Search

We experimentally investigated psychological responses of bystanders to violations of moral codes to find out why divinity violations may be more effective for gaining victimhood status than autonomy violations in real-world intergroup conflicts. In particular, we considered how anger versus disgust responses are differentially invoked by violations of autonomy versus divinity ethics. Two experiments compared autonomy versus divinity violations in interaction with two other parameters known to produce different effects: level of harm (Experiment 1) and differential intergroup power (Experiment 2). Overall, we found support for the proposed dissociation in anger versus disgust responses to autonomy versus divinity violations in a way that the anger responses to autonomy violations were amplified but disgust responses to divinity violations were not affected when the moral violation was more harmful and the perpetrator was more powerful than the victim. We discuss the implications of the cognitive processes involved in considering autonomy versus divinity violations, and the functionality for parties to intergroup conflict of accusing the opponent of divinity violations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inspired by the popular Arab protests against oppressive regimes that began in 2010, people around the world protested in sympathy with the Arab peoples. The present research draws on two major theories of intergroup relations to develop an initial integrative model of sympathetic collective action. We incorporate social dominance theory’s (SDT) concept of (rejectionist) legitimizing myths with the solidarity and emotional mediation concept of the social identity model of collective action (SIMCA) to understand motivations for sympathetic collective action among bystanders. Using data from 12 nations (N = 1,480), we tested three models: (a) SIMCA (i.e., solidarity, anger, and efficacy), (b) a social dominance theory model of collective action (i.e., social dominance orientation and ideologies concerning Arab competence), and (c) an integrated model of sympathetic collective action combining both theories. Results find the greatest support for an integrated model of collective action. Discussion focuses on theoretical pluralism and suggestions for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a stratified random sampling procedure, we interviewed 200 residents of Beirut, Lebanon and surrounding areas in order to test predictions of a dual process model of prejudice. We examined the role of social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) in predicting prejudice toward Americans, mediating the relationships between personality dimensions and prejudice, and predicting intergroup emotions indirectly through intergroup threat perceptions. Three main findings emerged. First, whereas RWA was a positive predictor of prejudice toward Americans, SDO was a negative predictor. Second, RWA mediated a positive relationship between a social conforming personality and prejudice toward Americans; SDO mediated a negative relationship between a tough-minded personality and prejudice. Third, value threat perceptions mediated a positive relationship between RWA and feelings of disgust toward Americans; economic threat perceptions mediated a negative relationship between SDO and anger toward Americans. Applications and extensions of the dual process model in non-Western populations are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) predictions were examined in light of ethnocentrism and intergroup conflict. An experiment conducted at the outset of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US, UK and their allies explored American and British participants' preferences for certain versus uncertain gains and losses concerning Iraqi, American, and British lives. In four conditions, participants showed the usual loss-aversion when deciding between options that only affected Iraqi lives. Six other conditions examined choices between the lives of Americans, Britons, or Iraqis. Strong ethnocentric biases rather than risk-aversion occurred. Participants preferred policies that prioritized their own nationals' and allies' lives over Iraqi lives. War-related and other attitudes corresponded to participants' decisions. The need to expand prospect theory to address intergroup relations is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eighty two participants read about either a gay male target who felt discomfort in a straight bar or a straight male target who felt discomfort in a gay bar. Participants explained the discomfort, rated the target's actions, and produced counterfactuals that `undid' his discomfort. Explanations of the targets' discomfort focused on gayness more than on straightness, suggesting that they were affected by heterocentric norms. The straight target's expressions of discomfort were perceived as more appropriate than the gay target's, particularly among participants with strong anti-gay attitudes. Counterfactuals which undid these events also suggested implicit inequities in the perceived norms for interactions between gay and straight persons. These results are explained in terms of ambivalence between support for egalitarianism and anti-gay affect and the continued operation of heterocentric norms that limit the degree to which egalitarianism translates into equal treatment of persons of all sexual orientations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Health disparities between groups remain even after accounting for established causes such as structural and economic factors. The present research tested, for the first time, whether multiple social categorization processes can explain enhanced support for immigrant health (measured by respondents’ behavioral intention to support immigrants’ vaccination against A H1N1 disease by cutting regional public funds). Moreover, the mediating role of individualization and the moderating role of social identity complexity were tested. Findings showed that multiple versus single categorization of immigrants lead to support their right to health and confirmed the moderated mediation hypothesis. The potential in developing this sort of social cognitive intervention to address health disparities is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined various group identifications among Lebanese Muslims and Christians after the events of September 11 2001 and how these identifications related to social dominance orientation (SDO) and support for violence against the West. We expected stronger identification with less powerful groups to be associated with lower SDO (i.e. greater desires for group equality), and stronger support for terrorist organizations and violent acts against powerful nations. Consistent with these expectations, we found that SDO related negatively to identification with Arabs, and this group identification related positively to support for terrorist organizations and feelings that the September 11 attack was justified. Furthermore, we found that the direct negative effect of SDO on support for terrorism was mediated by Arab identification. Efforts to reduce conflict are discussed in terms of recognizing the anti-dominance elements of Arab identification in Lebanon, and the powerful implications that this subordinate group identification has for continued support of terrorist organizations and violence against the West. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a random sample of 383 Muslims and Christians in Lebanon and Syria, we explored the degree of public support for two distinct kinds of asymmetric violence—“fundamentalist violence” and “resistance violence”—against the United States as a function of three explanatory narratives: a clash of cultures narrative, social identity/self-categorization theory, and a counterdominance perspective. Multiple regression analyses showed that the factors most closely associated with support of asymmetric violence among Arab populations was very much dependent upon the type of asymmetric violence. Among both Christians and Muslims, the results showed that perceived incompatibility between Arab and American cultures was the best predictor of support for fundamentalist violence, while perceived American domination of the Arab world was the distinctly strongest predictor of support for resistance violence. The theoretical and practical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study examines perceived status differences among ethnic groups. Consistent with a group dominance perspective, three samples of American university students revealed that perceived ethnic status differences increased to the extent that individuals had low ethnic status, perceived their society to be unfair, and were lower on social dominance orientation. In addition, social dominance orientation moderated the relationship between perceived status differences and perceived societal fairness such that perceived unfairness was associated with perceived status differences only for those low on social dominance orientation. Discussion suggests that variability in perceived status differences stems from group position, and that understanding the origins of individuals' perceptions of status differences may be a basic and necessary step to improve intergroup relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ïVladimir's choice' refers to the tendency for people to favor the ingroup relative to the outgroup-even when doing so requires that people sacrifice ingroup profits in absolute terms. We investigated correlates of this tendency by asking a sample of White undergraduates to complete an allocation task using a resource allocation matrix. While there was a slight tendency for Vladimir's choice to increase with increasing levels of ethnic identification, this tendency disappeared when other factors were considered. Consistent with realistic group conflict theory and social dominance theory, the tendency to make Vladimir's choice increased with increasing levels of perceived intergroup competition and social dominance orientation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]