Investigation of the Causes of Negative Attitudes towards Women Incompatible with Gender Stereotypes within the Context of Social Identity Theory

The primary gender stereotypes accepted in mainstream social psychology describe women as low in competence and high in warmth, men as having low warmth and high competence. Women who are incompatible with stereotypes are exposed to negative attitudes. Exposure to negative attitudes damages the psychological well-being of these group members. Stereotypes and negative attitudes towards members of social groups contribute to the persistence of their low status. Explaining the causes of gender stereotypes and negative attitudes towards women incompatible with stereotypes is an overlooked topic in mainstream social psychology. In order to change the ongoing gender system, where women have a disadvantageous status compared to men, it is necessary to understand the reasons for negative attitudes towards women who are incompatible with stereotypes. Based on the suggestions and findings of Social Identity Theory, explanations about negative attitudes towards women who are incompatible with gender stereotypes are presented in this study. It is concluded that most men reveal negative attitudes towards these women because women with high competency threaten men who can affirm their social identity through competency. Most men define their social identity through status-related traits such as competency. Due to the threat to men's social identity by women with high competence, it is concluded that negative attitudes towards these women are revealed by most of the men, based on theoretical suggestions. It is necessary to understand the identity management strategies to explain women's negative attitudes towards their fellows who are incompatible with stereotypes. According to the theoretical suggestions and related studies, it is concluded that the adoption of individual mobility and social creativity strategies reveal negative attitudes toward fellows who are incompatible with stereotypes. Although it is expected that women who adopt the social competition strategy have positive attitudes towards their fellows who are inconsistent with gender stereotypes, the level of adoption of this strategy is low. When theoretical suggestions and study findings are brought together, it is possible to understand the reasons for the negative attitudes towards women who are incompatible with gender stereotypes.

Does increased interdisciplinary contact among hard and social scientists help or hinder interdisciplinary research?

Scientists across disciplines must often work together to address pressing global issues facing our societies. For interdisciplinary projects to flourish, scientists must recognise the potential contribution of other disciplines in answering key research questions. Recent research suggested that social sciences may be appreciated less than hard sciences overall. Building on the extensive evidence of ingroup bias and ethnocentrism in intergroup relations, however, one could also expect scientists, especially those belonging to high status disciplines, to play down the contributions of other disciplines to important research questions. The focus of the present research was to investigate how hard and social scientists perceive one another and the impact of interdisciplinary collaborations on these perceptions. We surveyed 280 scientists at Wave 1 and with 129 of them followed up at Wave 2 to establish how ongoing interdisciplinary collaborations underpinned perceptions of other disciplines. Based on Wave 1 data, scientists who report having interdisciplinary experiences more frequently are also more likely to recognise the intellectual contribution of other disciplines and perceive more commonalities with them. However, in line with the intergroup bias literature, group membership in the more prestigious hard sciences is related to a stronger tendency to downplay the intellectual contribution of social science disciplines compared to other hard science disciplines. This bias was not present among social scientists who produced very similar evaluation of contribution of hard and social science disciplines. Finally, using both waves of the survey, the social network comparison of discipline pairs shows that asymmetries in the evaluation of other disciplines are only present among discipline pairs that do not have any experience of collaborating with one another. These results point to the need for policies that incentivise new collaborations between hard and social scientists and foster interdisciplinary contact.

Perceptions of the Intergroup Structure and Anti-Asian Prejudice Among White Australians

Subjective intergroup beliefs and authoritarianism were assessed in a field study ( N = 255) of White Australians’ anti-Asian stereotyping and prejudice. A social identity analysis of intergroup prejudice was adopted, such that perceptions of the intergroup structure (instability, permeability, legitimacy and higher ingroup status) were proposed as predictors of higher prejudice (blatant and covert) and less favorable stereotyping. Consistent with the social identity approach, both independent and interacting roles for sociostructural predictors of Anti-Asian bias were observed, even after demographic and personality variables were controlled. For example, perceived legitimacy was associated with higher prejudice when White Australians’ status position relative to Asian Australians was valued. Moreover, when participants evaluated Whites’ position as unstable and high status or legitimate, perceptions of permeable intergroup boundaries were associated with anti-Asian bias. The present findings demonstrate status protection responses in advantaged group members in a field setting, lending weight to the contention that perceptions of sociostructural threat interact to predict outgroup derogation. Implications for theories of intergroup relations are discussed.

Inclusive altruism born of suffering: the relationship between adversity and prosocial attitudes and behavior toward disadvantaged outgroups

This article reports the results of 2 studies examining altruism born of suffering (E. Staub & J. R. Vollhardt, 2008). More specifically, we examined inclusive altruism born of suffering, which is directed toward members of disadvantaged outgroups. Drawing on and integrating clinical and social psychological theories, we hypothesized that individuals who had suffered from adverse life events would be more likely to help the outgroups in need than those who had not suffered. This was demonstrated for helpers who had experienced various forms of suffering (interpersonal and group-based harm, natural disasters) and for 2 distinct types of prosocial behavior and attitudes (long-term volunteering and disaster aid) benefiting outgroups within society and from other countries. We also found that prosocial attitudes toward tsunami victims were highest among those who had suffered in a similar way (from natural disasters). Additionally, we examined the underlying social psychological processes and found that empathy and reduced ingroup bias (but not personal distress) mediated the effect (Study 2). Implications for social justice and an empowering view of victims as potential helpers in society are discussed.

The role of in-group identification, religious group membership and intergroup conflict in moderating in-group and out-group affect

We conducted secondary analyses of data from two random samples of the population of Northern Ireland, involving 1046 participants in 2000, and 1000 participants in 200 1, to explore the role of in-group identity and religious group membership in moderating the relationship between in-group and out-group affect. In both surveys the results indicated a general in-group bias - feeling thermometer ratings (affect) for the in-group exceeded those for the out-group. This effect was moderated by participants' in-group identification and religious group (Catholic or Protestant), but these moderations also varied as a function of differential sectarian tension between 2000 and 2001. In both years, high identifiers and Protestants exhibited more in-group bias than low identifiers and Catholics, respectively.

Intergroup Contact and Ingroup Reappraisal: Examining the Deprovincialization Thesis

According to the deprovincialization thesis, interethnic contact involves a reappraisal and distancing from the ingroup. Contact can broaden one’s horizon by acknowledging and recognizing the value of other cultures and thereby putting the taken-for-granted own cultural standards into perspective. The current research uses data from three surveys to examine the relationship between quantity of outgroup contact and ingroup distance (ingroup identification and ingroup feelings) among native Dutch participants. More positive contact with ethnic outgroups was expected to lead to a higher endorsement of multiculturalism, that, in turn, is related to a stronger distancing from the ingroup. Findings in all three studies support the deprovincialization thesis. In addition, in Study 3, mediation is found independently of outgroup threat. Findings across the three studies confirm the stability of the results and cross-validate the deprovincialization thesis.

Dominant and Non-Dominant Groups' Responses to Social Change: The Economic Transformation Process in South Africa

In the field study we examined the assumptions proposed by Social Identity Theory (SIT) that dominant and non-dominant groups differ systematically regarding the functional interaction between beliefs about the intergroup situation and identity management strategies. Participants were university students from three racial groups: blacks ( N = 100), coloured ( N = 100), as non-dominant groups, and whites ( N = 100) as dominant group in post-apartheid South Africa. A multiple group path analysis to test SIT revealed systematic differences between dominant and non-dominant groups regarding the impact of perceived legitimacy on ingroup identification, perceived legitimacy on social competition and on individual mobility. Furthermore, the results showed that ingroup identification differentiates between individual and collective strategies irrespective of the groups' status positions. The results also highlight the different effects (or lack of effects) of the socio-structural variables in the SIT model, which is argued to be determined by the concrete socio-historical context of the respective intergroup relations.

Inter-Group Interactions and Coping: Similar Processes. A Similar Base?

This paper provides a brief review of the literature on inter-group relations and coping. It aims to try and bring together arguments for treating inter-group behaviours as coping activities. Differences and similarities between the two corpuses are considered. Some evidence for our proposal is also presented in terms of (a) search for similarity, (b) social comparison (and whether or not it is upward or downward comparison), and (c) links between emotions and inter-group relations. The concluding comments leave the matter open to further discussion and evidence but raise the question of the role of emotions and coping with those emotions in group-to-group positive and negative relations. We also raise the possibility that conflict management and resolution could operate as interventions based on cognitive-behavioural practices.

Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions

Social dominance orientation (SDO) has been proposed as an important variable in the explanation of prejudice. We distinguish between three conceptualizations of SDO: SDO as a personality trait (personality model), SDO as a moderator of the effects of situational variables (Person x Situation model), and SDO as a mediator of the effect of social position on prejudice (group socialization model [GSM]). Four studies (N = 1.657) looking at the relations between social positions, SDO, and prejudice in a natural setting and in a laboratory setting provide strong support for the GSM. In contrast to previous correlational findings, there is evidence of a cause (dominant social position), an effect (prejudice increases), and a mediator (SDO). These results suggest new perspectives on the integration of individual and contextual determinants of prejudice.