that, as predicted, the outgroup threat priming enhanced discrimination in men but not women.     

Superordinate identity and intergroup roommate friendship development

A common ingroup identity promotes positive attitudes and behavior toward members of outgroups, but the durability of these effects and generalizability to relationships outside of the laboratory have been questioned. The present research examined how initial perceptions of common ingroup identity among randomly assigned college roommates provide a foundation for the development of intergroup friendships. For roommate dyads involving students who differed in race or ethnicity, respondents who were low on perceived intergroup commonality showed a significant decline in friendship over-time, whereas those high on perceived commonality showed consistently high levels of friendship. Similarly, participants in these dyads demonstrated a significant decline in feelings of friendship when their roommate was low in perceived commonality but not when their roommate was high in perceived commonality. These effects were partially mediated by anxiety experienced in interactions over-time. The implications of a common identity for intergroup relationship development are discussed.     

Sunk cost of local elected representatives in situation of fiscal competition: An example of escalating commitment

Introduction

Competition between French local communities to build infrastructures to attract enterprises and residents could sometimes result in irrational public spending.

Predicting dating behavior from aggression and self‐perceived social status in adolescence

We investigated the longitudinal associations between self‐reported aggression, self‐perceived social status, and dating in adolescence using an intrasexual competition theoretical framework. Participants consisted of 536 students in Grade 9 (age 15), recruited from a community sample, who were assessed on a yearly basis until they were in Grade 11 (age 17). Adolescents self‐reported their use of direct and indirect aggression, social status, and number of dating partners. A cross‐lagged panel model that controlled for within‐time covariance and across‐time stability while examining cross‐lagged pathways was used to analyze the data. The findings revealed that direct aggression did not predict dating behavior and was negatively associated with self‐perceived social status in Grade 10. Self‐perceived social status in Grade 9 was positively associated with greater use of indirect aggression in Grade 10. Regarding dating, in Grade 9, self‐perceived social status positively predicted more dating partners the following year, while in Grade 10, it was higher levels of indirect aggression that predicted greater dating activity the following year. Overall, there were no significant sex differences in the model. The study supports the utility of evolutionary psychological theory in explaining peer aggression, and suggests that although social status can increase dating opportunities, as adolescents mature, indirect aggression becomes the most successful and strategic means of competing intrasexually and gaining mating advantages.

     

Intergroup contact buffers against the intergenerational transmission of authoritarianism and racial prejudice

The present study focused on the buffering role of positive intergroup contact in the intergenerational transmission of authoritarianism and racial prejudice in a sample of adolescents and one of their parents. In accordance with our expectations, adolescents’ intergroup contact experiences moderated the mediated relationships between parental authoritarianism and adolescents’ prejudice, both via adolescents’ authoritarianism and via parental prejudice. These relationships were stronger among adolescents with lower, rather than higher, levels of intergroup contact. We conclude that intergroup contact buffers the indirect relationship between parents’ authoritarianism and adolescents’ racial prejudice and therefore constitutes a promising means of reducing the intergenerational transmission of prejudice.     

Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification

Two studies examined the effects of self-uncertainty and ingroup entitativity on group identification. From uncertainty reduction theory (Hogg, 2000), it was hypothesized that people would identify most strongly with their group if they felt self-conceptually uncertain and the group was highly entitative. Study 1 was a field experiment (N = 114) in which the perceived entitativity of participants’ political party was measured, and self-uncertainty was primed (high vs. low). Study 2 was a laboratory experiment (N = 89) with ad hoc non-interactive groups. Uncertainty was primed as in Study 1, but perceived entitativity was manipulated. In both cases the dependent variable was a multi-item measure of group identification. The hypothesis was fully supported in both studies—participants identified more strongly when they were uncertain and the group was highly entitative. Implications of this research for the role of uncertainty and social identity in extremism, orthodoxy, and ideological belief systems are discussed.     

Political Conservatism,Need for Cognitive Closure,and Intergroup Hostility

Two studies examined the interaction of political conservatism and the need for cognitive closure in predicting aggressiveness in intergroup conflict and hostility toward outgroups. In the first study, Polish participants indicated their preference for coercive conflict strategies in the context of a real‐life intergroup conflict. Only among participants who identify themselves as conservative, need for cognitive closure was positively and significantly related to preference for aggressive actions against the outgroup. In the second study, the predicted interaction was investigated in the context of the terrorist threat in Poland. The findings indicated that high in need for closure conservatives showed greater hostility against Arabs and Muslims only when they believed that Poland was under threat of terrorist attacks inspired by Islamist fundamentalism.     

Blinded by fear? Prior exposure to fearful faces enhances attentional processing of task-irrelevant stimuli

Threatening information has been shown to both capture attention and enhance sensory processing. Recent evidence has also suggested that exposure to fearful stimuli may enhance perceptual processing of subsequently presented information, as well as increase attentional capacity. However, these results are inconsistent with other findings that fearful stimuli reduce task-irrelevant distraction and improve selective attention. Here, we investigated the effect of prior exposure to fearful faces on performance in the Eriksen flanker task. Across experiments, fearful cues led to increased task-irrelevant distraction for items positioned across visual space, in contrast to other emotional expressions and inverted face items, and under conditions of attentional load. Findings support the view that fearful images enhance attentional capacity, allowing one to attend to as much visual information as possible when danger is implied. Conflicting findings on the effect of fear and selective attention are discussed.     

Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status differences on effort in intergroup contexts

This paper examines how the status of an out-group impacts effort in intergroup settings. The results provide evidence that people work harder when their individual performance is compared to a lower, as opposed to higher, status out-group member. Moreover, comparisons to a lower status out-group were found to elicit motivation gains as these participants worked harder than participants in the control (Studies 1-3) or in-group comparison conditions (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 4, evidence for the role of threat as an underlying mechanism was provided as gains in effort for those compared with a lower status out-group member were eliminated when participants self- or group-affirmed prior to comparison. Finally, Study 5 shows that both social identity threat and self-categorization threat underlie increases in effort for participants compared to a lower status out-group member. We detail a theoretical basis for our claim that performance comparisons with lower status out-group members are especially threatening, and discuss the implications for this research in terms of social identity and self-categorization theories as they relate to effort in intergroup contexts.     

Beyond organizational entry and newcomer stress: Building a self-reliant workforce

This article extends the organizational entry and newcomer stress literature by focusing on the importance of building a self-reliant workforce. It posits that newcomer socialization now and in the future requires building a workforce of self-reliant managers and employees who can function effectively in a dynamic, global workplace. This article suggests that socializing workers to be self-reliant helps employees and organizations to thrive in the uncertain economic environment that is the determining factor in the success of today's organizations. It further contends that by reducing ambiguity and increasing employability, employees are likely to suffer less distress and organizations are less likely to pay the price for distressed employees.