Perceptions of immigrants: Modifying the attitudes of individuals higher in social dominance orientation

Previous research has demonstrated that directly challenging people\u27s beliefs about immigrants may result in even stronger anti-immigration attitudes, especially among those higher in social dominance orientation (SDO). In addition, inducing the perception that immigrants are part of a larger ingroup does not modify immigration attitudes. In three studies, the article explores conditions that can reduce prejudice toward immigrants among those high in SDO. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that focusing attention on group identity maintains prejudice, whereas focusing attention on others reduces prejudice among those higher in SDO. Study 3 extends the findings of the first two studies by demonstrating that focusing attention on others in a way that induces perception of similarity with immigrants maintains negative attitudes toward immigrants, whereas focusing on individual values reduces prejudice among those higher in SDO. Implications for how prejudice could be reduced among those high in SDO through de-emphasis on group identity are discussed

Weighing waiting

People have been shown to delay decision making to wait for missing noninstrumental attribute information --- information that would not have altered their decision if known at the outset --- with this delay originally attributed to uncertainty obscuring one's true preference (Bastardi and Shafir, 1998). To test this account, relative to an alternative that delay arises from low confidence in one's preference (Tykocinski and Ruffle, 2003), we manipulated information certainty and the magnitude of a penalty for delay, the latter intended to reduce the influence of easily resolved sources of delay and to magnify any influence of uncertainty. Contrary to expectations, the results were largely inconsistent with the uncertainty account in that, under a low penalty, delay did not depend on information certainty; and, under a high penalty, delay rate was actually much lower when information was uncertain. To explain the latter, we propose that people use a strategy for resolving choice under uncertainty that does not require establishing a confident preference for each value of the missing information. These findings are related to others in which choice difficulty has been found to be a major source of delay

Immunizing against Prejudice: Effects of Disease Protection on Attitudes toward out-Groups

Contemporary interpersonal biases are partially derived from psychological mechanisms that evolved to protect people against the threat of contagious disease. This behavioral immune system effectively promotes disease avoidance but also results in an overgeneralized prejudice toward people who are not legitimate carriers of disease. In three studies, we tested whether experiences with two modern forms of disease protection (vaccination and hand washing) attenuate the relationship between concerns about disease and prejudice against out-groups. Study 1 demonstrated that when threatened with disease, vaccinated participants exhibited less prejudice toward immigrants than unvaccinated participants did. In Study 2, we found that framing vaccination messages in terms of immunity eliminated the relationship between chronic germ aversion and prejudice. In Study 3, we directly manipulated participants’ protection from disease by having some participants wash their hands and found that this intervention significantly influenced participants’ perceptions of out-group members. Our research suggests that public-health interventions can benefit society in areas beyond immediate health-related domains by informing novel, modern remedies for prejudice

Regulatory focus moderates the social performance of individuals who conceal a stigmatized identity

People often choose to hide a stigmatized identity to avoid bias. However, hiding stigma can disrupt social interactions. We considered whether regulatory focus qualifies the social effects of hiding stigma by examining interactions in which stigmatized participants concealed a devalued identity from non-stigmatized partners. In the Prevention Focus condition, stigmatized participants were instructed to prevent a negative impression by concealing the identity; in the Promotion Focus condition, they were instructed to promote a positive impression by concealing the identity; in the Control condition, they were simply asked to conceal the identity. Both non-stigmatized partners and independent raters rated the interactions more positively in the Promotion Focus condition. Thus, promotion focus is interpersonally beneficial for individuals who conceal a devalued identity