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

National gender equality and sex differences in Machiavellianism across countries

Machiavellianism is characterized by a focus on self-interest and a desire to achieve personal goals at any cost. Research consistently found that, on average, men score higher on Machiavellianism than women. However, the factors contributing to this sex difference remain unclear. The present research examined whether sex differences in Machiavellianism vary across countries and whether national levels of gender inequality are related to these differences. We analyzed Machiavellianism scores of 56,936 adults across 48 countries. We operationalized gender inequality at national level using two indices (the Gender Inequality Index and the Global Gender Gap Index) and assessed Machiavellianism at the individual level using the MACH-IV scale. Multilevel modeling indicated that men scored higher in Machiavellianism than women, with a larger sex difference in countries with higher levels of gender equality, irrespective of the gender inequality index used. This pattern emerged because women’s MACH-IV scores decreased as national gender equality increased, whereas men’s scores remained stable. We discuss the relevance of these findings for the literature on sex differences in personality and gender equality paradox

Inclusive social norms and nationals' positive intergroup orientations toward refugees: The moderating role of initial prejudice and intergroup contact

Research on the interplay between inclusive norms and intergroup contact on improving intergroup orientations has yielded conflicting results, suggesting either that an experience of personal contact is necessary to have a positive effect of inclusive norms or that such personal experience is not always necessary. To clarify this issue, across four studies ( N = 835), we investigated the influence of inclusive norms on positive intergroup orientations as a function of personal experiences of intergroup contact. Study 1 demonstrated that inclusive norms are more strongly correlated with experiences of personal contact with outgroups with whom opportunities of contact are more (i.e., immigrants) than less (i.e., refugees) frequent. Study 2 provided experimental evidence for this finding showing that inclusive norms increase prejudiced nationals’ willingness to engage in future contact with immigrants but not with refugees, suggesting that conformity to inclusive norms depends on varying contact opportunities with the outgroups. Studies 3 and 4 confirmed that prejudiced nationals conformed to inclusive norms specifically when experienced positive contact with a refugee (experimentally induced with the imagined contact paradigm), compared with no contact (Study 3) or negative contact (Study 4). We discuss the implications of these findings for research on intergroup contact, social influence, and intergroup relations.</p

Do All Lives Have the Same Value? Support for International Military Interventions as a Function of Political System and Public Opinion of the Target States

This research examined the support for international military interventions as a function of the political system and the public opinion of the target country. In two experiments, we informed participants about a possible military intervention by the international community towards a sovereign country whose government planned to use military force against a secessionist region. They were then asked whether they would support this intervention whilst being reminded that it would cause civilian deaths. The democratic or nondemocratic political system of the target country was experimentally manipulated, and the population support for its belligerent government policy was either assessed (Experiment 1) or manipulated (Experiment 2). Results showed greater support for the intervention when the target country was nondemocratic, as compared to the democratic and the control conditions, but only when its population supported the belligerent government policy. Support for the external intervention was low when the target country was democratic, irrespective of national public opinion. These findings provide support for the democracy-as-value hypothesis applied to international military interventions, and suggest that civilian deaths (collateral damage) are more acceptable when nondemocratic populations support their government's belligerent policy

Compensation and consistency effects in proenvironmental behaviour: The moderating role of majority and minority support for proenvironmental values

Western citizens perceive human behaviour as a significant cause of climate change and increasingly adopt proenvironmental behaviours. However, such positively connoted behaviours can either increase (consistency) or decrease (compensation) the probability that one acts in a similar way in the future. Drawing from social influence and social identity literatures, we propose that numerical support for proenvironmental values (majority vs. minority) moderates the effect of past behaviour on intention to adopt proenvironmental behaviour. Across three studies (N = 500), past behaviour, either measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Studies 2 and 3) interacted with numerical support, manipulated (Studies 1 and 2) or measured (Study 3), to predict proenvironmental intention and behaviour. Results showed that majority support results in balancing dynamics, whereas minority support results in a consistency effect. These findings highlight the importance of the normative context for proenvironmental behaviour adoption and offer leads for developing behaviour change strategies

How many migrants are people willing to welcome into their country? The effect of numerical anchoring on migrants’ acceptance

How many migrants are people willing to welcome into their country? Relying on a classical anchoring paradigm, we investigated the effect of numerical anchors reported in communication media echoing political positions regarding how many migrants should be accepted in one country. Four studies (N = 601) tested the effect of a numerical anchor within a politician’s statement on the number of migrants that people think should be accepted in their home country. Across studies, we found a strong anchor effect (average Cohen’s d = 1.40, 95% CI [1.18, 1.63]): participants were willing to accept a higher (vs. lower) number of migrants following a high (vs. low) anchor. Importantly, the effect occurred among both left wing‐ and right wing oriented participants, although being slightly smaller among the latter (Study 3). Moreover, it was independent from the political party serving as the source for the anchors as well as participants’ attitude toward these political parties (Study 4). Relevance of the present findings for persuasion and political decision‐making literature is discussed