Suchergebnisse

National flags embody their nations' core values and beliefs but they may be perceived differently in today's increasingly polarized societies. We conducted two studies ( N = 768) in the United States to examine partisan differences between Democrats and Republicans, and a third study in the United Kingdom ( N = 509) between supporters of the Labour and Conservative parties. Across all three studies, we consistently found that Democrat and Labour participants (compared to their Republican and Conservative counterparts) associated their respective national flags with less positive and more negative affect and concepts. Studies 2 and 3 further showed that these partisan divides were driven by how much people associated their national flags with their political outgroup. For Democrats and Labour participants, associating their national flags with their political outgroup predicted less positive and more negative affect, but associating the flags with their political ingroup predicted more positive and less negative affect.

AbstractPolling data show that 69% of Asian American voters favor affirmative action. However, Asian Americans were featured prominently by the organization Students for Fair Admissions, which played a central role in the Supreme Court's decision to overturn affirmative action. This may distort people's estimates of Asian Americans' support for affirmative action. Two studies (N = 695) found that people, even Asian Americans, underestimated Asian Americans' support for affirmative action. Three follow‐up studies (N = 1,625), where we manipulated perceived Asian Americans' support for affirmative action or the Supreme Court's decision, found no evidence that such information affected White people's support for affirmative action. In Study 6 (N = 365), however, we found that Asian Americans were more likely to agree with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn affirmative action when they saw that a majority of Asian Americans supported the court ruling (relative to a control condition in which no information was presented). This suggests that the widespread misperception of Asian Americans' support for affirmative action and their central role in the Supreme Court cases may ultimately create a self‐fulfilling prophecy that could shift individual Asian Americans' own attitude about affirmative action.

This research examined bias and accuracy in judging hostile and benevolent sexism during mixed-gender interactions. Bias is defined as underestimation or overestimation of a partner's sexism. Accuracy is defined as covariation in two different ways, as (a) the strength of the association between a dyad member's judgment and their partner's sexism, across dyads, and (b) the ability to differentiate sexism between multiple targets. In Studies 1 and 2, members of mixed-gender dyads rated their own and their partners' benevolent and hostile sexism. Overall, there was no covariation, across dyads, between perceptions and the partner's self-reported sexism. However, women overestimated men's hostile sexism; there was no evidence of biases for women judging men's benevolent sexism. Men underestimated women's hostile sexism and overestimated benevolent sexism. In Study 3, participants watched brief videos of male or female students (targets) from Study 1 and completed benevolent or hostile sexism items for each target as they thought the target would fill them out. Accuracy for detecting sexism across multiple targets (using sensitivity correlations) was significantly above chance for both forms of sexism. Male and female participants were more accurate at detecting hostile sexism in male targets than female targets. Participants were more accurate at detecting benevolent sexism of same-gender targets than opposite-gender targets. When judging targets of opposite gender, women's judgments were significantly above chance for both forms of sexism, but men were not accurate for either forms of sexism. These studies suggest that there is bias and accuracy in first impression judgments of sexism.