Search

A growing literature demonstrates reluctant giving: Many people who voluntarily give to charity no longer do so when they have an excuse not to give. The mechanisms of reluctance, however, remain unclear. Consistent with this literature, we found that injecting attributional ambiguity into a real charitable decision significantly reduces donations. Participants in our studies (N = 2147) faced a binary choice between options for distributing money between themselves and a charity, with one option giving more to a charity and the other leaving more for themselves. Borrowing from a classic attributional ambiguity paradigm, we manipulated whether the charity involved was the same for both options or different, giving participants the possible excuse of keeping more money due to preferring one charity over another. Participants indeed kept more for themselves when there were two different charities, regardless of which charity was associated with the more self-beneficial option, ostensibly revealing a hidden preference for selfishness. Using incentive compatible elications, we found no evidence that participants used the excuse of preferring one charity to another to justify their choices. Instead, we find that attributional ambiguity weakened perceptions that there is a norm against keeping more money in the task, both among decision makers and disinterested third parties. We conclude that attributional ambiguity lowers donations by relieving internalized social pressure to give. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social group identity plays a central role in political polarization and inter-party conflict. Here, we use ambiguously valenced faces to measure bias in the processing of political ingroup and outgroup faces, while also accounting for inter-party differences in judgments of emotion at baseline. Participants identifying as Democrats and Republicans judged happy, angry, and surprised faces as positive or negative. Whereas happy and angry faces convey positive and negative valence respectively, surprised faces are ambiguous in that they readily convey positive and negative valence. Thus, surprise is a useful tool for characterizing valence bias (i.e., the tendency to judge ambiguous stimuli as negative). Face stimuli were assigned to the participants' political ingroup or outgroup, or a third group with an unspecified affiliation (baseline). We found a significant interaction of facial expression and group membership, such that outgroup faces were judged more negatively than ingroup and baseline, but only for surprise. There was also an interaction of facial expression and political affiliation, with Republicans judging surprise more negatively than Democrats across all group conditions. However, we did not find evidence for party differences in outgroup negativity. Our findings demonstrate the utility of judgments of surprised faces as a measure of intergroup bias, and reinforce the importance of outgroup negativity (relative to ingroup positivity) for explaining inter-party biases. • Republicans and Democrats viewed emotional faces of ingroup and outgroup members. • Emotional ambiguity was associated with a bias towards outgroup negativity. • There was no evidence of ingroup positivity. • Parties differed in their overall tendency to judge surprise as negative (R > D). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Our research centers the underexamined perspective of Black Americans regarding allyship behaviors and investigates their perceptions and experience of a White ally who confronts a White perpetrator of prejudice. In two experimental studies (N = 1176), we found that Black participants reported higher levels of self-esteem after a White ally confronted a White perpetrator of racial prejudice compared to no confrontation. Additionally, we found that White ally confrontations that signaled intrinsic motivations (i.e., driven by personal values) were perceived as less suspicious in motive than those that signaled extrinsic motivations (i.e., driven by image concerns), which related to more target self-esteem. We discuss implications for research on allyship and confrontation as well as practical considerations. Our results strongly suggest that advantaged group members cannot allow overt prejudice to stand unchecked and should consider the motivations they convey in their actions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]