Epistemic constraint and teaching style

An experimental study investigated the influence of informational dependence on information appropriation as a function of epistemic authority's styles. In a 2×2 design, university students were informed that acknowledging epistemic dependence was related either to academic success or to academic failure, and were exposed to controversial information from an epistemic authority that used either an authoritarian or a democratic style. The main dependent variable was the extent to which participants appropriated the controversial information. Firstly the results showed that students were more inclined to admit that their own academic competence depended on the information delivered by the teachers when epistemic dependence was related to success rather than to failure. Secondly, the admittance of dependence had a different impact on information appropriation according to the authority's style. Admittance increased appropriation under a democratic style whereas it decreased appropriation under an authoritarian styl

Gender-Role's Attitude, Perceived Similarity, and Sexual Prejudice against Gay Men

Two hundred and twenty-six heterosexual participants (115 women and 111 men) were asked to indicate their attitude toward gender-roles, their perceived similarities with gay men, and their attitude toward gay men (i.e., sexual prejudice). As expected, male participants showed more sexual prejudice than female participants, and perceived dissimilarities were related to a greater sexual prejudice. Support for gender-roles was related to sexual prejudice for male participants, but not for female participants. More interestingly, the three-way interaction suggested that perceived similarities moderated the link between gender-roles and sexual prejudice among heterosexual men, but not among heterosexual women. Attitude in favor of traditional gender-roles was related to sexual prejudice for male participants who perceived gay men as different, but not for those who perceived gay men as similar. These findings are discussed in terms of the defensive function of men's attitude toward homosexuality as a result of threat to masculinit

Perceived men’s feminization and attitudes toward homosexuality: Heterosexual men’s reactions to the decline of the anti-femininity norm of masculinity

One of the central dimensions of traditional masculinity is men’s renunciation of the feminine (i.e., the anti-femininity norm), and men’s endorsement of this norm constitutes one of the strongest predictors of negative attitudes toward homosexuality. However, egalitarian societies are undergoing a significant change: Gendered roles, stereotypes, and norms are evolving. Accordingly, many believe that men are becoming more feminine than before, and this change might have consequential effects. Across two studies conducted in Western countries, we investigated heterosexual men’s reaction to the perceived decline of the anti-femininity norm of masculinity on their attitudes toward homosexuality. The results consistently showed that perceived men’s feminization increased negative attitudes toward homosexuality (Study 1, n = 220), specifically among those participants who most strongly endorsed the anti-femininity norm (Study 2, n = 156). Furthermore, this pattern was driven by participants’ discomfort with homosexuality rather than by their motivation to reinstate the challenged gender dichotomy. We discuss the relevance of these findings for both the gender and sexual prejudice literatures

El efecto del estatus de la fuente de influencia en función de la amenaza de la identidad y de la interdependencia de las posiciones

This experimental study evaluated the influence on the intention to stop smoking with regard to three factors: the status of the source (expert vs. non-expert); the threat that antismoking arguments pose to the identity of the smoker (low vs. high) and the interdependence established between the points of view (low vs. high). The main dependent variables were the level of disagreement with the antismoking arguments and the influence on the intention to stop. The defensive motivation of the smoker was assessed on the basis of their intention to criticize antismoking arguments and thenature of the criticism (in favour or against smoking). The results show that when the threat to identity and interdependence are low, the expert source of influence has a greater effect than the non-expert source, and the defensive motivation of the smoker is lower. When the threat to identityand interdependence are high, the lower defensive motivation and the greater influence exerted by the high status source disappear. These results confirm the hypothesis that the greater influence habitually attributed to high status sources may disappear in contexts in which the identity of the target is deeply involved.Este estudio experimental analiza la influencia sobre la intención de dejar de fumar de los fumadores en función de tres factores: el estatus de la fuente (experto vs. no-experto), la amenaza que introduce su discurso para la identidad del fumador (baja vs. alta), y la interdependenciaque se establece entre los puntos de vista (baja vs. alta). Las principales variables dependientes son el grado de desacuerdo con los argumentos antitabaco y la influencia sobre la intención de dejar de fumar. Tarnbién se ha medido la motivación defensiva del fumador a partir de la intención que tiene de criticar los argumentos antitabaco y de la valencia de su crítica (favorable o desfavorable al consumo de tabaco). Los resultados muestran que cuando la amenaza y la interdependencia son bajas, la fuente experta obtiene una mayor influencia que la fuente no-experta, y la motivación defensiva del fumador es menor ante aquella que ante ésta.Cuando la amenaza o la interdependencia son altas, la menor motivación defensiva y la mayor influencia que obtenia la fuente experta respecto a la fuente no-experta desaparecen. Estos resultados confirman la hipótesis de que la mayor influencia que habitualmente se atribuye a las fuentes dealto estatus puede desaparecer en contextos que presenten una fuerte implicación para la identidad del blanco

Editorial: Hera, Athena and Aphrodite, the Goddesses who did Not Want to Solve Conflict

This Editorial introduces the Special Collection “Conflicts in social influence: A Festschrift in honour of Gabriel Mugny”, which celebrates Gabriel Mugny’s pioneer role in developing a social psychological understanding of the structuring role of conflict. The article outlines Gabriel Mugny's contribution to social psychology in general, and to social development and minority influence in particular. It also presents the articles included in the Special Collection

Perceived Similarity With Gay Men Mediates the Effect of Antifemininity on Heterosexual Men’s Antigay Prejudice

This research examined the hypothesis that heterosexual men’s motivation to differentiate themselves from gay men mediates the relationship between the antifemininity norm of masculinity and antigay prejudice. We assessed masculinity through three concepts: status, thoughness, and antifemininity. Participants then reported their perceived similarity with gay men and their antigay prejudice. The results showed that antifemininity was the best predictor of both perceived similarity and antigay prejudice: The more people endorsed the antifemininity norm, the more they perceived themselves as dissimilar from gay men and showed antigay prejudice. More important, perceived similarity mediated the effect of antifemininity on antigay prejudice. These findings provide direct evidence for the link between masculinity and the motivation to differentiate oneself from gay men, and they suggest that antigay prejudice accomplishes the identity function of maintaining unambiguous gender boundaries

In the name of democracy : the value of democracy explains leniency towards wrongdoings as a function of group political organization

According to the "democracy-as-value" hypothesis, democracy has become an ideological belief system providing social value to democratic individuals, groups and institutions, granting legitimacy to their actions (even if dishonest or violent), and protecting them from consecutive punishments. The present research investigates the extent to which this legitimizing process is based on the individual endorsement of democratic principles. Across four experiments, following the misdeed of a (few) group member(s), respondents who valued democratic group organization and democracy in general expressed more lenient retributive justice judgments towards democratic (as compared with nondemocratic) offender groups. These findings shed light on the ways in which democratic ideology infuses justice judgments

Heterogeneity of Ingroup Identity and Anti-Immigrant Prejudice: The Moderating Role of RWA and Outgroup Homogeneity

Past research has shown that a heterogeneous (vs. homogeneous) ingroup identity can lead to more outgroup derogation amongst people high on conservative values (Roccas and Amit, 2011) and group identification (Falomir-Pichastor and Frederic, 2013). In three studies we tested the hypotheses that a heterogeneous ingroup identity leads to greater derogation towards immigrants among nationals’ high on RWA, and when immigrants constitute a homogeneous (vs. heterogeneous) outgroup. In all studies we assessed RWA. We manipulated the heterogeneity (vs. homogeneity) of ingroup identity in Studies 1–2 and kept the heterogeneous condition constant in Study 3, we also manipulated outgroup heterogeneity (vs. homogeneity) in Studies 2–3. Finally, outgroup derogation was assessed through two different prejudice scales (Studies 1–2) and an intergroup discrimination scale. Results provided consistent evidence in support of the hypotheses. We discuss the implications of these findings regarding social identity theory and intergroup relations

Perceived Legitimacy of Collective Punishment as a Function of Democratic versus Non-Democratic Group Structure

The present research tested the hypothesis that the political structure of groups moderates the perceived legitimacy of collective punishment. Participants read scenarios of fictitious summer camps in which unidentified members of one group aggressed members of another group. The political structure of both the offender and the victim groups was described as either egalitarian or hierarchical (defined with democratic or non-democratic decision-making procedures). Perceived legitimacy of collective punishment directed against all members of the offender group was assessed by measuring the acceptability of sanctions administered by an authority and of revenge actions inflicted by members of the victim group. Results showed that collective punishment was evaluated as less legitimate when the offender group was egalitarian and the victim group was hierarchical. Supplementary analyses showed that this effect was mediated by the higher value attributed to members of the offender egalitarian group when the victim group was hierarchical

Collective punishment depends on collective responsibility and political organization of the target group

What factors determine the willingness to inflict collective punishment upon a group for a misdeed committed by individual group members? This research investigates the effect of collective responsibility shared among group members and the moderating effect of the group's political organization (democratic vs. nondemocratic). Hypothesizing that moral accountability should be greater for democratic offender groups compared to nondemocratic groups, five experiments showed that the positive effect of collective responsibility on support for collective punishment (Experiment 1) was stronger for democratic groups than for nondemocratic groups (Experiments 2-5). A sixth experiment revealed that the moral and social value ascribed to democracy led to higher expectations towards democratic groups, resulting in negative perceptions of the democratic offender group and ultimately in increased collective punishment. The results are discussed in terms of defense strategies of democratic values