Search

Affective polarization describes the phenomenon whereby people identifying as Republican or Democrat tend to view opposing partisans negatively and co-partisans positively. Though extensively studied, there remain important gaps in scholarly understanding of affective polarization. In particular, (a) how it relates to the distinct behavioural phenomena of in-party “love” vs. out-party hostility; and (b) to what extent it reflects a generalized evaluative disparity between partisans vs. a domain-specific disparity in evaluation. We report the results of an investigation that bears on both of these questions. Specifically, drawing on recent trends in political science and psychology, we hypothesize that moral polarization—the tendency to view opposing partisans’ moral character negatively, and co-partisans’ moral character positively—will be associated with behavioural hostility towards the out-party. We test this hypothesis in two preregistered studies comprising behavioural measures and large convenience samples of US partisans (combined N = 1354). Our results strike an optimistic chord: Taken together, they suggest that this association is probably small and somewhat tenuous. Though moral polarization itself was large—perhaps exceeding prior estimates of trait affective polarization—even the most morally polarized partisans appeared reluctant to engage in a mild form of out-party hostility. These findings converge with recent evidence that polarization—moral or otherwise—has yet to translate into the average US partisan wanting to express hostile and directly discriminatory behaviour toward their out-party counterparts.

One of the major drivers of societal conflict are the intergroup relations which rely mainly on social identity and which are rarely analyzed for immigrant groups. This article changes this point of view by investigating the extent to which national, ethnic, and religious identities relate to outgroup hostilities towards the majority of the German population, towards other immigrant groups, and towards Syrian refugees among immigrant‐origin citizens. We employ a theoretical framework based on the social identity approach and use new representative survey data from 2017 for Germans of Turkish descent (N = 480) and Russian Germans (N = 471). Based on multivariate linear regression analysis, we show that ethnic identity has the strongest positive relation with outgroup hostilities, with the exception of the Russian‐Germans' evaluation of the German majority population. National identity among Germans of Turkish descent lessens their hostility towards other immigrants. Our results show the importance of analyzing immigrant groups with different migration trajectories separately before making generalized claims. Not only are the identity relations different between an ingroup identification and various outgroup targets, but they are also different between the immigrant groups for the same ingroup identification and outgroup target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gender studies have often been criticized for undermining family and religious values. In this paper, we argue that these criticisms exhibit the characteristics of conspiracy theories. We define gender conspiracy beliefs as convictions that gender studies and gender-equality activists represent an ideology secretly designed to harm traditional values and social arrangements. In two studies conducted among Catholics in Poland (Study 1 N= 1019; Study 2 N= 223), we examined the prevalence of gender conspiracy beliefs and their psychological concomitants. We hypothesized that gender conspiracy beliefs should be associated with a defensive identification with one's religious group, captured by religious collective narcissism. In both studies, Catholic collective narcissism was demonstrated to be a robust predictor of gender conspiracy beliefs. We additionally demonstrated that Catholic collective narcissism predicted outgroup hostility, and this effect was mediated by gender conspiracy beliefs. We discuss the implications for gender-based prejudice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From verbal abuse to physical intimidation of opponents, some ingroup members seek to maximize their group’s competitive edge regardless of personal repercussions. What motivates such extreme commitment? Based on identity fusion theory, we argue that strongly fused persons seek ingroup victory at any cost when they believe that a competition’s outcome affects the group’s essence. Two studies, conducted across four countries and in two sports contexts, revealed that fused persons who believed one’s national sport constituted part of the nation’s essence were especially likely to maximize their ingroup’s advantage over the outgroup, even when doing so came at a personal cost and harmed the outgroup. Together, our findings shed new light on the motives of fused persons in intergroup conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout human evolutionary history, cooperative contact with others has been fundamental for human survival. At the same time, social contact has been a source of threats. In this article, we focus on one particular viable threat, communicable disease, and investigate how motivations to avoid pathogens influence people's propensity to interact and cooperate with others, as measured by individual differences in generalized social trust. While extant studies on pathogen avoidance have argued that such motivations should prompt people to avoid interactions with outgroups specifically, we argue that these motivations should prompt people to avoid others more broadly. Empirically, we utilise two convenience samples and a large nationally representative sample of US citizens to demonstrate the existence of a robust and replicable effect of individual differences in pathogen disgust sensitivity on generalized social trust. We furthermore compare the effects of pathogen disgust sensitivity on generalised social trust and outgroup prejudice and explore whether generalised social trust to some extent constitutes a pathway between pathogen avoidance motivations and prejudice.

Individuals react to violation of social norms by outgroup members differently than to transgressions of those same norms by ingroup members: namely outgroup perpetrators are punished much more harshly than ingroup perpetrators. This parochial punishment pattern has been observed and extensively studied in social psychology and behavioral economics. Despite progress in recent years, however, little is known about the neural underpinnings of this intergroup bias. Here, we demonstrate by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) that the transient disruption of the right, but not the left temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), reduces parochial punishment in a third-party punishment paradigm with real social groups. Moreover, we show that this observed TMS effect on parochial punishment is mediated by a classical punishment motive, i.e. retaliation. Finally, our data suggests that a change in perspective-taking might be the underlying mechanism that explains the impact of right TPJ disruption on retaliation motivation and parochial punishment. These findings provide the first causal evidence that the right TPJ plays a pivotal role in the implementation of parochial behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Social norms pervade almost every aspect of social interaction. If they are violated, not only legal institutions, but other members of society as well, punish, i.e., inflict costs on the wrongdoer. Sanctioning occurs even when the punishers themselves were not harmed directly and even when it is costly for them. There is evidence for intergroup bias in this third-party punishment: third-parties, who share group membership with victims, punish outgroup perpetrators more harshly than ingroup perpetrators. However, it is unknown whether a discriminatory treatment of outgroup perpetrators (outgroup discrimination) or a preferential treatment of ingroup perpetrators (ingroup favoritism) drives this bias. To answer this question, the punishment of outgroup and ingroup perpetrators must be compared to a baseline, i.e., unaffiliated perpetrators. By applying a costly punishment game, we found stronger punishment of outgroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators and weaker punishment of ingroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators. This demonstrates that both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination drive intergroup bias in third-party punishment of perpetrators that belong to distinct social groups. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The moral force of impartiality (i.e. the equal treatment of all human beings) is imperative for providing justice and fairness. Yet, in reality many people become partial during intergroup interactions; they demonstrate a preferential treatment of ingroup members and a discriminatory treatment of outgroup members. Some people, however, do not show this intergroup bias. The underlying sources of these inter-individual differences are poorly understood. Here we demonstrate that the larger the gray matter volume and thickness of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), the more individuals in the role of an uninvolved third-party impartially punish outgroup and ingroup perpetrators. Moreover, we show evidence for a possible mechanism that explains the impact of DMPFC's gray matter volume on impartiality, namely perspective-taking. Large gray matter volume of DMPFC seems to facilitate equal perspective-taking of all sides, which in turn leads to impartial behavior. This is the first evidence demonstrating that brain structure of the DMPFC constitutes an important source underlying an individual's propensity for impartiality. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Parochial altruism-a preference for altruistic behavior towards ingroup members and mistrust or hostility towards outgroup members-is a pervasive feature in human society and strongly shapes the enforcement of social norms. Since the uniqueness of human society critically depends on the enforcement of norms, the understanding of the neural circuitry of the impact of parochial altruism on social norm enforcement is key, but unexplored. To fill this gap, we measured brain activity with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) while subjects had the opportunity to punish ingroup members and outgroup members for violating social norms. Findings revealed that subjects' strong punishment of defecting outgroup members is associated with increased activity in a functionally connected network involved in sanction-related decisions (right orbitofrontal gyrus, right lateral prefrontal cortex, right dorsal caudatus). Moreover, the stronger the connectivity in this network, the more outgroup members are punished. In contrast, the much weaker punishment of ingroup members who committed the very same norm violation is associated with increased activity and connectivity in the mentalizing-network (dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, bilateral temporo-parietal junction), as if subjects tried to understand or justify ingroup members' behavior. Finally, connectivity analyses between the two networks suggest that the mentalizing-network modulates punishment by affecting the activity in the right orbitofrontal gyrus and right lateral prefrontal cortex, notably in the same areas showing enhanced activity and connectivity whenever third-parties strongly punished defecting outgroup members. Hum Brain Mapp, 2011. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]