Right-Wing Ideology as a Predictor of Collective Action: A Test Across Four Political Issue Domains

Despite a vast literature documenting motivations for collective action, the role of sociopolitical ideologies, including right-wing ideologies, in predicting collective action is underresearched. Literature on right-wing ideological beliefs suggests that those higher in right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) or social dominance orientation (SDO) hold specific attitudes or endorse specific policies, in part, because of factors such as perceived fear-based threat or empathy. In the present research, structural equation modeling (SEM) was run on pooled data from a diverse Canadian university sample and two American adult samples (total N = 1,469). Participants completed measures of RWA, SDO, fear-based threat, empathy, and domain-specific collective action. Results showed that RWA and SDO both related positively to collective action targeting societal moral breakdown but negatively to collective action aimed at equalizing race relations or fighting climate change. Whereas the indirect effects of right-wing ideologies via fear-based threat or empathy were significant in all four domains for SDO, the indirect effect of RWA was only significant in the climate change domain. Implications are discussed.     

Lay beliefs about the causes of and solutions to dehumanization and prejudice: do nonexperts recognize the role of human–animal relations?

We investigate laypeople's beliefs about the causes of and solutions to out‐group dehumanization and prejudice. Specifically, we examine whether nonexperts recognize the role that beliefs in the human–animal divide play in the formation and reduction of intergroup biases, as observed empirically in the interspecies model of prejudice. Interestingly, despite evidence in the present study that human–animal divide beliefs predict greater dehumanization and prejudice, participants strongly rejected the human–animal divide as a probable cause of (or solution to) dehumanization or prejudice. We conclude with a meta‐analytic test of the relation between human–animal divide and prejudice (mean r = .34) in the literature, establishing the human–animal divide as an important but largely unrecognized prejudice precursor. Applied implications for the development and implementation of prejudice interventions are considered.     

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.     

Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD‐HARM)

Recent research and theorizing suggest that desires for group‐based dominance underpin biases towards both human outgroups and (non‐human) animals. A systematic study of the common ideological roots of human–human and human–animal biases is, however, lacking. Three studies (in Belgium, UK, and USA) tested the Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD‐HARM) proposing that Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a key factor responsible for the significant positive association between ethnic outgroup attitudes and speciesist attitudes towards animals, even after accounting for other ideological variables (that possibly confound previous findings). Confirming our hypotheses, the results consistently demonstrated that SDO, more than right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), is a key factor connecting ethnic prejudice and speciesist attitudes. Furthermore, Studies 2 and 3 showed that both SDO and RWA are significantly related to perceived threat posed by vegetarianism (i.e. ideologies and diets minimizing harm to animals), but with SDO playing a focal role in explaining the positive association between threat perceptions and ethnic prejudice. Study 3 replicated this pattern, additionally including political conservatism in the model, itself a significant correlate of speciesism. Finally, a meta‐analytic integration across studies provided robust support for SD‐HARM and offers important insights into the psychological parallels between human intergroup and human–animal relations. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology     

Receptivity to dating and marriage across the religious divide in Northern Ireland: The role of intergroup contact

Intergroup contact has long been recognized as an important factor in promoting positive intergroup attitudes. However, in operationalizing intergroup attitudes, previous studies have rarely investigated attitudes toward one of the most intimate forms of contact, romantic relationships. In this study (N = 176), we expand the intergroup contact literature to examine the association between intergroup contact and, arguably, a litmus test of intergroup attitudes: receptivity to intergroup romance. We do so in Northern Ireland, a context that is historically and presently characterized by sectarian division and tension between Catholics and Protestants. Our findings reveal that intergroup contact is positively associated with receptivity to both dating and marrying an outgroup member. These associations are mediated by ingroup norms toward outgroup romances. General outgroup attitudes were also found to be positively associated with contact but, in contrast to romantic attitudes, this association was shown, for the first time, to be simultaneously mediated by ingroup norms, anxiety, empathy, and trust. In addition, strength of ingroup identification played a moderating role, with a stronger positive relationship between contact and both romantic and general outgroup attitudes among higher identifiers. The findings highlight the importance of examining attitudes toward intergroup romantic relationships, as well as understanding the different mediating and moderating mechanisms which may account for how contact influences general attitudes and romantic attitudes. In the wake of the UK vote to leave the European Union, they also serve as an important reminder of how intergroup contact can be effective in promoting peace in Northern Ireland.     

Aversive racism in Britain: the use of inadmissible evidence in legal decisions

The aversive racism framework (S. L. Gaertner & J. F. Dovidio, 1986 ) suggests that bias against Blacks is most likely to be expressed by Whites when it can be explained or justified along non‐racial grounds. The present experiment adopted a 2 (Evidence: admissible vs. inadmissible) × 2 (Defendant Race: White vs. Black) between subjects design, asking White participants, whose self‐reported prejudice was assessed, to judge a legal case. As predicted, increased guilt ratings and longer sentencing recommendations were forwarded for the Black (vs. White) defendant only when DNA evidence linking the defendant to the crime had previously been ruled inadmissible. This result was not qualified by self‐report racial attitudes. The implications for evidence inadmissibility in interracial contexts are considered, along with the repercussions of finding experimental evidence of aversive racism outside of North America. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Reconsidering reconsent: Threats to internal and external validity when participants reconsent after debriefing

We overwhelmingly utilize (partially) informed consent for, and debriefing of, human research participants. Also common is the practice of reconsent, particularly where changes in study protocols (or in participants themselves) occur midstream – participants consent again to remaining in the project or to having their data included. Worryingly under-discussed is post-debriefing reconsent, wherein participants can withdraw their data after learning more fully of the study's goals and methods. Yet, major ethics bodies in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom promote such practice, with vague and potentially problematic guidelines. Here, the author provides examples involving such reconsent practice, highlighting potentially serious problems that are scientific (e.g. threats to internal and external validity) and ethical (i.e. to the participant, their peers, the researcher and society) in nature. Particularly, problematic is the introduction, by design, of unknowable bias in our research findings. For example, highly prejudiced participants could withdraw data from a discrimination study after learning of the study's hypotheses and goals. The practice may arguably contradict an Open Science goal of increasing research transparency. This call for discussion about the direction of psychological science methods aims to engage a broader discussion in the research community.     

The nature of skilled adult reading varies with type of instruction in childhood

Does the type of reading instruction experienced during the initial years at school have any continuing effect on the ways in which adults read words? The question has arisen in current discussions about computational models of mature word-reading processes. We tested predicted continuing effects by comparing matched samples of skilled adult readers of English who had received explicit phonics instruction in childhood and those who had not. In responding to nonwords that can receive alternative legitimate pronunciations, those adults having childhood phonics instruction used more regular grapheme-phoneme correspondences that were context free and used fewer vocabulary-based contextually dependent correspondences than did adults who had no phonics instruction. These differences in regularization of naming responses also extended to some low-frequency words. This apparent cognitive footprint of childhood phonics instruction is a phenomenon requiring consideration when researchers attempt to model adult word reading and when they select participants to test the models.     

Testing the generality of the name letter effect: name initials and everyday attitudes

The name letter effect is the tendency to evaluate alphabetical letters in one's name, especially initials, particularly favorably. Recent evidence suggests that name initials may even predict career choices. The authors investigated whether people possess favorable attitudes toward basic attitude objects beginning with name initials, both between individuals (e.g., does Judy like jam more than does Doug?) and within individuals (e.g., does Judy like jam more than honey?). Ratings of animals, foods, leisure activities (Studies 1-4) and national groups (Studies 2-4) revealed no object preference as a function of matching name initials. However, the name letter effect emerged (Studies 3-4), as did a clear preference for brand names starting with one's name initials (Study 4). Self-esteem, narcissism, and stimuli characteristics did not reliably influence these effects. Implications for extending name letter effects to basic attitude processes are discussed.     

Uncertainty orientation in the group context: categorization effects on persuasive message processing

Persuasive messages often originate from in-group or out-group sources. Theoretically, in-group categories could facilitate heuristic-based message processing (because of the attractiveness of in-groups and their social reality cues) or systematic-based processing (because of high personal relevance of the message). The authors expected individual differences in uncertainty orientation and socially based expectancy congruence to be important variables in understanding these processes. Participants were exposed to strong or weak, in-group or out-group messages that were either expectancy congruent (in-group agreement, out-group disagreement) or expectancy incongruent (in-group disagreement, out-group agreement). As predicted, uncertainty-oriented participants increased systematic information processing under incongruent conditions relative to congruent (i.e., relatively certain) conditions; certainty-oriented individuals processed systematically only under congruent conditions. These findings suggest that uncertainty that has been created through social-categorization conflicts is treated differently by people of different personality styles.