Doubly Marginalized: Addressing the Minority Stressors Experienced by LGBTQ+ Researchers Who Do LGBTQ+ Research

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and nonbinary, and queer people (LGBTQ+) experience significantly higher levels of stressors due to discrimination, stigma, and marginalization than do cisgender heterosexual people. These high levels of stressors have impacts on health and well-being as well as career impacts. Limited research suggests that within higher education LGBTQ+ faculty experience bullying, discrimination, and harassment within the workplace. There is also data to suggest that research on marginalized populations is perceived to be less objective and valuable than research on majority populations. Research on the challenges of being a member of a marginalized population who conducts research on the same population suggests potentially negative career and personal impacts. To my knowledge, there has been little to no research on the double marginalization related to being an LGBTQ+ researcher doing research within the LGBTQ+ community. To describe the potential impacts of being an LGBTQ+ researcher who does LGBTQ+ research, I apply the extant literature on marginalized researchers who do research among marginalized populations to LGBTQ+ researchers. I also describe the potential minority stressors that LGBTQ+ researchers may face and how that may impact careers. Finally, I offer multiple recommendations for improvements for our research community and argue that senior faculty, leadership, and mentors can take specific actions to lessen stressors for LGBTQ+ researchers studying LGBTQ-related topics.

The Ingroup-Outgroup Relationship Influences Their Humanity: A Moderation Analysis of Status and Gender

The aim of this study is to examine whether gender and status moderate the teacher-student relationship (TSR) and the perception of dehumanization in teachers and students. A total of 528 participants from a university in Laguna (74% students and 26% professors) completed a questionnaire based on the TSR scale, organizational dehumanization, and demographic variables. PROCESS, a mediation and moderation package, was used to analyze data. The results indicated that ingroup-outgroup relationship significantly influences the perception of organizational dehumanization (p < 0.001). In addition, gender (p < 0.001) and status (p < 0.001) have moderating roles. Specifically, female students are at most risk of perceiving themselves dehumanized, and males with high status (teachers) are less vulnerable to dehumanization. These findings are highly significant for the advancement of knowledge of the intergroup relationship and organizational dehumanization and have practical implications for teachers and students.

Citizens of the world: National stereotypes do not affect empathic response in the presence of individuating information

Stereotyping is defined as generalising an attribute to a whole group and overlooking individual differences. In this study, we investigated whether Iranians' stereotypes of nations affected their empathy for the citizens of those nations. First, in a pilot study we explored common national stereotypes by using the stereotype content model (SCM) based on which six countries with different perceived warmth and competence scores were selected as nationalities of the protagonists of the vignettes in our experiment. In the next phase, 21 participants were asked to rate the degree of sadness associated with each vignette in an fMRI scanner. The results showed no significant differences in brain activity while participants were exposed to scenarios in which negative events befell people from different nations. This may be due to the individuation of victims by providing personal information about them.

The neural underpinnings of intergroup social cognition: an fMRI meta-analysis

Roughly 20 years of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have investigated the neural correlates underlying engagement in social cognition (e.g. empathy and emotion perception) about targets spanning various social categories (e.g. race and gender). Yet, findings from individual studies remain mixed. In the present quantitative functional neuroimaging meta-analysis, we summarized across 50 fMRI studies of social cognition to identify consistent differences in neural activation as a function of whether the target of social cognition was an in-group or out-group member. We investigated if such differences varied according to a specific social category (i.e. race) and specific social cognitive processes (i.e. empathy and emotion perception). We found that social cognition about in-group members was more reliably related to activity in brain regions associated with mentalizing (e.g. dorsomedial prefrontal cortex), whereas social cognition about out-group members was more reliably related to activity in regions associated with exogenous attention and salience (e.g. anterior insula). These findings replicated for studies specifically focused on the social category of race, and we further found intergroup differences in neural activation during empathy and emotion perception tasks. These results help shed light on the neural mechanisms underlying social cognition across group lines.

When company decisions harm or help the environment: the influence of social context and affective state on moral and causal responsibility attributions

Holding companies accountable for their decisions’ environmental side effects becomes increasingly important in the light of current debates on the climate crisis. The present study investigated a young sample’s (n = 925) causal and moral responsibility attributions to a company’s manager and their subordinate employee, who were either young or middle-aged. The agents jointly made a profit-oriented decision which either harmed or helped the environment. Results were analyzed with respect to the valence of the side effect, the agents’ social role, the agents’ age group, and participants’ affective state. We successfully replicated findings from prior studies, showing that more intention and moral responsibility is ascribed to the manager in case of a negative side effect than in case of a positive side effect, and that the manager deserves more blame for negative side effects than the employee, whereas the employee deserves more praise for positive side effects. Additionally, responsibility attributions varied with the agents’ age group, participants’ positive and negative affective state, and participants’ gender. By incorporating these hitherto neglected factors, the study complements existing theories of responsibility attribution and intergroup perception. The findings further highlight the contribution of affective mechanisms as driving factors of responsibility attributions. Combining moral responsibility research, intergroup research, and affective measures promises to foster the understanding of how and to whom people ascribe blame, praise, and causal responsibility for environmental consequences.

Self-Categorising and Othering in Migrant Integration: The Case of Entrepreneurs in Berlin

The economic integration of migrants has become increasingly prioritised by European governments. However, Europe’s colonial past and orientalist narratives have contributed to the inevitable othering of migrants, even in the minds of those with the best of intentions. Guided by the self-categorisation theory, we postulate that those involved in supporting migrants to integrate in European societies implicitly categorise them as an out-group, potentially leading to suboptimal integration outcomes and the (inadvertent) exclusion of the very migrants they attempt to integrate. A case study of migrant entrepreneurship support initiatives in Berlin is illustrated as a qualitative, empirical example, providing some evidence for those arguments. The paper concludes with recommendations for practitioners and suggestions for further research.

Multicultural and Colorblind Ideology, Stereotypes, and Ethnocentrism among Black and White Americans

We examined Blacks' and Whites' perceptions of group variability and positivity as well as their beliefs about the extent to which multiculturalism and colorblindness would improve intergroup relations. In two studies, responses to questionnaires indicated that the tendency to endorse multiculturalism more than colorblindness was greater among Blacks than Whites; Blacks consistently endorsed multiculturalism more than colorblindness and Whites endorsed colorblindness more than did Blacks. Both studies also revealed evidence of out-group homogeneity and ethnocentrism. Stronger endorsement of multiculturalism relative to colorblindness predicted stronger stereotypes among Blacks, whereas stronger endorsement of colorblindness relative to multiculturalism predicted stronger stereotypes among Whites. In Study 2, stronger endorsement of multiculturalism relative to colorblindness predicted less ethnocentrism; this relationship did not depend on ethnicity.

Measuring the Measures

We meta-analytically synthesized the intergroup variability literature (177 effect sizes, from 173 independent samples, and 12,078 participants) to test the potential moderating effect of 11 measures of perceived variability. Aggregating across the measures, we detected a small but reliable tendency to perceive more variability among ingroup than outgroup members and such outgroup homogeneity was stronger among non-minimal than minimal groups. Furthermore, analyses that distinguished among the 11 measures revealed systematic discrepancies among the patterns of perception detected by those measures. Those systematic discrepancies further varied across social contexts defined by relative group status, with some measures yielding ingroup homogeneity and others outgroup homogeneity. We discuss the possibility that the measures of variability require different mental activities that interact with contextually induced cognitive and motivational processes to yield disparate intergroup perceptions.

Separating Status from Power as an Antecedent of Intergroup Perception

Status and power covary such that higher status groups are typically higher power groups. This research explored the effect of status on intergroup perception controlling for power. Experiment 1 manipulated the relative status of social groups and explicitly provided the groups equal power. Experiment 2 manipulated status and power orthogonally. Multiple measures yielded consistent patterns indicating that status affected perceived group centrality and variability independent of power. The patterns were consistent with a strategic intergroup comparison account as suggested by social identity theory. Specifically, the effect of status on intergroup perception varied with the relevance and valence of the dimension of comparison in a manner that balanced social reality with a positive social identity.

Grandparent-Grandchild Contact and Attitudes Toward Older Adults: Moderator and Mediator Effects

Two studies tested the intergroup contact hypothesis in the context of the grandparent-grandchild relationship. The hypothesis suggests that contact with an out-group member has more influence on attitudes toward the out-group when group memberships are salient. In Study 1, the predicted link was found but only for grandparents with whom the grandchild had more frequent contact. The second study examined only the most frequent grandparent relationship and replicated the effect. This study also investigated the role of various mediators of the link between quality of contact and attitudes, as well as quality of contact and perceived out-group variability. Perspective taking, anxiety, and accommodation mediated the effects of contact on attitudes, whereas individuation and self-disclosure mediated the effects of contact on perceived out-group variability. Moderated mediational analysis indicated that the moderating effect of group salience occurs between quality of contact and the mediator, not between the mediator and attitudes.

Protecting Threatened Identity: Sticking with the Group by Emphasizing Ingroup Heterogeneity

In two studies (Ns=163, 164), the authors tested the prediction that perceptions of group variability can steer and guide the way that loyalty is expressed in times of identity threat. In both studies, participants were classified as lower or higher identifiers on the basis of their scores on a group identification measure, and manipulations involved group variability perceptions (homogeneous ingroup vs. heterogeneous ingroup) and threat to the ingroup. Higher identifiers presented with a homogeneous ingroup perceived more ingroup homogeneity under threat than when there was no threat. In contrast, higher identifiers who perceived the ingroup initially as heterogeneous perceived more ingroup heterogeneity under threat than in no threat conditions. Lower identifiers perceived more ingroup heterogeneity under threat (vs. no threat) irrespective of manipulated group variability perceptions. Discussion focuses on different ways that group loyalty can be expressed in times of identity threat.

Fostering Group Identification and Creativity in Diverse Groups: The Role of Individuation and Self-Verification

A longitudinal study examined the interplay of identity negotiation processes and diversity in small groups of master's of business administration (MBA) students. When perceivers formed relatively positive impressions of other group members, higher diversity predicted more individuation of targets. When perceivers formed relatively neutral impressions of other group members, however, higher diversity predicted less individuation of targets. Individuation at the outset of the semester predicted self-verification effects several weeks later, and self-verification, in turn, predicted group identification and creative task performance. The authors conclude that contrary to self-categorization theory, fostering individuation and self-verification in diverse groups may maximize group identification and productivity.

Beliefs About Power and Its Relation to Emotional Experience: A Comparison of Japan, France, Germany, and the United States

This research examined the concept of power in Japan, France, Germany, and the United States, as well as beliefs about the emotions persons in power tend to elicit in others and about powerful people’s regulation (specifically, inhibition) of certain emotions. Definitions of power were assessed by examining the importance of two main components: control over self versus other and freedom of action vis-à-vis social norms. Beliefs about both positive (pride, admiration) and negative (jealousy, contempt) emotions were measured. Analyses revealed that the concept of power differed across countries and that the definitions of power as well as country of origin significantly predicted beliefs about the emotions that are elicited in others by powerful people and also the regulation of expression of emotion by powerful people.

Gender Stereotype-Inconsistent Acts Are Seen as More Acceptable Than Stereotype-Consistent Acts, if They Are Clever

Abstract. Four studies show that gender stereotype-inconsistent behavior is seen as more acceptable than gender stereotype-consistent behavior, if it is clever. Four studies found consistently that participants rated the behavior of a man who relied on attractiveness or passiveness (stereotypically female) to be more acceptable than similar behavior by a woman. The behavior of a woman who relied on dominance or aggressiveness (stereotypically male) was sometimes seen as more (Study 1A) and sometimes equally (Study 1B, Study 2, Study 3) acceptable as the behavior of a man who acted similarly. This shows that double standards might play a role: Whereas men are benefited by gender stereotype-inconsistent behavior, this is not the case for women. Across studies, these effects were driven by the interpretation of the gender stereotype-inconsistent acts as more clever and less trashy than gender stereotype-consistent acts. These results qualify the idea that people dislike stereotype-inconsistency.

Perceiving one's nation: entitativity, agency and security in the international arena

The perception of groups as real entities rather than mere aggregates of individuals has important consequences on intergroup relations. Social psychological research, in fact, shows that it affects stereotyping, identification process, and intergroup bias. Previous research has also shown that group entitativity is not a positive or negative group attribute per se; rather, it depends on the context and the relationship between the perceiver and the group. While enhancing entitativity leads to worse expectations about the out-group actions, high entitativity is a valued characteristic when associated with an ally or with the in-group. Indeed, enhancing in-group entitativity leads to stronger in-group identification. The specific reasons for why this is the case, however, remain to be ascertained. What is good about in-group entitativity? In the present contribution we propose that in-group entitativity may lead to perceive the group as a real entity provided with intentions and capacity for planned actions, notably ensuring the safety of its members by protecting them against external threats. We report two correlational studies conducted with American citizens (Study 1) and Italian citizens (Study 2), showing that in-group entitativity is associated with a higher level of identification, attribution of intentionality, and perceived security provided by the in-group. These findings were replicated in a third study-conducted with a role-play method on a fictitious scenario-in which entitativity was manipulated rather than measured. Study 3 also shows that artificially increasing the perception of in-group entitativity enhances perceived safety in an international context and reduces the perception of threat from an out-group. Findings are discussed in terms of possible implications for intergroup and international relations.

Your past is not their present: Time, the other, and ethnocentrism in cross-cultural personality psychology

Recent cross-cultural studies of personality traits have been ambitious in their scope, bringing together dozens of researchers to measure personality across many cultures. The key claim made in this paper is that a persistent form of ethnocentrism mars the presentation and interpretation of findings in cross-cultural studies of personality traits using evolutionary approaches. It is a form long-established as problematic and referred to in anthropology and related social science disciplines as allochronic discourse. A significant research report will be analysed to explore how allochronic discourse, conceptualizations of time, and representations of “otherness” are utilized. The reproduction of allochronic discourse is argued to indicate a need for cross-cultural personality psychologists to engage in multi-disciplinary debate, embrace innovative methodologies, and acknowledge the cultural specificity of its own conceptual frameworks.

Managing a Social Identity Threat

We examined how members of a low status group react to a social identity threat. We propose that expressing an ambivalent evaluation toward the ingroup may represent a way to manage such a threatening situation. For this study, 131 undergraduates’ identification with Italians was assessed. Participants were divided into groups, according to a situational identity threat (high vs. low). In line with hypotheses, low identifiers expressed more ambivalence toward the ingroup in the high (vs. low) threat condition. The reversed pattern emerged for high identifiers. This effect was mediated by the perception of intragroup variability, a well-known social creativity strategy. Results confirmed our interpretation of ambivalence as a form of social creativity, and are discussed in terms of social identity concerns.

Majority, Minority, and Parity: Effects of Gender and Group Size on Perceived Group Variability

We investigated the effects of gender and group size on perceptions of group variability, using groups of students taking different majors that varied in the proportion of men and women (female-majority, parity, and male-majority). We found that both group size and gender had consistent effects on perceived out-group variability, even when potentially confounded alternative explanations were assessed. Men showed a stronger out-group homogeneity effect than women, except when women were in the majority (Studies One and Two), and women showed no in-group homogeneity effect. There was an association between out-group homogeneity and the tendency to generate more subgroups for the in-group than out-group (Study Two), but perceived variability was not associated with familiarity, distinctiveness, perceived group size, or perceived group status. These consistent effects qualify the conclusions of prior research in important ways, and cannot be explained in terms of differences in stereotype accuracy (Study Three), or a confound between the gender majority of a major and its perceived status (Study Four). We discuss our findings in terms of theoretical explanations for gender and size effects on out-group homogeneity, and methodological considerations.

Intergroup bias

This chapter reviews the extensive literature on bias in favor of in-groups at the expense of out-groups. We focus on five issues and identify areas for future research: (a) measurement and conceptual issues (especially in-group favoritism vs. out-group derogation, and explicit vs. implicit measures of bias); (b) modern theories of bias highlighting motivational explanations (social identity, optimal distinctiveness, uncertainty reduction, social dominance, terror management); (c) key moderators of bias, especially those that exacerbate bias (identification, group size, status and power, threat, positive-negative asymmetry, personality and individual differences); (d) reduction of bias (individual vs. intergroup approaches, especially models of social categorization); and (e) the link between intergroup bias and more corrosive forms of social hostility.

The communication of social stereotypes: the effects of group discussion and information distribution on stereotypic appraisals

Stereotypes are fundamentally social constructs, formulated and modified through discussion and interaction with others. The present studies examined the impact of group discussion on stereotypes. In both studies, groups of participants discussed their impressions about a hypothetical target group after having read behaviors performed by target group members. These behaviors included both stereotypic and counterstereotypic examples, and the distribution of these behaviors varied across discussion group members. In some groups only 1 member knew of the counterstereotypic behaviors; in other groups this information was distributed across all group members. In general, discussion led to a polarization of the target group stereotypes, but this effect was lessened when the counterstereotypic behaviors were concentrated in 1 group member. In this case, these counterstereotypic behaviors were discussed more and retained better.