Priming performance-related concerns induces task-related mind-wandering

Two experiments tested the hypothesis that priming of performance-related concerns would (1) increase the frequency of task-related mind-wandering (i.e., task-related interference; TRI) and (2) decrease task performance. In each experiment, sixty female participants completed an operation span task (OSPAN) containing thought content probes. The task was framed as a math task for those in a condition primed for math-related stereotype threat and as a memory task for those in a control condition. In both studies, women whose performance-related concerns were primed via stereotype threat reported more TRI than women in the control. The second experiment used a more challenging OSPAN task and stereotype primed women also had lower math accuracy than controls. These results support the “control failures × current concerns” framework of mind-wandering, which posits that the degree to which the environmental context triggers personal concerns influences both mind-wandering frequency and content.     

不同群际威胁类型对集体自尊的影响:愤怒和自卑的中介作用

现有研究中有关群际威胁对集体自尊是增强作用还是削弱作用存在矛盾结论,可能是不同研究采用了不同类型的群际威胁,且情绪在群际威胁和集体自尊二者之间可能存在某种作用所导致的。本研究通过情景启动的实验发现,现实群际威胁唤起了更高水平的愤怒情绪,愤怒情绪越多,被试的集体自尊越高。而象征群际威胁唤起了更高水平的自卑情绪,自卑情绪越多,被试的集体自尊越低。总之,群际威胁类型的不同对集体自尊产生不同的影响,情绪在其中起中介作用。     

“Watch out!”: Effects of instructed threat and avoidance on human free‐operant approach–avoidance behavior

Approach–avoidance paradigms create a competition between appetitive and aversive contingencies and are widely used in nonhuman research on anxiety. Here, we examined how instructions about threat and avoidance impact control by competing contingencies over human approach–avoidance behavior. Additionally, Experiment 1 examined the effects of threat magnitude (money loss amount) and avoidance cost (fixed ratio requirements), whereas Experiment 2 examined the effects of threat information (available, unavailable and inaccurate) on approach–avoidance. During the task, approach responding was modeled by reinforcing responding with money on a FR schedule. By performing an observing response, participants produced an escalating “threat meter”. Instructions stated that the threat meter levels displayed the current probability of losing money, when in fact loss only occurred when the level reached the maximum. Instructions also stated pressing an avoidance button lowered the threat level. Overall, instructions produced cycles of approach and avoidance responding with transitions from approach to avoidance when threat was high and transitions back to approach after avoidance reduced threat. Experiment 1 revealed increasing avoidance cost, but not threat magnitude, shifted approach–avoidance transitions to higher threat levels and increased anxiety ratings, but did not influence the frequency of approach–avoidance cycles. Experiment 2 revealed when threat level information was available or absent earnings were high, but earnings decreased when inaccurate threat information was incompatible with contingencies. Our findings build on prior nonhuman and human approach–avoidance research by highlighting how instructed threat and avoidance can impact human AA behavior and self‐reported anxiety.     

Belonging to a majority reduces the immediate need threat from ostracism in individuals with a high need to belong

Ostracism—being ignored and excluded—threatens the basic human needs for belonging, self‐esteem, control, and meaningful existence. This work introduces belonging to a majority as a buffer against the immediate negative impact of ostracism on basic needs for individuals with a high need to belong, for whom social groups are especially relevant. Three studies show that for individuals high in the need to belong, need threat was attenuated by membership in a majority group, but not by membership in a minority group (Studies 1 and 3) or a group of unknown size (Study 2). By contrast, individuals low in the need to belong—who place less importance on group membership in general—did not benefit from belonging to a majority group. The general pattern replicated across different manipulations of group membership and social exclusion, with two measures of need threat, and with participants from two different countries.     

In or out? How the perceived morality (vs. competence) of prospective group members affects acceptance and rejection

When is an individual likely to be accepted or rejected by a group? This research investigates responses towards prospective group members depending on how they compare to the group in terms of their perceived morality or competence. Because morality is of particular importance to groups, we hypothesized that the perceived morality of prospective group members has more impact on the group's tendency to accept versus reject them than their competence. Across three experiments, employing self‐report, psychophysiological and behavioural measures, results supported this hypothesis: Immoral (vs. incompetent) individuals were perceived as more different from the group and were more likely to be rejected. Additionally, the rejection of prospective group members with perceived inferior morality (but not those with inferior competence) was mediated by the group threat they imply. Inclusion success thus seems to be mainly contingent upon how a group evaluates the individual's morality relative to the group's standards.     

Right‐wing authoritarianism,societal threat to safety,and psychological distress

In two quasi‐experimental vignette studies, we have analyzed how societal threat to safety moderates the relation between right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and psychological distress. In Study 1 (Italian community sample, N = 343), we focused on depressive symptoms (measured with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale and the General Health Questionnaire). Two moderated regressions showed that the relation between RWA and both measures of depressive symptoms was positive and significant only among people exposed to a socially threatening scenario. In Study 2 (Italian student sample, N = 219), we focused on state anxiety and replicated Study 1's results. The findings indicated that, in conditions of societal threat to safety, RWA is a risk factor for psychological distress. Strengths, limitations, and possible developments of this research are discussed.     

An investigation of an Expanded Encapsulate Model of Social Identity in Collective Action (EMSICA) including perception of threat and intergroup contact to understand support for Islamist terrorism in Indonesia

Although there have been many empirical studies of terrorism within the psychology literature, relatively few studies have theorized terrorism from the perspective of collective action theory. The present study aimed to understand factors that predict support for Islamist terrorism by using the Encapsulate Model of Social Identity in Collective Action (EMSICA) perspective. To extend previous studies, we added perception of threat and intergroup contact to the model. A correlational study using 66 terrorism detainees in Indonesia as participants found solid support for our expanded EMSICA. The models extending EMSICA with perception of threat and quantity of contact as predictors had improved fit indices and explained more variance in the dependent variable support for Islamist terrorism, as compared to the standard model. Social identity had a significant direct effect on support for Islamist terrorism and mediated the effect of intergroup contact, perception of threat, perceived injustice, and group efficacy on support for Islamist terrorism.     

Interparty Attitudes in Chile: Coalitions as Superordinate Social Identities

This paper reports a survey (N  =  1,465) conducted in Chile that was conceived to understand the role of coalition identification as an important sociopsychological mechanism for promoting positive affects toward own-coalition party members in a multiparty system, above and beyond interparty political differences. Participants judged their own political party, parties within coalitions (fellow coalition members and opposing parties), and political coalitions as a whole on affective dimensions (trust, liking, and admiration). The results provide substantial support for the five hypotheses addressed in the study. Overall, perceived interparty distance and political identity threat had a negative impact on affect toward coalition party members. Above and beyond these effects, identification with the coalition positively predicted affect toward allies. Ingroup party affect was positively correlated with affect toward own-coalition party members and own coalition as a whole, but was not negatively associated with affect toward opposing-coalition parties. Moreover, the relationship between own-party affect and affect toward own-coalition party members was mediated by affect toward own coalition. Overall, evidence for the benefits of promoting coalition identification in a multiparty system is provided and discussed alongside the limitations and practical implications derived from the study.     

When is a compliment not a compliment? Evaluating expressions of positive stereotypes

Unlike negative stereotypes, positive stereotypes are often perceived as admirable qualities, and expressions of such beliefs may be intended as compliments toward group members. Two experiments were conducted to examine how the targets of positive stereotypes evaluate others who express such stereotypic “compliments.” In Study 1, Black participants evaluated a White student who praised the athletic ability of African Americans more negatively than a control condition. In Study 2, Black and White participants watched an interracial interaction that involved the White actor expressing positive stereotypes or a control interaction with no stereotypes. In the positive stereotype condition, Black participants evaluated the White actor and the interaction as a whole more negatively than did White participants, but there were no differences in the control condition. The implications for the perpetuation of interracial distrust and avoidance are discussed.     

Effect of self‐construal and threat to self‐esteem on ingroup favouritism: Moderating effect of independent/interdependent self‐construal on use of ingroup favouritism for maintaining and enhancing self‐evaluation

The present study examined the hypothesis that in situations that threaten self‐esteem, people with independent self‐construal show more ingroup favouritism, whereas people with interdependent self‐construal do not. Using a minimal group paradigm, consistent with the hypothesis, the results showed that self‐construal and threats to self‐esteem have an interactive effect on ingroup favouritism. Individuals with independent self‐construal showed more ingroup favouritism when their self‐esteem was threatened than when it was not threatened, whereas individuals with interdependent self‐construal exhibited less ingroup favouritism when their self‐esteem was threatened than when it was not threatened. These findings suggest that independent/interdependent self‐construal moderates the use of ingroup favouritism for maintaining and enhancing self‐evaluation.