White Look-Alikes: Mainstream Culture Adoption Makes Immigrants "Look" Phenotypically White

White Americans generally equate "being American" with "being White." In six studies, we demonstrate that White Americans perceive immigrants who adopt American mainstream culture as racially White and, reciprocally, perceive White-looking immigrants as assimilating more. In Studies 1 and 2, participants visually represented immigrants who adopted U.S. culture by acculturating to mainstream American culture or by holding a common or dual identity as more phenotypically White and less stereotypic in appearance. In Studies 3 and 4, these processes explained why participants were less likely to racially profile immigrants but also regarded them as less qualified for integration support. In Study 5, participants perceived light skin to fit to high U.S. culture adoption and dark skin to low U.S. culture adoption. Finally, in Study 6, light-skinned immigrants were seen as less threatening because they were perceived as assimilating more. Immigrants’ acculturation orientation and appearance interact and shape how they are evaluated

Social Psychology and Neuroscience: Strange Bedfellows or a Healthy Marriage?

In this paper, we assess what neuroscience theory and method have contributed to the study of group processes and intergroup relations and what we see as potential future contributions to the discipline. We briefly review the historical relation between neuroscience and social psychology, identify issues that may limit the value of neuroscience to the study of group processes and relations, and then argue that social neuroscience indeed holds significant promise for understanding many key elements of group processes and intergroup relations. Both the potential problems and the potential benefits of bridging neuroscience and social psychology are considered in terms of theoretical considerations, empirical issues, and practical implications. We conclude that, although not all group phenomena may be reducible to neural activity and pathways, there are significant benefits to social psychology by having an even broader multidisciplinary orientation within social psychology, one that incorporates the complementary perspectives, techniques, and knowledge of neuroscience

The Impact of Counterstereotypic Training and Related Correction Processes on the Application of Stereotypes

The present research examined the impact of counterstereotypic training on the application of stereotypes and the moderating effects of correction on these processes. As expected, when receiving no training, participants chose male over female candidates for a supervisory position and rated both male and female candidates as more gender stereotypic. After receiving extensive counterstereotypic association training, however, participants no longer preferred male over female job candidates and no longer attributed stereotypic traits to a greater extent. These latter results, however, were only found after participants had an opportunity to correct for perceived influences on an initial task. These findings provide evidence for the potential moderating effects of correction processes on the success of strategies aimed at decreasing intergroup biases

Social psychological perspectives on the legitimation of social inequality: Past, present and future

This introductory article for the special issue entitled “Social Psychological Perspectives on the Legitimation of Social Inequality” reviews various theoretical frameworks applied to the study of this topic. Legitimation of social inequality occurs through individual-level, group-level, and system-level processes. In societies in which egalitarianism and fairness are core cultural values, legitimation permits differential treatment of people on the basis of their social group memberships while allowing people to maintain positive self-images, to reinforce group-based hierarchies and to justify a status quo that systematically benefits some individuals and groups more than others. In this article, we focus on three major theoretical perspectives in social psychology that have inspired most of the research featured in this special issue, and we offer a general overview of the articles to follow, expanding upon their connections to one another and to the theme of the issue. We highlight the promise of research on legitimation of social inequality not only for developing a deeper and more integrative theoretical understanding of intergroup relations but also for guiding interventions to achieve social equality in practic

Evaluations of witnesses' responses to bias: Universalism - Concern and the costs of confrontation

Highlights - We investigated how majority-group witnesses' responses to bias are evaluated. - Confronting is perceived to be a more appropriate response than not confronting. - The exception is when the personal costs of confronting are high. - In this case, evaluations of responses to bias are moderated by observers' values.Abstract The present research examined how situational and individual difference factors influence majority-group observers' evaluations of witnesses' responses to an incident of bias. In Study 1, participants learned of a situation in which a White person applying for a job he did or did not need (high vs. low cost of confrontation) heard his interviewer make a racist comment, which the White person did or did not confront. Non-confrontation was evaluated as less appropriate than confrontation when the costs of confronting were low, but not when costs were high, revealing that in a high cost situation the appropriate response to bias is more ambiguous. Study 2 focused on this high cost situation to show that evaluations of another person's responses to bias depend on individual differences in the observer's values. Observers who scored low on Universalism–Concern evaluated another person's non-confrontation as appropriate as confrontation, but participants who scored high on Universalism–Concern perceived non-confrontation as less appropriate. Considering how responses to bias are assessed helps illuminate normative processes that affect confrontations of bias against outgroups, contributing to the knowledge of the processes that may allow biases to persist

Primes and Consequences: A Systematic Review of Meritocracy in Intergroup Relations

Psychological interest in Meritocracy as an important social norm regulating most of the western democratic societies has significantly increased over the years. However, the way Meritocracy has been conceptualized and operationalized in experimental studies has advanced in significant ways. As a result, a variety of paradigms arose to understand the social consequences of Meritocracy for intergroup relations; in particular, to understand the adverse consequences of Meritocracy for disadvantaged group members. The present research seeks to understand whether there is strong support for the idea that (manipulated) Meritocracy disproportionally affects members of low status groups, and also to understand which specific components of this norm have been successfully manipulated and to what consequences. And this is particularly important given the recent call for greater transparency in how the success of experimental manipulations is reported. Thus, we carried out a systematic review examining the content of different prime tasks, summarizing prime manipulation checks' effectiveness, and analyzing whether priming Meritocracy leads to less favorable orientations toward low status groups. Results across 33 studies revealed that despite the existing differences in the components highlighted, the salience of any of the Meritocracy dimensions facilitates the use of internal causal attributions, negative evaluations and stereotyping toward low status groups, affecting negatively decisions involving low-status group members, particularly in specific domains, as organizational contexts. These results carry both practical and theoretical implications for future research on the role of Meritocracy in intergroup settings.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Mobilizing or sedative effects? A narrative review of the association between intergroup contact and collective action among advantaged and disadvantaged groups

In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects

Intergroup relations and health disparities: A social psychological perspective

Objective: This article considers how the social psychology of intergroup processes helps to explain the presence and persistence of health disparities between members of socially advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Method: Social psychological theory and research on intergroup relations, including prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping, stigma, prejudice concerns, social identity threat, and the dynamics of intergroup interactions, is reviewed and applied to understand group disparities in health and health care. Potential directions for future research are considered. Results: Key features of group relations and dynamics, including social categorization, social hierarchy, and the structural positions of groups along dimensions of perceived warmth and competence, influence how members of high status groups perceive, feel about, and behave toward members of low status groups, how members of low status groups construe and cope with their situation, and how members of high and low status groups interact with each other. These intergroup processes, in turn, contribute to health disparities by leading to differential exposure to and experiences of chronic and acute stress, different health behaviors, and different quality of health care experienced by members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Within each of these pathways, social psychological theory and research identifies mediating mechanisms, moderating factors, and individual differences that can affect health. Conclusions: A social psychological perspective illuminates the intergroup, interpersonal, and intrapersonal processes by which structural circumstances which differ between groups for historical, political, and economic reasons can lead to group differences in health

Reducing STEM gender bias with VIDS (video interventions for diversity in STEM)

Gender biases contribute to the underrepresentation of women in STEM. In response, the scientific community has called for methods to reduce bias, but few validated interventions exist. Thus, an interdisciplinary group of researchers and filmmakers partnered to create VIDS (Video Interventions for Diversity in STEM), which are short videos that expose participants to empirical findings from published gender bias research in 1 of 3 conditions. One condition illustrated findings using narratives (compelling stories), and the second condition presented the same results using expert interviews (straightforward facts). A hybrid condition included both narrative and expert interview videos. Results of two experiments revealed that relative to controls, VIDS successfully reduced gender bias and increased awareness of gender bias, positive attitudes toward women in STEM, anger, empathy, and intentions to engage in behaviors that promote gender parity in STEM. The narratives were particularly impactful for emotions, while the expert interviews most strongly impacted awareness and attitudes. The hybrid condition reflected the strengths of both the narratives and expert interviews (though effects were sometimes slightly weaker than the other conditions). VIDS produced substantial immediate effects among both men and women in the general population and STEM faculty, and effects largely persisted at follow-up. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved