Showing papers in "British Journal of Social Psychology in 2017"
TL;DR: Anti-immigrant prejudice was a strong correlate of support for Brexit and positive intergroup contact experience seemed to play a reparative role, predicting lower prejudice and increasing support for 'Remain'.
Abstract: This study examined the interplay of anti-immigrant prejudice and intergroup contact experience on voting intentions within Britain’s 2016 referendum on its membership within the European Union. In the days before the referendum we asked more than 400 British people how they planned to vote. We measured a number of demographic factors expected to predict voting intentions as well as individuals’ prejudice toward, and intergroup contact experience (positive and negative) with EU immigrants. Anti-immigrant prejudice was a strong correlate of support for Brexit. Negative intergroup contact experience was associated with higher anti-immigrant prejudice and, in turn, increased support for ‘Leave’. Positive intergroup contact, on the other hand, seemed to play a reparative role, predicting lower prejudice and increasing support for ‘Remain’.
74 citations
TL;DR: Ecological momentary assessment and multilevel linear regression analyses showed that being targeted by sexual objectification was associated with a substantial increase in state self-objectification and individual differences had little impact in moderating these effects.
Abstract: Sexual objectification, particularly of young women, is highly prevalent in modern industrialized societies. Although there is plenty of experimental and cross-sectional research on objectification, prospective studies investigating the prevalence and psychological impact of objectifying events in daily life are scarce. We used ecological momentary assessment to track the occurrence of objectifying events over 1 week in the daily lives of young women (N = 81). Participants reported being targeted by a sexually objectifying event - most often the objectifying gaze - approximately once every 2 days and reported witnessing sexual objectification of others approximately 1.35 times per day. Further, multilevel linear regression analyses showed that being targeted by sexual objectification was associated with a substantial increase in state self-objectification. Overall, individual differences had little impact in moderating these effects.
72 citations
TL;DR: Across five studies, consistent evidence is found that personal relative deprivation (PRD), which refers to resentment stemming from the belief that one is deprived of deserved outcomes compared to others, uniquely contributes to materialism.
Abstract: Across five studies, we found consistent evidence for the idea that personal relative deprivation (PRD), which refers to resentment stemming from the belief that one is deprived of deserved outcomes compared to others, uniquely contributes to materialism. In Study 1, self-reports of PRD positively predicted materialistic values over and above socioeconomic status, personal power, self-esteem, and emotional uncertainty. The experience of PRD starts with social comparison, and Studies 2 and 3 found that PRD mediated the positive relation between a tendency to make social comparisons of abilities and materialism. In Study 4, participants who learned that they had less (vs. similar) discretionary income than people like them reported a stronger desire for more money relative to donating more to charity. In Study 5, during a windfall-spending task, participants higher in PRD spent more on things they wanted relative to other spending categories (e.g., paying off debts).
68 citations
TL;DR: It is found that objectification resulted in participants seeing themselves as less warm, competent, moral, and lacking in human nature and human uniqueness: as lacking warmth, competence, morality, and humanity.
Abstract: People objectify others by viewing them as less warm, competent, moral, and human (Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009, J. Exp. Soc. Psychol., 45, 598; Vaes, Paladino, & Puvia, 2011, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 41, 774). In two studies, we examined whether the objectified share this view of themselves, internalizing their objectification. In Study 1 (N = 114), we examined sexual objectification, and in Study 2 (N = 62), we examined workplace objectification. Consistent across both studies, we found that objectification resulted in participants seeing themselves as less warm, competent, moral (Study 2 only), and lacking in human nature and human uniqueness. These effects were robust to perceiver gender and familiarity (Study 1), and whether another person or a situation caused the objectification (Study 2). In short, the objectified see themselves the manner they are seen by their objectifiers: as lacking warmth, competence, morality, and humanity.
52 citations
TL;DR: This work represents the first foray into examining the possible moderating role of social-comparative beliefs in predicting responses to implicit attitude feedback and spurs several important avenues for future research.
Abstract: A robust body of literature on the better-than-average effect suggests that people believe that they are better than the average others across a variety of domains. In two studies, we examined whether these better-than-average beliefs occur for bias related to stereotyping and prejudice. Moreover, we investigated the hypothesis that better-than-average beliefs will predict defensive responding to feedback indicating personal bias (e.g., preferences for majority groups, societally endorsed stereotypes). Specifically, we examined defensive responses to implicit attitude feedback. Study 1 examined this prediction using archival analysis of two large, online samples of participants completing a Weight-related Implicit Association Test (IAT). Study 2 conceptually replicated Study 1 using nine different, randomly assigned IATs and additional measures of defensiveness. In both studies, people generally believed that they were less biased than others. Moreover, people responded defensively to feedback indicating they were biased. This effect was moderated by better-than-average beliefs such that feedback indicating societally consistent bias was related to defensiveness most (and sometimes only) when people believed they were better than average initially. This work represents the first foray into examining the possible moderating role of social-comparative beliefs in predicting responses to implicit attitude feedback and spurs several important avenues for future research.
46 citations
TL;DR: How sexualization may make women seem lacking moral patiency and moral virtue both of which may lead to a reduced willingness to help in cases of intimate partner violence are examined.
Abstract: This paper examines the influence of female sexualization on people's willingness to provide help in cases of intimate partner violence (IPV). We examined how sexualization may make women seem lacking moral patiency and moral virtue both of which may lead to a reduced willingness to help. In the first study, participants read a fictitious newspaper article describing an IPV incident. They were then presented with a picture of the ostensible victim depicting the woman with either a sexualized or non-sexualized appearance. Participants judged both the victim's moral patiency and morality, and then expressed their willingness to provide help to that victim. Although the sexualized victim was viewed as a lesser moral patient (Studies 1 and 2) and as less moral (Study 2), it was seeing the victim as unworthy of moral patiency rather than lacking moral virtue (immoral) that linked sexualization to reduced help. Controlling for participants' sexism and women's admission of infidelity, Study 2 replicated that sexualization reduced helping intentions through a lack of moral patiency. Practical implications are discussed. Language: en
40 citations
TL;DR: The findings are the first to reveal the role of objectification as a potential social cognitive mechanism for explaining why money often harms interpersonal harmony.
Abstract: Objectification, which refers to the treatment of others as objectlike things, has long been observed in capitalism. While the negative impact of money on interpersonal harmony has been well documented, the social cognitive processes that underlie them are relatively unknown. Across four studies, we explored whether the love of money leads to objectification, while controlling for social power and status. In Study 1, the love and importance attached to money positively predicted the tendency to construe social relationships based on instrumentality. In Study 2, the likelihood to favour a target of instrumental use was increased by momentarily activating an affective state of being rich. Temporarily heightening the motivation for money further resulted in deprivation of mental capacities of irrelevant others, including humans (Study 3) and animals (Study 4). This lack of perceived mental states partially mediated the effects of money on subsequent immoral behaviour (Study 4). The findings are the first to reveal the role of objectification as a potential social cognitive mechanism for explaining why money often harms interpersonal harmony.
37 citations
TL;DR: Both pathways can lead to self-forgiveness; however, following a transgression, self- forgiveness via a eudaimonic pathway offers greater promise for meeting the needs of both offenders and victims.
Abstract: Self-forgiveness is often measured as a hedonic end-state, as the presence of positive affect and the absence of negative affect towards the self following a wrongdoing. However, self-forgiveness is also referred to as a difficult process. Self-forgiveness as a process of accepting responsibility and working through one's wrongdoing is a substantially un-hedonic – it is likely to be uncomfortable and at times painful. In this study, we examine two pathways to self-forgiveness: a hedonic focused pathway (via self-compassion) and a eudaimonic pathway (via reaffirmation of transgressed values). Across two studies, the data suggest that following interpersonal transgressions, self-compassion reduces self-punitiveness and increases end-state self-forgiveness (Study 1) via a reduction in perceived stigma (Study 2). In contrast, value reaffirmation increases the process of genuine self-forgiveness and reduces defensiveness (Study 1) via increased concern for shared group values (Study 2), in turn increasing desire to reconcile (Study 1), and amend-making and end-state self-forgiveness 1 week following the intervention (Study 2). The results suggest that both pathways can lead to self-forgiveness; however, following a transgression, self-forgiveness via a eudaimonic pathway offers greater promise for meeting the needs of both offenders and victims.
35 citations
TL;DR: The present research illuminates how a previously adopted cognitive focus guides perceived responsibility when a person receives high (vs. low) power and highlights that mere cognitive processes alter perceived responsibility among those just about to receive power.
Abstract: Social power implies responsibility. Yet, power-holders often follow only their own interests and overlook this responsibility. The present research illuminates how a previously adopted cognitive focus guides perceived responsibility when a person receives high (vs. low) power. In three experiments, adopting a cognitive focus on another person (vs. on the self or taking over another person's perspective) promoted perceived responsibility among individuals receiving high (but not low) power in a subsequent context. This effect was specific for perceived responsibility - a cognitive focus on another person did not change the perceived opportunity to pursue goals or the perceived relationship to an interaction partner (e.g., interpersonal closeness). While prior research examined how social values (i.e., chronically caring about others) guide responsibility among those holding power, the current findings highlight that mere cognitive processes (i.e., situationally focusing attention on others) alter perceived responsibility among those just about to receive power.
34 citations
TL;DR: Performing objectifying tasks led participants to objectify themselves in terms of both decreased self-attribution of human mental states and increased self-perception of being instrument-like, which mediated the relationship between performing an objectifying activity and the participants' decreased belief in personal free will.
Abstract: The current work aimed to extend the burgeoning literature on working objectification by investigating the effects of particular job activities on self-perception. By integrating relevant theoretical reflections with recent empirical evidence, we expected that performing objectifying (i.e., repetitive, fragmented, and other-directed) tasks would affect participants' self-objectification and, in turn, their belief in personal free will. In three studies, we consistently found that performing a manual (Study 1 and Study 2) or a computer (Study 3) objectifying task (vs. a non-objectifying task and vs. the baseline condition) led participants to objectify themselves in terms of both decreased self-attribution of human mental states (Study 1 and Study 3) and increased self-perception of being instrument-like (Study 2 and Study 3). Crucially, this increased self-objectification mediated the relationship between performing an objectifying activity and the participants' decreased belief in personal free will. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are considered.
34 citations
TL;DR: An ethnomethodological perspective on language and discourse is brought to a data source crucial for explaining behaviour in social psychologist Stanley Milgram's classic 'obedience' experiments - yet one largely overlooked by the Milgram literature.
Abstract: We bring an ethnomethodological perspective on language and discourse to a data source crucial for explaining behaviour in social psychologist Stanley Milgram's classic 'obedience' experiments - yet one largely overlooked by the Milgram literature. In hundreds of interviews conducted immediately after each experiment, participants sought to justify their actions, often doing so by normalizing the situation as benign, albeit uncomfortable. Examining 91 archived recordings of these interviews from several experimental conditions, we find four recurrent accounts for continuation, each used more frequently by 'obedient' than 'defiant' participants. We also discuss three accounts for discontinuation used by 'defiant' participants. Contrary to what a leading contemporary theory of Milgramesque behaviour - engaged followership - would predict, 'obedient' participants, in the minutes immediately following the experiment, did not tend to explain themselves by identifying with science. Rather, they justified compliance in several distinct and not entirely consistent ways, suggesting that multiple social psychological processes were at work in producing Milgram's 'obedient' outcome category.
TL;DR: The role of flow experience was tested as one mechanism leading to performance decrement under sexual objectification, and a moderated mediation model showed that under male versus female gaze, higher internalization of beauty ideals was associated with lower flow, which decreased performance.
Abstract: Although previous research has demonstrated that objectification impairs female cognitive performance, no research to date has investigated the mechanisms underlying such decrement. Therefore, we tested the role of flow experience as one mechanism leading to performance decrement under sexual objectification. Gaze gender was manipulated by having male versus female experimenters take body pictures of female participants (N = 107) who then performed a Sustained Attention to Response Task. As predicted, a moderated mediation model showed that under male versus female gaze, higher internalization of beauty ideals was associated with lower flow, which in turn decreased performance. The implications of these results are discussed in relation to objectification theory and strategies to prevent sexually objectifying experiences.
TL;DR: The largely unknown conceptual and methodological advantages of social network analysis for studying intergroup contact in naturally existing groups are explained to help contact researchers to gain a better understanding of intergroup relations and guide attempts to overcome segregation, prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict.
Abstract: This article presents 10 reasons why social network analysis, a novel but still surprisingly underused approach in social psychology, can advance the analysis of intergroup contact. Although intergroup contact has been shown to improve intergroup relations, conventional methods leave some questions unanswered regarding the underlying social mechanisms that facilitate social cohesion between different groups in increasingly diverse societies. We will therefore explain the largely unknown conceptual and methodological advantages of social network analysis for studying intergroup contact in naturally existing groups, which are likely to help contact researchers to gain a better understanding of intergroup relations and guide attempts to overcome segregation, prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup conflict.
TL;DR: It is predicted that tearful people are seen as warmer, but also as less competent, and at the same time, tearful individuals would be more likely to be avoided in situations in which the observer needs assistance for an important task.
Abstract: Earlier research found that the mere sight of tears promotes the willingness to provide support to the person shedding the tears. Other research, however, found that deliberate responses towards tearful persons could be more negative as well. We think this is because tears have ambivalent effects on person perception: We predicted that tearful people are seen as warmer, but also as less competent. In three studies, we asked participants (total N = 1,042) to form their impression of someone based on a picture. The depicted person either displayed visible tears, or the tears had been digitally removed. Tearful individuals were perceived as being warmer, but also as less competent. In Study 2, we also added a measure of perceived sadness. Seeing a tearful face increased perceived sadness, and this (partially) explained the reduction in perceived competence of the target person. There was no such indirect effect of the tear on perceived warmth via perceived sadness. Study 3 found that people would be more likely to approach a tearful person to offer help than a tearless individual. At the same time, tearful individuals would be more likely to be avoided in situations in which the observer needs assistance for an important task.
TL;DR: Results showed that Symbolic Prejudice predicted increased well-being for both groups, but that this relationship was stronger for those living in highly unequal neighbourhoods, suggesting that it is precisely those who have the strongest need to justify inequality that accrue the most psychological benefit from subscribing to legitimizing ideologies.
Abstract: Ideologies that legitimise status hierarchies are associated with increased wellbeing. However, which ideologies have ‘palliative effects’, why they have these effects, and whether these effects extend to low-status groups remain unresolved issues. The present study aimed to address these issues by testing the effects of the ideology of Symbolic Prejudice on wellbeing among low- and high-status ethnic groups (4,519 Europeans and 1,091 Māori) nested within 1,437 regions in New Zealand. Results showed that Symbolic Prejudice predicted increased wellbeing for both groups, but that this relationship was stronger for those living in highly unequal neighbourhoods. This suggests that it is precisely those who have the strongest need to justify inequality that accrue the most psychological benefit from subscribing to legitimising ideologies.
TL;DR: In two experiments, the effect of (in)stability of status differences on the perception of perspective legitimacy and in-group threat among intermediate-status group members (i.e., nurses students or nurses) was analysed and indicated that in downwardly unstable condition, legitimacy was lower and in -group threat was higher than in stable condition.
Abstract: In two experiments, the effect of (in)stability of status differences on the perception of perspective legitimacy and in-group threat among intermediate-status group members (i.e., nurses students or nurses) was analysed. Both studies indicated that in downwardly unstable condition, legitimacy was lower and in-group threat was higher than in stable condition. In upwardly unstable condition, perceived legitimacy was higher and in-group threat was lower than in stable condition. The indirect effects of (in)stability via in-group threat on perceived legitimacy were significant.
TL;DR: Appeals to nature allow anti-marriage equality discourse adapt to a cultural context that proscribes outright disapproval of same-sex relationships, and the rhetorical dynamics of these natural claims are analyzed.
Abstract: In May 2015, Ireland held a referendum to legalize same-sex marriage, which passed with 62% of the vote. This study explores the role played by ‘appeals to nature’ in the referendum debate. Little research has investigated how biological attributions are spontaneously generated in real-world discourse regarding sexual rights. Through content analysis of newspaper and Twitter discussion of the referendum, this study aims to (1) establish the frequency of appeals to nature and their distribution across the various ‘sides’ of the debate and (2) analyse the forms these natural claims took and the rhetorical functions they fulfilled. Appeals to nature occurred in a minority of media discussion of the referendum (13.6% of newspaper articles and .3% of tweets). They were more prominent in material produced by anti-marriage equality commentators. Biological attributions predominantly occurred in relation to parenthood, traditional marriage, gender, and homosexuality. The article analyses the rhetorical dynamics of these natural claims and considers the implications for marriage equality research and activism. The analysis suggests appeals to nature allow anti-marriage equality discourse adapt to a cultural context that proscribes outright disapproval of same-sex relationships. However, it also queries whether previous research has overemphasized the significance of biological attributions in discourse about groups’ rights.
TL;DR: It is concluded that politicized identities are moralized identities that have a self-evaluative, but not strongly action-motivation, function.
Abstract: It is well known that politicized identities are especially good predictors of collective action, but very little is known about what these identities are. We propose that moral identity content plays a central role in politicized identities. We examined this among (un)politicized Americans in the 2012 US Presidential Elections. In a longitudinal community sample of US citizens (N = 760), we tracked personal (i.e., unique) and politicized (i.e., party activist) identity content: before, during, and after the election. We compared identity content of individuals who self-labelled as politicized (i.e., active party promoters) or unpoliticized (i.e., passive party supporters): (1) Democrats (n = 69) longitudinally and (2) Republicans (n = 69) cross-sectionally to examine three hypotheses: Moral identity content (e.g., trustworthy) would be more prominent in politicized (vs. unpoliticized) identities (H1); moral identity content overlapping politicized and personal identities predict seeing the self as politicized (H2) and engaging in party activism (H3). Results largely supported H1 and H2, but only weakly supported H3. We conclude that politicized identities are moralized identities that have a self-evaluative, but not strongly action-motivation, function. We discuss the implications of our findings and method for politicization research.
TL;DR: The present paper argues that in its own terms the 'rationalist turn' in socio-cognitive research on stereotyping presents an important challenge to the prejudice tradition, raising troubling questions about its conceptual and empirical foundations, and argues for the necessity of transcending those terms.
Abstract: Research on prejudice seeks to understand and transform inaccurate beliefs about others. Indeed, historically such research has offered a cautionary tale of the biased nature of human cognition. Recently, however, this view has been challenged by work defending the essential rationality of intergroup perception, a theme captured controversially in Jussim and colleagues’ (2009) research on the ‘unbearable accuracy of stereotyping’. The present paper argues that in its own terms the ‘rationalist turn’ in socio-cognitive research on stereotyping presents an important challenge to the prejudice tradition, raising troubling questions about its conceptual and empirical foundations. However, it also argues for the necessity of transcending those terms. By focusing on the correspondence between individual beliefs and the supposedly ‘objective’ characteristics of others, we neglect the historical and discursive practices through which the social realities that we ‘perceive’ are actively constructed and institutionalized. We mask their social origins, contested and perspectival nature, relativity, and relationship to wider structures of power. By implication, moving beyond the Allportian perspective that has dominated both the prejudice tradition and the emerging stereotype accuracy paradigm, we may now need to prioritize other kinds of questions. Reversing Allport's famous definition of prejudice, it may now be time to ask: How, and with what consequences, does ‘thinking ill of others’ become sufficiently warranted? How does such thinking become part of institutionalized relations of power and an accepted way of perceiving, evaluating and treating others? What should social psychologists be doing to challenge this state of affairs?
TL;DR: Discursive analysis of interview accounts of the nature and origins of xenophobic violence in South Africa shows how an ostensibly binary 'xenophobic' conflict between foreign and South African farm labourers was partially constituted through both groups' relationship with a third party who were neither victims nor perpetrators of the actual violence.
Abstract: Social psychologists typically conceptualize intergroup processes in terms of unequal pairs of social categories, such as an advantaged majority (e.g., 'Whites') and a disadvantaged minority (e.g., 'Blacks'). We argue that this two-group paradigm may obscure the workings of intergroup power by overlooking: (1) the unique dynamics of intergroup relations involving three or more groups, and (2) the way some two-group relationships function as strategic alliances that derive meaning from their location within a wider relational context. We develop this argument through a field study conducted in a grape-farming town in South Africa in 2009, focusing on an episode of xenophobic violence in which a Zimbabwean farm worker community was forcibly evicted from their homes by their South African neighbours. Discursive analysis of interview accounts of the nature and origins of this violence shows how an ostensibly binary 'xenophobic' conflict between foreign and South African farm labourers was partially constituted through both groups' relationship with a third party who were neither victims nor perpetrators of the actual violence, namely White farmers. We highlight some potential political consequences of defaulting to a two-group paradigm in intergroup conflict studies.
TL;DR: Across four studies, using life-or-death scenarios and more mundane ones, support for the idea that relationship obligations are important in moral attribution was found and it was suggested that violations of relationship obligations were perceived as moral as long as strong alternative justifications sanction them.
Abstract: Although impartiality and concern for the greater good are lauded by utilitarian philosophies, it was predicted that when values conflict, those who acted impartially rather than partially would be viewed as less moral. Across four studies, using life-or-death scenarios and more mundane ones, support for the idea that relationship obligations are important in moral attribution was found. In Studies 1-3, participants rated an impartial actor as less morally good and his or her action as less moral compared to a partial actor. Experimental and correlational evidence showed the effect was driven by inferences about an actor's capacity for empathy and compassion. In Study 4, the relationship obligation hypothesis was refined. The data suggested that violations of relationship obligations are perceived as moral as long as strong alternative justifications sanction them. Discussion centres on the importance of relationships in understanding moral attributions.
TL;DR: The Social Identity, Relative Deprivation, collective Efficacy (SIRDE) model of social change was used to examine the social psychological factors that should have influenced the voting choices of teenagers following the 2014 referendum on Scotland's independence and found that those with a stronger Scottish identity were more likely to hold separatist beliefs.
Abstract: Five hundred and seventy-three Scottish high school students were surveyed in the 2 months following the 2014 referendum on Scotland's independence. We used the Social Identity, Relative Deprivation, collective Efficacy (SIRDE) model of social change to examine the social psychological factors that should have influenced the voting choices of these teenagers. Structural equation modelling indicated that the SIRDE model fit the data and largely supported four sets of hypotheses derived from the model. Specifically, (1) those with a stronger Scottish identity, (2) those who felt frustrated and angry that Scottish people are discriminated against in British society, and (3) those who believed that Scottish people are not able to improve their relatively poor social conditions within the United Kingdom (a lack of collective efficacy) were more likely to hold separatist beliefs. Further, the relationships between identity, relative deprivation, and collective efficacy, on the one hand, and voting for Scotland's independence, on the other, were fully mediated by separatist social change beliefs. Consistent with the specificity of the model, neither political engagement nor personal relative deprivation were associated with voting choice, whereas the latter was associated with lower life satisfaction. The implications and limitations of these findings are discussed.
TL;DR: It is found consistent evidence that the positive association between relationship closeness and forgiveness may be explained by levels of post-transgression trust in the offender.
Abstract: Relationship closeness is one of the best predictors of forgiveness. But what is the process by which closeness encourages forgiveness? Across three studies, we employed a mix of experimental and correlational designs with prospective (N = 108), scenario (N = 71), and recall (N = 184) paradigms to test a multiple mediation model. We found consistent evidence that the positive association between relationship closeness and forgiveness may be explained by levels of post-transgression trust in the offender. Moreover, trust always played the main mediating role in the forgiveness process, even when taking into account several transgression-specific variables associated with both trust and forgiveness (e.g., apology). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of trust as a key indicator of forgiveness in close relationships.
TL;DR: Results suggest that individuals who endorse essentialist beliefs commonly associated with increased bias may benefit the most from cross-orientation contact and resultant decreases in intergroup anxiety.
Abstract: Sexual prejudice remains a widespread problem worldwide. Past research demonstrates that cross-orientation contact (contact between heterosexuals and lesbian/gay individuals) reduces sexual prejudice among heterosexuals, especially when contact is high quality. This study extends the literature on the relationship between cross-orientation contact and sexual prejudice and the mediation of this relationship by intergroup anxiety by examining the role of a key ideology – essentialist beliefs about homosexuality (immutability, universality, and discreteness beliefs). Findings indicate that the mediation of the relationship between cross-orientation contact and sexual prejudice by intergroup anxiety differs by level of essentialist beliefs. Additionally, the relationship between cross-orientation contact and sexual prejudice appears to be mediated by essentialist beliefs as well as intergroup anxiety. These results suggest that individuals who endorse essentialist beliefs commonly associated with increased bias (high discreteness and low immutability and universality beliefs) may benefit the most from cross-orientation contact and resultant decreases in intergroup anxiety. Further, decreasing essentialist beliefs generally associated with increased bias may be a mechanism through which cross-orientation contact reduces sexual prejudice. Implications and future directions are discussed.
TL;DR: The extent to which people objectify a sexualized woman or not is influenced by the availability of regulatory resources, a case that heretofore has been absent from the literature.
Abstract: Women are sexually objectified when viewed and treated by others as mere objects. Abundant research has examined the negative consequences of being the target of sexual objectification; however, limited attention has focused on the person doing the objectification. Our focus is on the agent and how self-regulatory resources influence sexual objectification. Consistent with prior evidence, we reasoned that people have a well-learned automatic response to objectify sexualized women, and as such, we expected objectifying a sexualized (vs. personalized) woman would deplete fewer regulatory resources than not objectifying her. Findings across three studies confirmed our expectations, demonstrating the extent to which people objectify a sexualized woman or not is influenced by the availability of regulatory resources, a case that heretofore has been absent from the literature. These patterns are discussed in the context of the sexual objectification and self-regulation literature.
TL;DR: This work advocates for a more reciprocal view in which mind and body work in conjunction, and reveals that thoughts can be understood and treated as if they were physical objects affecting evaluative processes by influencing elaboration and validation processes.
Abstract: Many objectification phenomena can be understood from a mind-body dualism perspective in which the more people focus on their bodies, the less they focus on their minds. Instead of viewing mind and body in opposition to each other, we advocate for a more reciprocal view in which mind and body work in conjunction. Consistent with an integrated mind-body approach, we begin our review by describing research on embodied persuasion revealing that focusing on our own body can reduce but also increase thinking (elaboration), as well as affecting the use of thoughts in forming evaluations (validation). Next, we extend our integrated view to a new domain and suggest that physical objects can influence thoughts and that one's thoughts can also be objectified. The first portion of this section focuses on research on enclothed cognition revealing that wearing physical objects can operate through the same processes of elaboration (increasing and decreasing thinking) and validation (increasing and decreasing thought usage) as the body. The second portion reveals that thoughts can be understood and treated as if they were physical objects affecting evaluative processes by influencing elaboration and validation processes. The final section provides some practical guidance relevant to campaigns designed to reduce the objectification of women and the infrahumanization of stigmatized groups.
TL;DR: This research investigates how two variables jointly predict the legitimization of inequality, namely the perceived magnitude of differences in economic outcomes and the way these differences are described, and highlights the importance of language for how people perceive and respond to inequality.
Abstract: Economic inequality is increasing both globally and in various countries around the world, and such inequality has been linked to worsening health, well-being, and social cohesion A key predictor for whether people take action against inequality is the extent to which they perceive it as illegitimate We investigate how two variables jointly predict the legitimization of inequality, namely the perceived magnitude of differences in economic outcomes and the way these differences are described Two experiments (total N = 190) tested whether framing the same difference in outcomes as an advantaged group having more or as a disadvantaged group having less moderates whether higher inequality is perceived as less legitimate Participants perceived bigger differences as less legitimate when these differences were framed as the disadvantaged group having less When they were framed as the advantaged group having more, the perceived magnitude of differences and legitimacy beliefs were unrelated Together, this research highlights the importance of language for how people perceive and respond to inequality
TL;DR: It is argued the key to retaining donors is understanding the interdependence between how blood donation is socially understood at the societal level of discourse and donor behaviour.
Abstract: Retaining blood donors is a cost-effective way of ensuring a safe blood supply, yet despite the plethora of research, only 5.1% of the eligible population in Australia donate blood and 40% of these do not make a second donation. We offer an alternative to traditional approaches by conceptualizing blood donation within social representations theory as socially derived symbolic knowledge with a specific focus on cognitive polyphasia and Guimelli's (1998) normative and functional dimensions. An online survey, completed by 703 residents from NSW Australia, comprised a blood donation word association task, Likert-style questions constructed from previous word association data and contextualized blood donation statements. Individual difference scaling analysis revealed all donor groups (including non-donors) associated blood donation with a few central, albeit contradictory ideas/beliefs. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis performed on a split data set of the Likert-style items reiterated this finding. Interpreted through Guimelli's dichotomy, all donor groups were aware of these contradictory normative and functional ideas/beliefs but when explicitly asked, it was the functional aspect that differentiated the groups. We argue the key to retaining donors is understanding the interdependence between how blood donation is socially understood at the societal level of discourse and donor behaviour. Translational strategies for recruitment and retention are discussed.
TL;DR: Variation in reports on three factors of modest behaviour was found across self-, parent, and friend perspectives, with significant differences across perspectives in self-effacement and other-enhancement, but not in avoidance of attention-seeking.
Abstract: Personality research has been focused on different aspects of the self, including traits, attitudes, beliefs, goals, and motivation. These aspects of the self are used to explain and predict social behaviour. The present research assessed generalized beliefs about the world, termed ‘social axioms’ (Leung et al., 2002), and examined their additive power over beliefs about the self in explaining a communal behaviour, that is, modesty. Three studies predicted reported modest behaviour among Mainland Chinese, Hong Kong Chinese, East Asian Canadians, and European Canadians. In addition to self-reports in Studies 1 and 2, informant reports from participants’ parents and close friends were collected in Study 3 to construct a behavioural composite after examining the resulting multitrait–multimethod matrix and intraclass correlations. World views (operationalized as social axioms) explained additional variance in modest behaviour over and above self-views (operationalized as self-efficacy, self-construals, and trait modesty) in both Eastern and Western cultures. Variation in reports on three factors of modest behaviour was found across self-, parent, and friend perspectives, with significant differences across perspectives in self-effacement and other-enhancement, but not in avoidance of attention-seeking.
TL;DR: It is suggested that apologies reinforce positive sociopolitical climate, and that, personal experience of victimization is an important factor determining these effects.
Abstract: This study examined perceptions of institutional apologies related to past political violence and socio-emotional climate among victims and non-victims in Argentina (n = 518), Chile (n = 1,278), and Paraguay (n = 1,172) based on quasi-representative samples The perceptions of apology as sincere and efficient in improving intergroup relations were associated with a positive socio-emotional climate across the three nations Victims evaluated apologies more positively and perceived a more positive socio-emotional climate compared to non-victims in Paraguay and Argentina, whereas the opposite was true in Chile where the government opposed the victims' leftist political orientation The evaluations of apologies also mediated the effects of exposure to violence on the perception of socio-emotional climate, but these effects were moderated by the context Together, these findings suggest that apologies reinforce positive sociopolitical climate, and that, personal experience of victimization is an important factor determining these effects