Thierry Devos

Bio: Thierry Devos is an academic researcher from San Diego State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Implicit attitude & Ethnic group. The author has an hindex of 28, co-authored 62 publications receiving 6042 citations. Previous affiliations of Thierry Devos include University of Geneva & University of Lausanne.

Intergroup emotions: explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context.

Abstract: Purdue University Three studies tested the idea that when social identity is salient, group-based appraisals elicit specific emotions and action tendencies toward out-groups. Participants' group memberships were made salient and the collective support apparently enjoyed by the in-group was measured or manipulated. The authors then measured anger and fear (Studies 1 and 2) and anger and contempt (Study 3), as well as the desire to move against or away from the out-group. Intergroup anger was distinct from intergroup fear, and the inclination to act against the out-group was distinct from the tendency to move away from it. Participants who perceived the in-group as strong were more likely to experience anger toward the out-group and to desire to take action against it. The effects of perceived in-group strength on offensive action tendencies were mediated by anger. The annals of history and contemporary news sources bear overwhelming witness to the variety of ways in which out-groups are devalued, discriminated against, and sometimes decimated by the members of other groups. One group is shunned and avoided, a second economically exploited, another belittled and scape- goated, and yet another systematically murdered. In contributing a social psychological perspective to the understanding of negative intergroup behavior, social psychologists have typically focused on prejudice---a negative evaluation of a group and its mem- bers-as the cause of discrimination. Despite the insights provided by such an approach (for reviews, see Brewer & Brown, 1998; Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996; Fiske, 1998; Macrae, Stangor, & Hewstone, 1996; Mackie & Smith, 1998a), conceptualizing prejudice as a negative evaluation of a group has proved of little help in explaining the wide variety of negative reactions to out-groups (Mackie & Smith, 1998a, 1998b; Schnei- der, 1996; E. R. Smith, 1993). Why does one out-group attract fear or contempt while another becomes the target of anger? If out- groups uniformly attract negative evaluation, what factors explain the impulse, desire, intention, or tendency to move against some groups and away from others? Unfortunately, very little work has been done to differentiate action tendencies elicited in intergroup contexts (Grant & Brown, 1995; Mackie & Smith, 1998a; Messick & Mackie, 1989; Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990; important Diane M. Mackie and Thierry Devos, Department of Psychology, Uni- versity of California, Santa Barbara; Eliot R. Smith, Department of Psy- chological Sciences, Purdue University. This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant SBR 9209995, a Swiss National Science Foundation Fellowship, and National Institute of Mental Health Grants RO1 MH46840 and KO2 MH01178. Thierry Devos is now at the Department of Psychology, Yale University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Diane M. Mackie, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106-9660. Electronic mail may be sent to mackie @psych.ucsb.edu. 602 exceptions are discussed later). The research reported here consti- tutes an initial empirical investigation of a novel theoretical ap- proach to answering these questions. Although intergroup theorists have by and large concentrated on negative attitude or evaluation as a precursor to discrimination, emotion theorists have typically differentiated both the diversity of feelings that may be directed toward a particular target and the specificity of behavior that can follow from those feelings. Ap- praisal theories of emotion (Frijda, 1986; Roseman, 1984; Scherer, 1988; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985), in particular, conceptualize personal emotions as complex reactions to specific situations or events that include quite differentiated cognitions, feelings, and action tendencies. Specific emotions experienced by an individual are triggered by appraisals (cognitions or interpretations) of whether an event appears to favor or harm the individual's goals or desires and whether the individual has the resources to cope or not, for example. Depending on their particular configuration, cogni- tive appraisals trigger specific emotional experiences (Ellsworth & Smith, 1988; Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990; C. A. Smith & Ellsworth, 1985) and these emotional experiences in turn promote certain behaviors (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz, 1994). Anger at another individual, for example, is typically conceptualized as resulting from appraisals that the other has harmed the self and that the self is strong. Such anger in turn leads to tendencies to aggress against that other person. Appraisal theory was developed to explain personal emotions experienced by individuals, and this focus was maintained in an important application of it to the intergroup context. Dijker (1987; Dijker, Koomen, van den Heuvel, & Frijda, 1996) asked native Dutch participants their emotional reactions to individual members of naturally occurring out-groups, with the assumption that these reactions depended on the nature of interpersonal interactions that participants had experienced. Respondents reported feeling a range of distinct negative and positive emotions about out-group mem- bers indicating that their personal emotions were indeed influenced by their individual experiences in encounters with other groups.

Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes

Abstract: Correspondence should be addressed to Brian A. Nosek, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, 102 Gilmer Hall, Box 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA. E-mail: nosek@virginia.edu This research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (MH-41328, MH-01533, MH-57672, and MH-68447) and the National Science Foundation (SBR-9422241, SBR-9709924, and REC-0634041). The authors are grateful for technical support from N. Sriram, Ethan Sutin, and Lili Wu. Related information is available at http://briannosek.com/ and http://projectimplicit.net/ EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2007, 1 – 53, iFirst article

National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement

Abstract: About 70% of more than half a million Implicit Association Tests completed by citizens of 34 countries revealed expected implicit stereotypes associating science with males more than with females. We discovered that nation-level implicit stereotypes predicted nation-level sex differences in 8th-grade science and mathematics achievement. Self-reported stereotypes did not provide additional predictive validity of the achievement gap. We suggest that implicit stereotypes and sex differences in science participation and performance are mutually reinforcing, contributing to the persistent gender gap in science engagement.

Investigating variation in replicability: A “Many Labs” replication project

Abstract: Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect – imagined contact reducing prejudice – showed weak support for replicability. And two effects – flag priming influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification – did not replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

Abstract: We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance (p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion (p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.

Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science

Abstract: Reproducibility is a defining feature of science, but the extent to which it characterizes current research is unknown. We conducted replications of 100 experimental and correlational studies published in three psychology journals using high-powered designs and original materials when available. Replication effects were half the magnitude of original effects, representing a substantial decline. Ninety-seven percent of original studies had statistically significant results. Thirty-six percent of replications had statistically significant results; 47% of original effect sizes were in the 95% confidence interval of the replication effect size; 39% of effects were subjectively rated to have replicated the original result; and if no bias in original results is assumed, combining original and replication results left 68% with statistically significant effects. Correlational tests suggest that replication success was better predicted by the strength of original evidence than by characteristics of the original and replication teams.

Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations

Abstract: How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people's use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), "sacredness" reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American "culture war."

A manifesto for reproducible science

Abstract: Improving the reliability and efficiency of scientific research will increase the credibility of the published scientific literature and accelerate discovery. Here we argue for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives. There is some evidence from both simulations and empirical studies supporting the likely effectiveness of these measures, but their broad adoption by researchers, institutions, funders and journals will require iterative evaluation and improvement. We discuss the goals of these measures, and how they can be implemented, in the hope that this will facilitate action toward improving the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research.