Suchergebnisse

Marino's timely review highlights what humans go to great lengths to ignore and suppress: non-human animals such as chickens have rich inner lives. Although I share her belief that such evidence should provide the impetus for ending the exploitation of chickens, the psychological literatures on motivated reasoning and group-based dominance suggest not only that this is unlikely but that people will push back precisely because of the implications (as they do for climate change). Human psychology has done a great deal to suppress the recognition of sentience in animals, but it can also shed insights into ending exploitation.

Increasing diversity and the anticipation of its resulting cultural change is raising vociferous protestations among White Americans. Here, we explore moderation and mediation of its intergroup implications. Among a nationally representative sample of White Americans, Study 1 ( n = 2,257) revealed that living in a region that experienced a greater (vs. lesser) increase in racial diversity in recent years was associated with more anti-immigrant attitudes, but only among those who were highly White-identified. In an experiment, Study 2 ( n = 420, White Americans) revealed that collective nostalgia (i.e., longing for the ingroup's past) mediated the relation between anticipated cultural change resulting from shifting demographics and anti-immigrant attitudes, but only for those who were highly White-identified. Thus, anti-immigrant sentiment among White Americans in response to changing demographics and culture is seen primarily among those personally invested in their White racial identity, an effect partly explained by a longing for bygone days.

Little is known about the origins of dehumanization or the mechanisms through which dehumanization impacts outgroup prejudice. We address these issues by measuring and manipulating animal—human similarity perceptions in a human intergroup context. As predicted, beliefs that animals and humans are relatively similar were associated with greater immigrant humanization, which in turn predicted more favorable immigrant attitudes (Study 1). Those higher in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) or lower in Universal Orientation particularly rejected animal—human similarity beliefs, partially explaining their increased tendency to dehumanize and reject immigrants. In Study 2, perceptions of animal—human similarity were experimentally induced through editorials highlighting similarities between humans and other animals or emphasizing the human—animal divide. Emphasizing animals as similar to humans (versus humans as similar to animals, or the human—animal divide) resulted in greater immigrant humanization (even among highly prejudiced people). This humanization process facilitated more re-categorization (i.e., inclusive intergroup representations between immigrants and Canadians) and increased immigrant empathy, both of which predicted less prejudicial attitudes toward immigrants. Implications for research, theory, and interventions for dehumanization and prejudice are considered.

"Coming Out, Intergroup Relations, and Attitudes Toward LGBT Rights" published on by Oxford University Press.

Abstract. Imagined contact is a widely-used methodology for decreasing prejudice. Recently, however, the effectiveness and replicability of imagined contact have been debated. To the extent that imagined contact is theoretically a valuable intervention when actual contact is absent or less feasible, previous intergroup contact experiences presumably moderate the efficacy of imagined contact. The present investigation found that imagined contact effects were stronger among heterosexuals with infrequent (vs. frequent) previous contact with gays, improving their intergroup emotions and attitudes (Study 1, N = 261). In contrast, there were no such effects of imagined contact with Muslims among non-Muslims (Study 2, N = 320). These findings highlight the potential for moderators to impact the efficacy of experimental contact simulations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Vegetarianism and veganism are increasingly prevalent in Western countries, yet anecdotal expressions of negativity toward vegetarians and vegans are common. We empirically tested whether bias exists toward vegetarians and vegans. In Study 1 omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans equivalently or more negatively than several common prejudice target groups (e.g., Blacks). Bias was heightened among those higher in right-wing ideologies, explained by heightened perceptions of vegetarian/vegan threat. Vegans (vs. vegetarians) and male (vs. female) vegetarians/vegans were evaluated more negatively overall. In Study 2 omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans more negatively than several nutritional outgroups (e.g., gluten intolerants) and evaluated vegan/vegetarians motivated by animal rights or environmental concerns (vs. health) especially negatively. In Study 3, vegetarians and especially vegans reported experiencing negativity stemming from their diets. Empirically documenting antivegetarian/vegan bias adds to a growing literature finding bias toward benign yet social norm-challenging others.

Meta-stereotypes, the stereotypes believed to be held about one's ingroup by an outgroup, represent barriers to positive intergroup contact. Little is known, however, about factors accounting for meta-stereotypes. Although previous researchers have speculated on conceptual overlap between social projection (perceiving one's personal attitudes to be commonly held) and meta-stereotypes, these constructs are typically studied separately. We propose the notion that meta-stereotypes can be explained by social projection processes. We examined Whites' "bias meta-stereotypes" (perceptions that Blacks consider Whites biased) across two studies. Participants projected personal biases onto both their ingroup (Whites) and outgroup (Blacks); in turn, both ingroup and outgroup bias perceptions uniquely predicted bias meta-stereotypes. Overall, the positive relation between personal bias perceptions and bias meta-stereotypes was fully mediated (i.e., explained) by heightened perceptions of ingroup (White) and outgroup (Black) bias. Overall, there is considerable value in integrating basic social projection within intergroup domains, particularly with regard to meta-stereotyping.

Although biases against homosexuals (and bisexuals) are well established, potential biases against a largely unrecognized sexual minority group, asexuals, has remained uninvestigated. In two studies (university student and community samples) we examined the extent to which those not desiring sexual activity are viewed negatively by heterosexuals. We provide the first empirical evidence of intergroup bias against asexuals (the so-called "Group X"), a social target evaluated more negatively, viewed as less human, and less valued as contact partners, relative to heterosexuals and other sexual minorities. Heterosexuals were also willing to discriminate against asexuals (matching discrimination against homosexuals). Potential confounds (e.g., bias against singles or unfamiliar groups) were ruled out as explanations. We suggest that the boundaries of theorizing about sexual minority prejudice be broadened to incorporate this new target group at this critical period, when interest in and recognition of asexuality is scientifically and culturally expanding.

As a function of their race, gender, class, and other social categories, long-standing privileges in social hierarchies have been afforded to some groups of people to the detriment of others. Recently, scholars have made considerable headway studying the social gains made by disadvantaged groups, including a better understanding of how relatively advantaged groups (e.g., White people; men) often pushback against and resist shifts in group-based power or prestige. The present body of work curates social psychological perspectives on the sense of privilege lost, the belief that one's dominant group is losing ground to other groups. Here, we outline several dominant themes emerging from scholars in this field, including a better understanding of the psychological nature of group-based threat reactions, and for whom such demographic/power changes are deemed troubling, thus triggering pushback. We make recommendations for shaping future research on the perceived loss of group status and power.

Most infectious diseases are zoonotic, "jumping" from animals to humans, with COVID-19 no exception. Although many zoonotic transmissions occur on industrial-scale factory farms, public discussions mainly blame wild animal ("wet") markets or focus on reactionary solutions, posing a psychological obstacle to preventing future pandemics. In two pre-registered studies early in the 2020 pandemic, we examined whether British adults fail to recognize factory farming in causing epidemics, and whether such dismissal represents motivated cognition. Cross-sectional data (Study 1, N = 302) confirmed that people blame factory farms and global meat consumption less than wild animal trade and consumption or lack of government preparedness, especially among meat-committed persons. Experimental exposure (Study 2, N = 194) to information blaming factory farms (vs. wild animal markets) produced lower endorsement of preventive solutions than of reactionary solutions, which was exacerbated among meat-committed persons. These findings suggest that people, especially those highly committed to eating meat, willfully disregard solutions targeting animal agriculture and global meat consumption to prevent future pandemics precisely because such solutions implicate their dietary habits. Better understanding motivated beliefs about the causes of and solutions to pandemics is critical for developing interventions.