The Role of Peace Attitudes on Sustainable Behaviors: An Exploratory Study

This study delves into the intricate relationship among peace attitudes, personality traits, and sustainable behaviors in a diverse sample of 279 adults from different regions of Italy. Building upon the existing literature, this research affirms the influence of agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness as primary personality traits associated with sustainable behaviors. Additionally, this study scrutinizes the unique predictive power of peace attitudes. The Peace Attitude Scale (PAS), the Big Five Questionnaire (BFQ), and the Sustainable Behaviors Scale (SBS) were utilized to evaluate peace attitudes, personality traits, and sustainable behaviors. The analysis reveals that peace attitudes significantly predict sustainable behaviors, accounting for 31% of the variance. This predictability is attributed to intrinsic motivation and value alignment. Importantly, peace attitudes extend beyond environmental concerns to embrace social justice and equity, integral components of sustainability. The findings underscore the unique and substantial contribution of peace attitudes to understanding sustainable behavior. This study not only confirms the role of personality traits but also emphasizes the importance of intrinsic values in propelling pro-environmental actions.

Effects of absolute levels of neighbourhood ethnic diversity vs. changes in neighbourhood diversity on prejudice: Moderation by individual differences in personality

This paper examines drivers of prejudicial attitudes among adults in the UK, focusing on the interaction between ethnic out-group size and personality traits. Leveraging data from the National Child Development Study (NCDS), we use two survey waves carried out in 2000 and 2008, just before and after the EU enlargement policy that drove a wave of immigration in the UK. We test the extent to which personality traits moderate the relationship between both absolute levels and changes in ethnic diversity at the local level, respectively, and prejudice. Key findings suggest that personality traits, in particular one's agreeableness, are important for conditioning how the proportion of non-white British in one's neighbourhood affects out-group attitudes. We observe a tendency towards polarisation in prejudicial attitudes between low-/high-agreeableness residents as their neighbourhoods become more diverse. These findings have important implications for theorising how contextual and individual characteristics jointly affect intergroup relations.

The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism

Over the past two decades, citizens’ political rights and civil liberties have declined globally. Psychological science can play an instrumental role in both explaining and combating the authoritarian impulses that underlie these attacks on personal autonomy. In this Review, we describe the psychological processes and situational factors that foster authoritarianism, as well as the societal consequences of its apparent resurgence within the general population. First, we summarize the dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice, which suggests that viewing the world as a dangerous, but not necessarily competitive, place plants the psychological seeds of authoritarianism. Next, we discuss the evolutionary, genetic, personality and developmental antecedents to authoritarianism and explain how contextual threats to safety and security activate authoritarian predispositions. After examining the harmful consequences of authoritarianism for intergroup relations and broader societal attitudes, we discuss the need to expand the ideological boundaries of authoritarianism and encourage future research to investigate both right-wing and left-wing variants of authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism weakens democratic institutions and fosters societal divisions. In this Review, Osborne et al. describe the psychological processes and situational factors that give rise to authoritarianism, as well as the societal consequences of its apparent resurgence within the general population.

Neuroanatomical correlates of system-justifying ideologies: a pre-registered voxel-based morphometry study on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation

System-justifying ideologies are a cluster of ideals that perpetuate a hierarchical social system despite being fraught with inequalities. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are two ideologies that have received much attention in the literature separately and together. Given that these ideologies are considered to be stable individual differences that are likely to have an evolutionary basis, there has yet to be any examination for volumetric brain structures associated with these variables. Here, we proposed an investigation of overlapping and non-overlapping brain regions associated with RWA and SDO in a sample recruited in Singapore. Indeed, it will be interesting to determine how RWA and SDO correlate in a country that proactively promotes institutionalized multi-culturalism such as Singapore. RWA and SDO scores were collected via self-report measures from healthy individuals (39 males and 43 females; age 25.89 ± 5.68 years). Consequently, voxel-based morphometry (VBM) whole brain and region of interest (ROI) analyses were employed to identify neuroanatomical correlates of these system-justifying ideologies. RWA and SDO scores were strongly correlated despite the low ideological contrast in Singapore's sociopolitical context. The whole brain analysis did not reveal any significant clusters associated with either RWA or SDO. The ROI analyses revealed clusters in the bilateral amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) that were associated with both RWA and SDO scores, whereas two clusters in the left anterior insula were negatively associated with only SDO scores. The study corroborates the claim of RWA and SDO as stable individual differences with identifiable neuroanatomical correlates, but our exploratory analysis suggests evidence that precludes any definitive conclusion based on the present evidence.

Neuroanatomical correlates of system-justifying ideologies: a pre-registered voxel-based morphometry study on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation

System-justifying ideologies are a cluster of ideals that perpetuate a hierarchical social system despite being fraught with inequalities. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are two ideologies that have received much attention in the literature separately and together. Given that these ideologies are considered to be stable individual differences that are likely to have an evolutionary basis, there has yet to be any examination for volumetric brain structures associated with these variables. Here, we proposed an investigation of overlapping and non-overlapping brain regions associated with RWA and SDO in a sample recruited in Singapore. Indeed, it will be interesting to determine how RWA and SDO correlate in a country that proactively promotes institutionalized multi-culturalism such as Singapore. RWA and SDO scores were collected via self-report measures from healthy individuals (39 males and 43 females; age 25.89 ± 5.68 years). Consequently, voxel-based morphometry (VBM) whole brain and region of interest (ROI) analyses were employed to identify neuroanatomical correlates of these system-justifying ideologies. RWA and SDO scores were strongly correlated despite the low ideological contrast in Singapore's sociopolitical context. The whole brain analysis did not reveal any significant clusters associated with either RWA or SDO. The ROI analyses revealed clusters in the bilateral amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) that were associated with both RWA and SDO scores, whereas two clusters in the left anterior insula were negatively associated with only SDO scores. The study corroborates the claim of RWA and SDO as stable individual differences with identifiable neuroanatomical correlates, but our exploratory analysis suggests evidence that precludes any definitive conclusion based on the present evidence.

I won't listen if I think we're losing our way: How right-wing authoritarianism affects the response to different anti-prejudice messages

Prejudice reduction messages have been shown to be effective through changing norms. Previous research suggests that Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) moderates the reaction to these messages, but it is unclear whether individuals high in RWA are more or less sensitive to prejudice-reduction campaigns. This research used the social identity approach to investigate the role of RWA in moderating the reactions to messages that look to reduce support for prejudicial policies and associated prejudice against an ethnoreligious group (Muslims). Americans (N = 388) were presented with statements on a real, proposed ban on Muslim immigration into the US from an in-group member (i.e., an American freight worker who disapproves of the Muslim ban), outgroup member (an Iraqi refugee who is in favour if the Muslim ban), or both, or control message. Those high in RWA showed consistently high levels of prejudice against Muslims in all conditions, but those low in RWA showed lower prejudice when presented with the anti-prejudice message from an in-group member (compared to control). This suggests that anti-prejudice messages primarily affect those with low RWA, clarifying that RWA likely leads to resistance to anti-prejudice messages regardless of the source. Future research aiming to reduce prejudice should examine how messages can be tailored to reduce prejudice in those with high RWA.

Quiet ego is associated with positive attitudes toward Muslims

Well-known predictors of prejudice toward Muslims include social dominance and authoritarianism. However, a gap exists for variables reflecting a rejection or mitigation of ideological motivations associated with prejudice toward Muslims. We examined if quiet ego was related to positive attitudes toward Muslims, and whether this could be explained by lower levels of authoritarianism, social dominance, and the motivation to express prejudice. We explored this possibility across two studies of adults in the United States (N = 376; N = 519). In Study 1, regression results showed quiet ego was directly associated with positive attitudes toward Muslims. Study 2 utilized path analyses and found that the direct relationship between quiet ego and positive attitudes toward Muslims was explained by associations between quiet ego and lower endorsement of authoritarianism, social dominance, and the internal motivation to express prejudice toward Muslims. Moreover, these associations held when accounting for several correlates of intergroup attitudes.

Blind spots in stigma research? Broadening our perspective on mental illness stigma by exploring 'what matters most' in modern Western societies

AIMS

The theory of 'what matters most' (WMM) has been developed to understand differences in mental illness stigma between cultures, postulating that stigma becomes most pervasive in situations that matter most in a specific cultural context. The rise of populism in Western societies demonstrates that also within one cultural context, different values 'matter most' to different groups. We expand the WMM framework to explore the spectrum of stigma manifestations within Western societies, relating it to both conservative/authoritarian and liberal/modern values. From our findings, we will develop hypotheses on how further research into value orientations and stigma might address potential blind spots in stigma research.

METHODS

Based on a narrative review of the literature on mental illness stigma and value orientations, we apply the WMM framework to cultural mechanisms of stigma within modern Western societies.

RESULTS

There are several studies showing an association between traditional, authoritarian, conservative values with stronger mental illness stigma, while studies examining the stigma within liberal, modern value orientations are scarce. We hypothesise on situations where encountering a person with mental illness could threaten liberal values and thus might provoke stigma among persons with such value orientations. For example, living with a person with mental illness could be seen as consuming energy and time, thereby jeopardising 'self-actualisation', the modern value of realising one's own full potential. As a result, a person highly valuing self-actualisation might try to avoid contact with persons with mental illness. Instances of potential 'liberal stigma' also include structural stigma or self-stigma, when, e.g. changing assumptions of what is considered 'normal' increase perceptions of being fundamentally different when experiencing mental illness.

CONCLUSIONS

'WMM' appears to be a useful framework to direct research to potential blind spots within the field of stigma research. Looking at instances where liberal values conflict with dealing with a person with mental illness could provide a more comprehensive understanding of stigma experiences among persons with mental illness. However, for measuring stigma, tapping into liberal variations of mental illness stigma is methodologically challenging. Qualitative work could be the first step to elicit potential stigma experiences based on conflicts with liberal values.

The Authoritarian Dynamic During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects on Nationalism and Anti-Immigrant Sentiment

Research has demonstrated that situational factors such as perceived threats to the social order activate latent authoritarianism. The deadly COVID-19 pandemic presents a rare opportunity to test whether existential threat stemming from an indiscriminate virus moderates the relationship between authoritarianism and political attitudes toward the nation and out-groups. Using data from two large nationally representative samples of adults in the United Kingdom ( N = 2,025) and Republic of Ireland ( N = 1,041) collected during the initial phases of strict lockdown measures in both countries, we find that the associations between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and (1) nationalism and (2) anti-immigrant attitudes are conditional on levels of perceived threat. As anxiety about the COVID-19 pandemic increases, so too does the effect of RWA on those political outcomes. Thus, it appears that existential threats to humanity from the COVID-19 pandemic moderate expressions of authoritarianism in society.

Is Sexism a Gender Issue? A Motivated Social Cognition Perspective on Men's and Women's Sexist Attitudes toward Own and Other Gender

The present research investigated the antecedents of ambivalent sexism (i.e., hostile and benevolent forms) in both men and women toward own and other gender. In two heterogeneous adult samples (Study 1: N = 179 and Study 2: N = 222), it was revealed that gender itself was only a minor predictor of sexist attitudes compared with the substantial impact of individual differences in general motivated cognition (i.e., need for closure). Analyses further showed that the relationship between need for closure and sexism was mediated by social attitudes (i.e., right–wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation), which were differently related to benevolent and hostile forms of sexism. In the discussion, it is argued that sexism primarily stems from individual differences in motivated cognitive style, which relates to peoples‘ perspective on the social world, rather than from group differences between men and women. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Prejudice and Discrimination Toward Immigrants

Prejudice and discrimination toward immigrants, and the consequences of these negative attitudes and behavior, are key determinants of the economic, sociocultural, and civic-political future of receiving societies and of the individuals who seek to make these societies their new home. In this article I review and organize the existing literature on the determinants and nature of prejudice and discrimination toward immigrants, summarizing what we know to date and the challenges in attributing effects to immigrant status per se. I also discuss the consequences of discrimination against immigrants for immigrants themselves, their families, and the societies in which they settle. I conclude by presenting key research questions and topics in this domain that should be at the top of the research agenda for those interested in intergroup relations in this age of mass migration.

Toward a Developmental Science of Politics

In this monograph, we argue for the establishment of a developmental science of politics that describes, explains, and predicts the formation and change of individuals' political knowledge, attitudes, and behavior beginning in childhood and continuing across the life course. Reflecting our goal of contributing both theoretical conceptualizations and empirical data, we have organized the monograph into two broad sections. In the first section, we outline theoretical contributions that the study of politics may make to developmental science and provide practical reasons that empirical research in the domain of politics is important (e.g., for identifying ways to improve civics education and for encouraging higher voting rates among young adults). We also review major historical approaches to the study of political development and provide an integrative theoretical framework to ground future work. Drawing on Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems model as an organizing scheme and emphasizing social justice issues, we describe how factors rooted in cultural contexts, families, and children themselves are likely to shape political development. In the second section of the monograph, we argue for the importance and utility of studying major political events, such as presidential elections, and introduce the major themes, rationales, and hypotheses for a study of U.S. children's views of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In addition, we apply a social-justice lens to political thought and participation, addressing the role of gender/sex and race/ethnicity in children's political development broadly, and in their knowledge and views of the 2016 U.S. presidential election specifically. In interviews conducted within the month before and after the election, we examined two overarching categories of children's political attitudes: (a) knowledge, preferences, and expectations about the 2016 election, and (b) knowledge and attitudes concerning gender/sex and politics, particularly relevant for the 2016 election given Hillary Clinton's role as the first female major-party candidate for the presidency. Participants were 187 children (101 girls) between 5 and 11 years of age (M = 8.42 years, SD = 1.45 years). They were recruited from schools and youth organizations in five counties in four U.S. states (Kansas, Kentucky, Texas, and Washington) with varying voting patterns (e.g., Trump voters ranged from 27% to 71% of county voters). The sample was not a nationally representative one, but was racially diverse (35 African American, 50 Latinx, 81 White, and 21 multiracial, Asian American, Middle Eastern, or Native American children). In addition to several child characteristics (e.g., age, social dominance orientation [SDO]), we assessed several family and community characteristics (e.g., child-reported parental interest in the election and government-reported county-level voting patterns, respectively) hypothesized to predict outcome variables. Although our findings are shaped by the nature of our sample (e.g., our participants were less likely to support Trump than children in larger, nationwide samples were), they offer preliminary insights into children's political development. Overall, children in our sample were interested in and knowledgeable about the presidential election (e.g., a large majority identified the candidates correctly and reported some knowledge about their personal qualities or policy positions). They reported more information about Donald Trump's than Hillary Clinton's policies, largely accounted for by the substantial percentage of children (41%) who referred to Trump's immigration policies (e.g., building a wall between the United States and Mexico). Overall, children reported as many negative as positive personal qualities of the candidates, with negative qualities being reported more often for Trump than for Clinton (56% and 18% of children, respectively). Most children (88%) supported Clinton over Trump, a preference that did not vary by participants' gender/sex or race/ethnicity. In their responses to an open-ended inquiry about their reactions to Trump's win, 63% of children reported negative and 18% reported positive emotions. Latinx children reacted more negatively to the election outcome than did White children. Girls' and boys' emotional responses to the election outcome did not differ. Children's personal interest in serving as U.S. president did not vary across gender/sex or racial/ethnic groups (overall, 42% were interested). Clinton's loss of the election did not appear to depress (or pique) girls' interest in becoming U.S. president. With respect to the role of gender/sex in politics, many children (35%) were ignorant about women's absence from the U.S. presidency. Only a single child was able to name a historical individual who worked for women's civil rights or suffrage. Child characteristics predicted some outcome variables. For example, as expected, older children showed greater knowledge about the candidates than did younger children. Family and community characteristics also predicted some outcome variables. For example, as expected, participants were more likely to support Trump if they perceived that their parents supported him and if Trump received a greater percentage of votes in the children's county of residence. Our data suggest that civic education should be expanded and reformed. In addition to addressing societal problems requiring political solutions, civics lessons should include the histories of social groups' political participation, including information about gender discrimination and the women's suffrage movement in U.S. political history. Providing children with environments that are rich in information related to the purpose and value of politics, and with opportunities and encouragement for political thought and action, is potentially beneficial for youth and their nations.

Stopping wolves in the wild and legitimizing meat consumption: Effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance on animal-related behaviors

In the present research, we applied the dual process model of ideology and prejudice to beliefs and behavioral intentions toward animals. In Study 1 ( N = 126), we demonstrate in a community sample that right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) predicts support for restricting the distribution of wolves and bears in the wild mediated by perceived threat elicited from the animal outgroups. In contrast, social dominance orientation (SDO) had an indirect effect on the legitimization of meat consumption via endorsement of human supremacy beliefs. In Study 2 ( N = 223), we examined the causal direction of the dual process model using an experimental approach. Results show that RWA predicts support for restricting the free movement of a new animal species in the wild only when it is perceived to be threatening for humans. However, SDO predicted perceived legitimacy of meat consumption, regardless of whether the new animal species was characterized as lower or higher in status compared to other animals. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Facts versus feelings: Objective and subjective experiences of diversity differentially impact attitudes towards the European Union

This research used secondary data sources to examine how objective and subjective experiences of diversity and immigration are associated with voting and attitudes toward the European Union. Using objective measures of diversity and migration, England’s electorate regions with the most diversity and highest levels of projected migration had the lowest proportion of “Leave” voters in the 2016 Brexit vote (Study 1). Using subjective assessments of intergroup contact and immigration attitudes (Study 2), higher perceived immigrant population size was associated with greater perceived competition with immigrants and Euroscepticism, whereas intergroup contact had the opposite effect. Surprisingly, the explicit desire to reduce immigration was not associated with anti-EU attitudes. This research highlights the importance of combining objective and subjective measures of diversity and immigration in analyzing political motivations, as objective measures suggested immigration did not adversely affect Brexit votes (Study 1), whereas some subjective perceptions of immigration led to greater anti-EU attitudes.

Prejudice and Inclusiveness in Adolescence: The Role of Social Dominance Orientation and Multiple Categorization

This study examined the relations of multiple categorization and social dominance orientation with adolescents' prejudice against migrants and identification with the human group over time. Participants were 304 Northern-Italian late adolescents (61.84% female, M_age  = 17.49) involved in a three-wave longitudinal study (with 3 months interval between waves). Results showed that multiple categorization was negatively linked to prejudice at a later time, whereas social dominance orientation was positively associated with it; prejudice also negatively affected multiple categorization and positively affected social dominance orientation at a later time. Moreover, prejudice mediated the effects of multiple categorization and social dominance orientation on human identification. These findings have important implications suggesting the construens effect of multiple categorization for enhancing social inclusiveness.

On Post–Apocalyptic and Doomsday Prepping Beliefs: A New Measure, Its Correlates, and the Motivation to Prep

Post–apocalyptic scenarios provide the basis for popular television shows, video games, and books. These scenarios may be popular because people have their own beliefs and visions about the apocalypse and the need to prepare. The prevalence of such beliefs might also hold societal relevance and serve as a type of projective test of personality. However, there are no quantitative accounts of post–apocalyptic or prepping beliefs. As such, we conducted seven studies ( Ntotal = 1034) to do so. In Studies 1 and 2, we developed a post–apocalyptic and prepping beliefs scale, explored its correlates, and confirmed its structure and psychometric properties. In Study 3, we attempted to activate a ‘prepper’ mindset and further explore the correlates of the new scale. In Studies 4 and 5, we investigated covariations in daily feelings, thoughts, and events, and prepping beliefs. In Studies 6a and 6b, we compared scores from ‘real’ preppers and to a non–prepping group. Overall, we found that post–apocalyptic concerns and prepping beliefs are predictive of low agreeableness and humility, paranoia, cynicism, conspiracy mentality, conservatism, and social dominance orientation. We also found that increased belief in the need to prep is associated with God–belief, negative daily experiences, and global political events. © 2019 European Association of Personality Psychology

Liking low-status? Contextual and individual differences in attributional biases of low-status outgroup members

Previous studies on biased intergroup perceptions of outgroups’ irrationality mostly treated the target groups as opponents and rivals. In three studies, we extended this line of research and tested the hypothesis that individuals who challenge the existing social hierarchy exhibit more positive biases toward low-status outgroup members. We also hypothesized that when irrational thinking is framed as an important human trait, this bias is reduced among low social dominance orientation (SDO) individuals. In three studies (N = 169, N = 450, and N = 161), conducted in countries that vary in power distance levels (Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey), we examined under which conditions low-status outgroups are perceived as more rational than ingroup members. The results show that in a condition without irrationality framed as a human trait, psychology students (Study 1 and Study 2) and nonstudents low in group-based dominance orientation (Study 3) perceive outgroup members as less irrational than ingroup members. However, when participants were reminded that irrationality is a human trait, the perceived differences between in- and outgroup members were reduced. This effect was observed in all four countries (Study 1 and Study 2) and held when variables related to the tendency to behave in a socially desirable way were controlled for (Study 3).

Negative stereotypes as motivated justifications for moral exclusion

We investigated the connection between moral exclusion of outgroups and on the one hand, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and social dominance orientation (SDO) on the other. We assumed that both RWA and SDO would increase the tendency to place other groups out of the scope of justice. However, we also tested whether negative stereotypes about an outgroup's threatening and norm-violating misbehavior would serve as a justification for moral exclusion. These assumptions were tested in connection with Roma, Jewish, and Muslim people as target groups in the Hungarian context (N = 441). In line with our hypotheses, we found that both RWA and SDO had an indirect effect on moral exclusion mediated by negative stereotypes about the particular target group. Our findings suggested that negative stereotypes were more important legitimizing factors for RWA than for SDO. Our results highlight the benefits of interpreting the process of moral exclusion as an outcome of motivated social cognition.

Changes in the Positivity of Migrant Stereotype Content

Complementing well-established antecedents of anti-migrant opinion (e.g., threat), we investigated how system-sanctioned ideologies—that is, the collection of beliefs and values espoused by the government in power—are linked with migrant stereotypes. Using Canada as a case study, across three waves of national survey data ( N = 1,080), we found that system-sanctioned pro-migrant ideologies corresponded with (relatively) more positive migrant stereotype content (i.e., increases in perceived warmth and competence). Moreover, controlling for other political ideologies, increases in migrant stereotype positivity were linked to people’s motivation to justify their sociopolitical systems, suggesting that system-sanctioned ideologies may be especially likely to influence the positivity of migrant stereotypes when people are motivated to justify their sociopolitical systems.

Condoning discrimination: The effects of dominance and authoritarianism are moderated by different ways of reasoning about antigay discriminatory acts

Many studies have focused on mediated paths by which social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) predict prejudice; fewer have identified factors that moderate their effects. We applied social cognitive domain theory to test whether different ways of reasoning about antigay discriminatory acts moderated the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning antigay discrimination. Moral reasoning (e.g., emphasizing fairness, equality) and personal reasoning (e.g., emphasizing individual interests, qualifications) attenuated the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning discriminatory resource denial in general and religious-specific contexts. Conventional reasoning (e.g., emphasizing group norms, rules) magnified the association between SDO, RWA, and condoning resource denial, but only in a religious-specific context. Findings highlight the need to examine moderators of SDO and RWA effects in effort to disrupt discrimination by those most likely to engage in it.

Predisposed to prejudice but responsive to intergroup contact? Testing the unique benefits of intergroup contact across different types of individual differences

Recent research demonstrates that intergroup contact effectively reduces prejudice even among prejudice-prone persons. But some assert that evidence regarding the benefits of contact among prejudice-prone individuals is “mixed,” particularly for those higher in social dominance orientation (SDO), one of the field’s most important individual differences. Problematically, person variables are typically considered in isolation despite being intercorrelated, leaving the question of which unique psychological aspects of prejudice proneness (e.g., authoritarianism, antiegalitarianism, cognitive style) are responsive to intergroup contact unresolved. To address this shortcoming, in a large sample of White Americans ( N = 465) we simultaneously examined the contact–attitude association at varying levels of ideological (SDO, right-wing authoritarianism), cognitive style (need for closure), and identity-based (group identification) indicators of prejudice proneness. Examining a broad range of intergroup criterion measures (e.g., racism, support for racial profiling) we reveal that greater contact quality is associated with lower levels of intergroup hostility for those both lower and higher on a variety of indicators of prejudice proneness, simultaneously considered.

The world is a scary place: Individual differences in belief in a dangerous world predict specific intergroup prejudices

Research suggests that people chronically concerned with safety, as measured by the Belief in a Dangerous World (BDW) Scale, are prone to intergroup prejudice and likely to endorse negative stereotypes under conditions eliciting concern for safety. Using a sociofunctional, threat-based approach to prejudice, the current research tested whether people with high BDW report increased prejudice specifically toward groups stereotypically associated with safety-related threats compared to groups associated with unrelated threats. Studies 1 and 2 found that higher BDW predicts increased negativity, safety-related concern, and fear toward groups stereotypically associated with threats to safety (e.g., illegal immigrants and Muslims) compared to groups thought to pose unrelated threats (e.g., gay men and obese people). Study 3 activated concern for safety using a news story detailing increased crime (vs. a control story), finding an interaction between safety concern activation, target group, and BDW, such that situational threat concern elicited greater prejudice toward Mexican Americans, but not toward Asian Americans, from those participants with higher BDW. These studies suggest that individual differences in concern for safety predict specific prejudices (e.g., fear and social distancing) toward distinct groups rather than general outgroup negativity.

Universalism, conservation and attitudes toward minority groups

Findings from previous studies corroborate the hypothesis that universalism and conservation values are associated with negative attitudes toward immigration. In the current study we examine whether universalism and conservation values also play a critical role in the explanation of attitudes toward other minority groups. Drawing on previous research on group-focused enmity, we explore its relations with universalism and conservation values in a German sample. Employing structural equation modeling, we find that individuals who prioritize universalism values approve of various minorities more whereas those who prioritize conservation values exhibit more disapproval.

When sexual threat cues shape attitudes toward immigrants: the role of insecurity and benevolent sexism

Drawing on psychological and political science research on individuals' sensitivity to threat cues, the present study examines reactions to political posters that depict male immigrants as a sexual danger. We expect anti-immigrant attitudes to be more strongly predicted by feelings of insecurity or representations of men and women as strong and fragile when individuals are exposed to sexual threat cues than when they are not. Results from two online experiments conducted in Switzerland and Germany largely confirmed these assumptions. Comparing two anti-immigrant posters (general and non-sexual threat vs. sexual threat), Experiment 1 (n = 142) showed that feelings of insecurity were related to an increased support for expelling immigrants from the host country in both cases. However, only in the sexual threat cues condition and among female participants, were perceptions of women as fragile-as measured with benevolent sexism items-related to support for expelling immigrants. Further distinguishing between different forms of violence threat cues, Experiment 2 (n = 181) showed that collective feelings of insecurity were most strongly related to support for expelling immigrants when a male immigrant was presented as a violent criminal. In contrast, benevolent sexist beliefs were related to anti-immigrant stances only when participants were exposed to a depiction of a male immigrant as a rapist. In both cases attitudes were polarized: on the one hand, representations of immigrants as criminals provoked reactance reactions-that is, more positive attitudes-among participants scoring low in insecurity feelings or benevolent sexism. On the other hand, those scoring high in these dimensions expressed slightly more negative attitudes. Overall, by applying social psychological concepts to the study of anti-immigrant political campaigning, the present study demonstrated that individuals are sensitive to specific threat cues in posters.

Differential Effects of Right–Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on Dimensions of Generalized Prejudice in Brazil

Previous research within a dual–process cognitive–motivational theory of ideology and prejudice has indicated that dimensions of generalized prejudice are structured around attitudes towards dangerous, derogated and dissident groups, and that these prejudice dimensions are differentially predicted by the ideological attitudes of Right–Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). However, to date, these findings have been restricted to New Zealand samples. We describe two studies examining whether the structure of prejudiced attitudes and the differential prediction by RWA and SDO replicate in the Brazilian context, incorporating context–relevant examples of each group—politicians, those from the northeast region of Brazil, and environmentalists. Results broadly supported the three–factor structure of dangerous, derogated, and dissident groups. Consistent with previous research, regression and structural equation analyses showed that RWA explained prejudice against dangerous groups, SDO explained prejudice against derogated groups, and both RWA and SDO explained prejudice against dissident groups. This research provides some evidence for the generalizability of the three–dimensional structure of generalized prejudice and differential prediction by RWA and SDO. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology

The Suppression and Justification of Prejudice as A Function of Political Orientation

Politically conservative (versus liberal) individuals generally report more prejudice towards various low–status out–groups. Three studies examined whether prejudice suppression factors—specifically, internal and external motivation to suppress (IMS and EMS, respectively) prejudice—can help explain the relationship between political orientation and prejudice. Study 1 showed that IMS and EMS partially mediated the relationship between political orientation and affective prejudice towards Arabs. Study 2 demonstrated that when justification [right–wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation] and suppression (IMS and EMS) factors are simultaneously tested as mediators, only RWA partially mediated the relationship between political orientation and prejudice towards deviant (e.g. gay men) out–groups, whereas RWA and IMS fully mediated the relationship between political orientation and prejudice towards derogated out–groups (e.g. Blacks). Intriguingly, IMS rendered social dominance orientation effects non–significant for derogated out–groups. Study 3 showed that anticipating an out–group interaction (with a Black or lesbian confederate) diminished the mediational contribution of IMS in the political orientation–prejudice relationship because of increased IMS among participants; yet the increases in IMS did not completely eliminate differences in prejudice as a function of political orientation. Ultimately, these three studies demonstrate that suppression (in addition to justification) factors do help explain the relationship between political orientation and prejudice. Copyright © 2013 European Association of Personality Psychology.

Distinct Heritable Influences Underpin In-Group Love and Out-Group Derogation

In-group favoritism has often been conceptualized as the flip side of out-group derogation. Whereas research has dissociated these attitudes at the phenotypic level, it is currently unknown whether such dissociation is also evident at the biological level. Here, using an adult German twin sample, which provided ratings on patriotism, nationalism, and prejudice, we tested whether common or distinct heritable influences best explained variation in in-group love and out-group derogation. Results indicated that independent genetic effects accounted for individual differences in in-group love (i.e., patriotism) and out-group derogation (i.e., prejudice). In addition, we observed that nationalism showed common genetic links to both patriotism and prejudice, albeit through distinct pathways. These findings suggest that in-group sentiment is complex at the genetic level as well as at the behavioral level. Future work is recommended to further delineate the specific biological processes underlying these heritable effects.