Assessing the well-being of partners of people found guilty of perpetrating genocide in Rwanda

This article draws upon 89 in-person surveys with Rwandan women (ages 26-75) whose partners were incarcerated for genocide and examines how these women explain participation in the violence. We first engage in exploratory factor analysis of reasons cited for perpetrating genocide, which reveals (1) a factor comprised of internal reasons for participation, including greed and hatred; (2) a factor of external reasons, such as peer pressure or coercion, and (3) a factor driven by alcohol use. Next, we analyze how these factors are associated with the women's psychosocial wellbeing as measured by the World Health Organization's Self-Reporting Questionnaire. This quantitative analysis finds that, net of relevant control variables, accounts of participation in genocide that emphasize external reasons for participation are associated with better psychosocial wellbeing, while accounts of participation that emphasize internal reasons are associated with worse psychosocial wellbeing. We conclude by addressing the link between explanations for actions and wellbeing.

The racialization of pit bulls: What dogs can teach us about racial politics

Many have argued that discrimination against pit bulls is rooted in the breed's association with Black owners and culture. We theoretically and empirically interrogate that argument in a variety of ways and uncover striking similarities between the racialization of pit bulls and other racialized issues (e.g., poverty and crime) in public opinion and policy implementation. After detailing the reasons to expect pit bulls to be racialized as Black despite dog ownership in the U.S. generally being raced as white, the article shows: (1) Most Americans associate pit bulls with Black people. (2) Anti-Black attitudes, in general, are significant, independent, predictors of both anti-pit views and of preferring other breeds over them; (3) stereotypes of Black men as violent, in particular, are significant, independent, predictors of both anti-pit views and of preferring other breeds over them. (4) Implicit racialization through a national survey experiment further eroded support for legalizing pits, with the treatment effect significantly conditioned by respondent's race. And (5) state-level racial prejudice is a significant negative predictor of enacting legislation to preempt breed-specific bans. We conclude with our findings' broader insights into the nature of U.S. racial politics. Michael Tesler, mtesler@uci.edu, corresponding author, is Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine; Mary McThomas, mary.mcthomas@uci.edu, is Associate Professor of Political Science at UC Irvine. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the American Political Science Association's annual meeting. We thank Maneesh Arora, Rachel Bernhard, Nathan Chan, Louis Pickett, David Sears, DeSipio, Adam Duberstein, Jane Junn, Claire Kim, Jessica Manforti, J. Scott Matthews, Justin.

Motivated Cognition in Cooperation

Successful cooperation is tightly linked to individuals' beliefs about their interaction partners, the decision setting, and existing norms, perceptions, and values. This article reviews and integrates findings from judgment and decision-making, social and cognitive psychology, political science, and economics, developing a systematic overview of the mechanisms underlying motivated cognition in cooperation. We elaborate on how theories and concepts related to motivated cognition developed in various disciplines define the concept and describe its functionality. We explain why beliefs play such an essential role in cooperation, how they can be distorted, and how this fosters or harms cooperation. We also highlight how individual differences and situational factors change the propensity to engage in motivated cognition. In the form of a construct map, we provide a visualization of the theoretical and empirical knowledge structure regarding the role of motivated cognition, including its many interdependencies, feedback loops, and moderating influences. We conclude with a brief suggestion for a future research agenda based on this compiled evidence.

Why are some countries rich and others poor? development and validation of the attributions for Cross-Country Inequality Scale (ACIS)

Understanding lay theories on the causes of economic inequality is the first step to comprehending why people tolerate, justify, or react against it. Accordingly, this paper aims to develop and validate with two cross-sectional studies the Attributions for Cross-Country Inequality Scale (ACIS), which assesses how people explain cross-country economic inequality-namely, the uneven distribution of income and wealth between poor and rich countries. After selecting and adapting items from existing scales of attributions for poverty and wealth, in Study 1, we tested the factorial structure of this initial pool of items in three countries with different levels of economic development and inequality, namely, Italy (n = 246), the UK (n = 248), and South Africa (n = 228). Three causal dimensions emerged from the Exploratory Factor Analysis: "rich countries" (blaming the systematic advantage of and exploitation by rich countries), "poor countries" (blaming the dispositional inadequacy and faults of poor countries), and "fate" (blaming destiny and luck). The retained items were administered in Study 2 to three new samples from Italy (n = 239), the UK (n = 249), and South Africa (n = 248). Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) corroborated the factorial structure of the ACIS, and Multi-Group CFA supported configural and metric invariances of the scale across countries. In addition, we show internal consistency and construct validity of the scale: the scale correlates with relevant constructs (e.g., beliefs about cross-country inequality and ideological orientation) and attitudes toward relevant policies related to international redistribution and migration. Overall, the scale is a valid instrument to assess causal attribution for cross-national inequality and is reliable across countries. By focusing on resource distribution from an international perspective, this scale will allow researchers to broaden the discussion on economic inequality to a global level.

React, reframe and engage. Establishing a receiver mindset for more effective safety negotiations

PURPOSE

The response of the receiver to a voiced patient safety concern is frequently cited as a barrier to health professionals speaking up. The authors describe a novel Receiver Mindset Framework (RMF) to help health professionals understand the importance of their response when spoken up to.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The framework draws on the broader receiver-focussed literature and integrates innovative findings from a series of empirical studies. These studies examined different receiver behaviour within vignettes, retrospective descriptions of real interactions and behaviour in a simulated interaction.

FINDINGS

The authors' findings indicated that speaking up is an intergroup interaction where social identities, context and speaker stance intersect, directly influencing both perceptions of and responses to the message. The authors' studies demonstrated that when spoken up to, health professionals poorly manage their emotions and ineffectively clarify the speaker's concerns. Currently, targeted training for receivers is overwhelmingly absent from speaking-up programmes. The receiver mindset framework provides an evidence-based, healthcare specific, receiver-focussed framework to inform programmes.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

Grounded in communication accommodation theory (CAT), the resulting framework shifts speaking up training from being only speaker skill focussed, to training that recognises speaking up as a mutual negotiation between the healthcare speaker and receiver. This framework provides healthcare professionals with a novel approach to use in response to speaking up that enhances their ability to listen, understand and engage in point-of-care negotiations to ensure the physical and psychological safety of patients and staff.

All it takes is empathy: how virtual reality perspective-taking influences intergroup attitudes and stereotypes

Research in the past decade has demonstrated the potential of virtual reality perspective-taking (VRPT) to reduce bias against salient outgroups. In the perspective-taking literature, both affective and cognitive mechanisms have been theorized and identified as plausible pathways to prejudice reduction. Few studies have systematically compared affective and cognitive mediators, especially in relation to virtual reality, a medium posited to produce visceral, affective experiences. The present study seeks to extend current research on VRPT's mechanisms by comparing empathy (affective) and situational attributions (cognitive) as dual mediators influencing intergroup attitudes (affective) and stereotypes (cognitive). In a between-subjects experiment, 84 participants were randomly assigned to embody a VR ingroup or outgroup waiting staff at a local food establishment, interacting with an impolite ingroup customer. Results indicated that participants in the outgroup VRPT condition reported significantly more positive attitudes and stereotypes towards outgroup members than those in the ingroup VRPT condition. For both attitudes and stereotypes, empathy significantly mediated the effect of VRPT, but situational attributions did not. Findings from this research provide support for affect as a key component of virtual experiences and how they shape intergroup perceptions. Implications and directions for further research are discussed.

Attribution Impacts Implicit (And Explicit) Evaluations

Two studies examined whether the attributional framing of negative events affected explicit evaluations, as measured by differences in liking, and implicit evaluations, as measured by the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald et al., 1998). In Study 1, participants read negative information about a novel target ordered to elicit internal or external attributions. Participants in the internal attribution condition evaluated the target more negatively than did those in the external attribution condition on both implicit and explicit measures. Study 2 replicated these results and tested the effects of attribution on recently formed negative evaluations. Participants who evaluated targets before and after receiving additional negative information about them demonstrated implicit and explicit evaluative change consistent with the attributional framing of that information. This research provides clear evidence that attribution influences the formation and change of implicit evaluations; however, these effects were weaker than those on explicit measures of evaluation.

Ability or luck: A systematic review of interpersonal attributions of success

The role of luck in success has a relatively minor, albeit consistent history in academic discourse, with a striking lack of literature engaging with notions of luck within occupational environments. Elucidating why people attribute their own success to luck over ability has predominated in the literature, with interpersonal attributions receiving less attention. Here, we center on systematically summarizing the evidence on interpersonal attributions of success as a function of ability or luck, with a particular focus on whether these differs by gender and race. The perception of the success of others from different sociodemographic groups, and how it is attributed, is a crucial leverage point for inclusion and diversity. Particularly as women and ethnic groups continue to be systematically disadvantaged in the workforce. Ignoring the role of luck conceals and augments privilege, even if not deliberately or consciously invoked. Using the Prisma protocol, this review offers evidence from experiments, published between 1970 and 2020, derived from five electronic bibliographic databases; Business Source Complete; PsychINFO; Scopus; Web of Science; and Google Scholar. There were a limited number of studies on gender that found an effect, but with few exceptions, the papers that pertain to race converged on the understanding that interpersonal attributions of success were predicated on this immutable factor. Such that black individuals were more often viewed as lucky in their success and less able, which translates to lesser opportunity and reward. Decades of research have pointed to individuals making systematic attribution errors in success by gender and race; this review only partially substantiates this consensus and provides narrow support for the view that those believed to be the most talented in society may merely be the luckiest. We add to evidence that context matters.

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.

More exposure to medical injury news, better doctor-patient communication, but less doctors' professional identity: A moderated chain mediation model

Objectives

In recent years, news of medical malignant injury events has become common in China. However, it is unclear how exposure to this news affects medical staff.

Methods

The present study collected data from a sample of 311 medical staff in China. It explored the effect of exposure to such news on medical staff's communication and willingness to let their children be doctors, which was an attitude that reflects their professional identity well. In addition, this study also examined the mediating roles of outgroup attribution and anxiety, and the moderating role of social support.

Results

The results showed that exposure to news of medical injury could positively and directly predict the quality of doctor-patient communication, but negatively and indirectly predict medical staff's willingness to let their children become doctors. These effects existed through the mediating role of anxiety and the chain mediating role of both outgroup attribution and anxiety. In addition, social support could mitigate the negative correlation between news exposure and outgroup attribution.

Conclusions

These results suggest that news of medical malignant injury events may incentivize medical staff to improve the quality of communication in the short term, but it is not conducive to medical staff's long-term mental health. That is, exposure to news of medical injury is likely to lead to a negative influence on their professional identity, although social support can alleviate this negative influence.

Why are they eco-friendly? Attributing eco-friendly descriptive norms to intrinsic motivation increases pro-environmental purchase intention

People perform pro-environmental behaviors not only out of intrinsic motivation, but also due to external factors such as expected social approval or financial gain. To the extent that people use their own motivations to infer the motivation of others, people may view descriptive norms favoring pro-environmental behavior as extrinsically motivated. This may in turn decrease the normative influence of the norm, as conformity can be negatively affected by perceptions that others are conforming mindlessly. While descriptive norms generally promote pro-environmental behavior change, the influential power of descriptive norms varies between studies. One possible explanation for these inconclusive findings is that people interpret others' behavior as either intrinsically- or extrinsically motivated. We propose that pro-environmental descriptive norms will be more influential when attributing others' pro-environmental behavior as intrinsically (e.g., pleasure of contributing to the environment) rather than extrinsically, motivated (e.g., fear of social disapproval). In two experiments (N = 1326), we compared participants' intention to purchase pro-environmental products between four conditions: control condition vs intrinsic norm vs extrinsic norm (Exp. 1) vs injunctive norm (Exp. 2). Results consistently found a significant increase in pro-environmental purchase intention in the intrinsic norm condition compared to both extrinsic norm condition (Exp. 2) and no-information control condition (Exp. 1 & 2). These studies highlight that attribution of behavior is vital for the adoption of pro-environmental norms.

Indonesian civilians’ attributions for anti-Chinese violence during the May 1998 riots in Indonesia

The present research examines the perceptions of Indonesian civilians regarding the May 1998 riots, which occurred at the end of the period of military dictatorship in Indonesia and included looting, rapes, and murders, disproportionately targeting Chinese Indonesians. Using a mixed methods approach, the research explores the intersectionality of ethnicity and gender as factors associated with perceptions of the extent and causes of the riots. It aims to contribute to the literature concerning the Ultimate Attribution Error, and to the psychology of intergroup relations in non-WEIRD contexts more broadly. An online survey with qualitative and quantitative components was administered to 235 participants (134 Pribumi and 101 Chinese Indonesian participants). The present research provides what may be the first documentation of civilian perceptions of the May 1998 riots. Significant differences consistent with the Ultimate Attribution Error were found between perpetrator and victim groups’ accounts. Participants who are Pribumi (the group involved in perpetrating the violence) attributed the causes of the violence to external factors more strongly, while participants who are Chinese Indonesians (the victim group) attributed the causes of the mass violence more strongly to the internal factors of perpetrators. There was no evidence, however, that gender affected perceptions, despite the gendered nature of the violence.

Addiction onset and offset characteristics and public stigma toward people with common substance dependencies: A large national survey experiment

Drug-related overdose deaths topped 100,000 between 2020 and 2021. Opioids and stimulants are implicated as the primary drivers of this public health crisis. Stigma remains one of the primary barriers to treatment and recovery from substance use disorders. However, little is known about how stigma varies across different substance types, whether individuals are actively using or in recovery, and medical versus recreational onset. We examined these questions using data from the 2021 Shatterproof Addiction Stigma Index, the only nationally representative data available on this topic. Respondents (N = 7051) completed a vignette-based survey experiment to assess public stigma (social distance, prejudice, competence, and causal attributions) toward people with alcohol, opioid (following a prescription pain or recreational use onset), heroin, or methamphetamine dependencies. Vignette characters were described as active users or in recovery. Adjusting for covariates (e.g., race, age, gender), prejudice and desire for social distance were highest toward heroin and methamphetamine, and lowest toward alcohol dependence. The perceived onset of the dependency affected stigma. Specifically, prescription opioids with a recreational onset were more stigmatized than those with a medical onset. Moreover, individuals depicted as being in recovery were less stigmatized than those depicted as active users. Recovery status had the largest impact on prejudice and social distance toward methamphetamine, relative to other conditions. The nature and magnitude of substance dependency stigma differs across substance types and onset and offset conditions. Reducing stigma will require tailored strategies that consider the multidimensional nature of stigma toward people with addiction.

Racial/ethnic and gender disparities in child protection decision-making: What role do stereotypes play?

BACKGROUND

A wide range of studies have revealed racial/ethnic and gender disparities in child protection decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether disparities are mediated by stereotypes that professionals may hold, by applying the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) which suggests that stereotypes are formed by perceptions of sociability, morality, and competence.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

258 professionals (133 current staff and 125 trainees) from Colorado participated in the study.

METHODS

The study applied a 2 × 3 randomized experimental vignette design. Participants read a case in which the gender of the parent responsible for maltreatment (mother or father) and race/ethnicity of the family (white, Black, or Latinx) varied.

RESULTS

A SEM model (CFI = .94, RMSEA = .05) with free parameters for trainees and current staff was estimated. No significant association between stereotypes and race/ethnicity and gender appeared. However, evidence for disparities emerged. In the trainee group, scores to decide for a supervision order were higher for white fathers, Black mothers, Latinx mothers, and Latinx fathers (β = 0.18 to 0.25) compared to white mothers. Current staff provided larger risk scores for Black mothers and both Latinx parents (β = 0.20 to 0.22) compared to the white mother, resulting in increased inclinations to decide for a supervision order (β = 0.26). Lastly, negative perceptions of morality increased supervision order scores (β = -0.55 to -0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for disparities in decision-making appeared, but the study could not confirm that these disparities were mediated by stereotypes. Furthermore, perceptions of morality seemed to impact decision-making processes.

Revisiting Behavioral Integrity: Progress and New Directions After 20 Years

Behavioral integrity (BI) describes the extent to which an observer believes that an actor's words tend to align with their actions. It considers whether the actor is seen as keeping promises and enacting the same values they espouse. Although the construct of BI was introduced in 1999 and developed more fully in 2002, it builds on the work of earlier scholars that discussed related notions of hypocrisy, credibility, and gaps between espousal and enactment. Since the 2002 paper, a growing literature has established the BI construct, largely but not exclusively in the leadership realm, as a critical antecedent to positive attitudes such as trust and commitment, positive behaviors such as turnover and performance, and as a moderator of the effectiveness of leadership initiatives. BI is by definition subjectively assessed, and perceptions of BI are susceptible to various forms of perceptual biases. A variety of factors appear to affect whether observers interpret a particular word-action alignment or gap as an indication of the actor's high or low BI. In this article, we examine and synthesize this literature and suggest directions for future research. We discuss the early history of BI research and then examine contemporary research at the individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis. We assess what we have learned and what methodological challenges and theoretical questions remain to be addressed. We hope in this way to stimulate further research on this consequential construct.

Ingroup Bias in Healthcare Contexts: Israeli-Jewish Perceptions of Arab and Jewish Doctors

The influence of group membership on perceptions of outgroup members has been extensively studied in various contexts. This research has indicated a strong tendency for ingroup bias – preferring the ingroup over the outgroup. We seek to further expand on the growing literature regarding the effects of group membership within healthcare contexts. Focusing on the Arab-Jewish context in Israel, the present study explored the influence of group membership on Israeli-Jewish participants’ evaluations when exposed to potential malpractice. Specifically, participants (n = 165) read a description of an Israeli-Jewish or Israeli-Arab physician who was either culpable or non-culpable of malpractice. Consistent with our predictions, findings generally indicated more negative evaluations of the Israeli-Arab physician, regardless of objective culpability. We conclude by discussing the study’s limitations and implications.

Making sense of the past to understand the present: Attributions for historical trauma predict contemporary social and political attitudes

Research indicates that the memory of collective trauma influences attitudes towards contemporary social and political issues. We suggest that the specific attributions for trauma that members of victim and perpetrator groups make provide a more nuanced understanding of this relationship. Thus, we constructed and validated a measure of attributions for the Holocaust. Then, we ran a preregistered study on representative samples in Germany ( N = 504) and Israel ( N = 469) to examine whether attributing the Holocaust to essentialist or contextual causes influences attitudes towards the immigration crisis and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Results indicated that, among Germans, attributing the Holocaust to German character was associated with positive attitudes to immigration via collective guilt. Among Israelis, attributions to German character were associated with negative attitudes to non-Jewish immigration, a hawkish stance in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, and pro-Israel attitudes via a sense of perpetual victimization. Results reveal how attributions about past trauma affect contemporary social and political attitudes among victims and perpetrators.

By chance or by choice? Biased attribution of others' outcomes when social preferences matter

Decision makers in positions of power often make unobserved choices under risk and uncertainty. In many cases, they face a trade-off between maximizing their own payoff and those of other individuals. What inferences are made in such instances about their choices when only outcomes are observable? We conduct two experiments that investigate whether outcomes are attributed to luck or choices. Decision makers choose between two investment options, where the more costly option has a higher chance of delivering a good outcome (that is, a higher payoff) for the group. We show that attribution biases exist in the evaluation of good outcomes. On average, good outcomes of decision makers are attributed more to luck as compared to bad outcomes. This asymmetry implies that decision makers get too little credit for their successes. The biases are exhibited by those individuals who make or would make the less prosocial choice for the group as decision makers, suggesting that a consensus effect may be shaping both the belief formation and updating processes.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10683-021-09731-w.

Too Good to be Liked? When and How Prosocial Others are Disliked

Outstandingly prosocial individuals may not always be valued and admired, but sometimes depreciated and rejected. While prior research has mainly focused on devaluation of highly competent or successful individuals, comparable research in the domain of prosociality is scarce. The present research suggests two mechanisms why devaluation of extreme prosocial individuals may occur: they may (a) constitute very high comparison standards for observers, and may (b) be perceived as communal narcissists. Two experiments test these assumptions. We confronted participants with an extreme prosocial or an ordinary control target and manipulated comparative aspects of the situation (salient vs. non-salient comparison, Experiment 1), and narcissistic aspects of the target (showing off vs. being modest, Experiment 2). Consistent with our assumptions, the extreme prosocial target was liked less than the control target, and even more so when the comparison situation was salient (Experiment 1), and when the target showed off with her good deeds (Experiment 2). Implications that prosociality does not always breed more liking are discussed.

Lay Beliefs About Who Can Bridge the Black–White Racial Gap During Interracial Exchanges

For group discussions about fraught racial topics between Black and White Americans to be beneficial, conversation participants must view the person who facilitates as effective at communicating both the perspectives of Black and White Americans. We identify a biracial advantage in this domain. In three studies (total N = 710), we tested how a facilitator’s race affects their perceived effectiveness in communicating with both Black and White Americans. Both Black and White participants expected Black and White monoracial facilitators to more effectively engage with racial in-group than racial out-group members. However, they expected biracial facilitators to be equally effective in communicating with both Black and White groups. Both Black and White participants also expected biracial facilitators to use productive learning strategies (perspective taking, showing empathy) more than White facilitators, and either more than or equally to Black facilitators, suggesting one reason why people expect biracial facilitators to perform well in these moments.

The role of preservice teachers’ implicit attitudes and causal attributions: a deeper look into students’ ethnicity

Previous research has provided evidence that teachers implicitly hold more negative attitudes toward ethnic minority students than toward ethnic majority students. Furthermore, they attribute the lower educational success of ethnic minority students predominantly to internal causes. So far, it is not known how implicit attitudes and causal attributions are related to preservice teachers’ judgments of students’ academic competencies. We conducted a study to close this research gap. In a sample of preservice teachers, our study showed mainly negative implicit attitudes toward ethnic minority students. On general, the preservice teachers made external attributions. Implicit attitudes as well as causal attributions predicted the judgments. Preservice teachers with more negative attitudes and preservice teachers, who attributed the failure of ethnic minority students to these students’ abilities, less favorably judged the competence of ethnic minority students. Our results highlight the role of teachers’ attitudes and causal attributions in determining the disadvantages that ethnic minority students experience in school.

Language patterns of outgroup prejudice

Although explicit verbal expression of prejudice and stereotypes may have become less common due to the recent rise of social norms against prejudice, prejudice in language still persists in more subtle forms. It remains unclear whether and how language patterns predict variance in prejudice across a large number of minority groups. Informed by construal level theory, intergroup-contact theory, and linguistic expectancy bias, we leverage a natural language corpus of 1.8 million newspaper articles to investigate patterns of language referencing 60 U.S. minority groups. We found that perception of social distance among immigrant groups is reflected in language production: Groups perceived as socially distant (vs. close) are also more likely to be mentioned in abstract (vs. concrete) language. Concreteness was also strongly positively correlated with sentiment, a phenomenon that was unique to language concerning minority groups, suggesting a strong tendency for more socially distant groups to be represented with more negative language. We also provide a qualitative exploration of the content of outgroup prejudice by applying Latent Dirichlet Allocation to language referencing minority groups in the context of immigration. We identified 15 immigrant-related topics (e.g., politics, arts, crime, illegal workers, museums, food) and the strength of their association and relationship with perceived sentiment for each minority group. This research demonstrates how perceived social distance and language concreteness are related and correlate with outgroup negativity, provides a practical and ecologically valid method for investigating perceptions of minority groups in language, and helps elaborate the connection between theoretical positions from social psychology with recent studies from computer science on prejudice embedded in natural language.

A Social Identity Threat Perspective on Why Partisans May Engage in Greater Victim Blaming and Sexual Assault Myth Acceptance in the #MeToo Era

This study examined how U.S. partisans (N = 1,154) may engage in greater victim blaming and sexual assault myth acceptance to defend their political identities in the #MeToo era. The more Republicans and Democrats identified with being a member of their political party and reported feeling defensive when members from their political party are criticized, the more accepting they were of common sexual assault myths and thus the less likely they were to perceive sexual assault as a serious issue in need of addressing and the #MeToo movement as having a positive impact in the United States.

It’s their fault: Partisan attribution bias and its association with voting intentions

This research examined how people explain major outcomes of political consequence (e.g., economic growth, rising inequality). We argue that people attribute positive outcomes more and negative outcomes less to their own political party than to an opposing party. We conducted two studies, one before the 2016 U.S. presidential election ( N = 244) and another before the 2020 election ( N = 249 registered voters), that examined attributions across a wide array of outcomes. As predicted, a robust partisan attribution bias emerged in both studies. Although the bias was largely equivalent among Democrats and Republicans, it was magnified among those with more extreme political ideology. Further, the bias predicted unique variance in voting intentions and significantly mediated the link between political ideology and voting. In sum, these data suggest that partisan allegiances systemically bias attributions in a group-favoring direction. We discuss implications of these findings for emerging research on political social cognition.

Violence Next Door: The Influence of Friendship With Perpetrators on Responses to Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a prevalent problem worldwide. Friends of perpetrators may be in a unique position to support or affect change. However, little is known about the influence of friendship with a perpetrator on responses to IPV. Social identity theory describes an ingroup bias whereby ingroup perpetrators of violence are viewed as less personally responsible than outgroup perpetrators. This bias has been consistently found for impersonal ingroup relationships, but there is limited research in relation to friends of perpetrators. Drawing on social psychological theories, this study aimed to explore the impact of friendship with a perpetrator on responses to IPV-specifically, on attributions of causality and social rejection. A fictional vignette depicting IPV perpetrated by either a friend or a stranger was presented to 174 university students, who then completed a questionnaire on attributions and social rejection. Results indicated that participants attributed high blame to the perpetrator regardless of their relationship, but friends of the perpetrator were significantly more likely than strangers to attribute the cause of the violence to external factors. Friends of perpetrators were likely to continue the friendship, though social rejection was significantly more likely when the perpetrator was attributed high blame and internal causality. Ingroup bias was not consistently present across all outcomes, demonstrating the complexity of social relationships and IPV. The findings suggest expectancy based on past behavior may influence attributions for violence in existing relationships. The combination of high blame, external attributions, and low social rejection was discussed in relation to opportunities for friends to intervene to prevent IPV. The multifaceted influence of friendship on responses to IPV perpetration suggests the need to consider relationship factors when designing violence prevention campaigns and bystander intervention programs.

Evaluating Board Candidates: A Threat-Contingency Model of Shareholder Dissent Against Female Director Candidates

Given the growing corporate social responsibility (CSR) pressures to increase board gender diversity and the scrutiny afforded to firms that fail to appoint female directors, one may expect shareholders to vote with greater support for women (than for men) nominated to boards. However, diversity management research suggests that pressures to improve female representation in organizations and in leadership roles may also backfire. We propose a threat-contingency model of shareholder dissent against female director candidates to explain when shareholders will be more or less likely to dissent against female (relative to male) directors. Specifically, we advance CSR legitimacy threats and agency threats as conditions contextualizing shareholder dissent against female director candidates. Using a sample of 50,202 director elections at 1,104 public firms from 2003 to 2015, we find that female directors receive less dissent from shareholders; further, low female board representation intensifies this leniency as CSR legitimacy threats become more salient. However, when firm-related agency threats occur (e.g., firm underperformance and media controversies), shareholders’ leniency toward female director candidates dissipates, and when directors themselves present agency threats (e.g., director attendance problems and nonindependence), shareholders evaluate female directors more harshly than male directors. Underlining the relevance of our theory, our supplementary analyses show that shareholder dissent increases the probability of director turnover. These findings contribute to theory and research on women on boards, firm responses to institutional pressures, and shareholder dissent.

Exploring the Motivation Behind Discrimination and Stigmatization Related to COVID-19: A Social Psychological Discussion Based on the Main Theoretical Explanations

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19), was first detected in Wuhan province in China during late December 2019 and was designated as being highly infectious. The World Health Organization (WHO) labeled it a "pandemic" on March 11, 2020. Throughout human history, experience has shown that prejudices and viruses spread simultaneously during a viral pandemic. Outgroup members have been associated with various diseases and non-human vectors of diseases. Some epidemics have been named according to various outgroups, just as the novel coronavirus has been referred to by some as the "Wuhan virus" or the "Chinese virus." Associating a virus with a sociodemographic group builds a false illusionary correlation, which can lead to stigmatization and discrimination. Pandemics can also stimulate violent xenophobic reactions. Besides the obvious harmful consequences for the individuals targeted, pandemic-related discrimination also affects the spread of the virus through its effect on public attitudes toward prevention and restriction, health service procurement, and in the establishment of health-related policies. It is important to first understand the relevant concepts and processes, and also to understand the underlying causes of discrimination in order to fight it. Social psychology offers multidimensional and comprehensive explanations of prejudice and discrimination. This review's primary aim was to examine the motivations behind COVID-19-related discrimination based on social psychological perspectives. In line with this aim, the review first defines discrimination in detail, plus the related concepts and main social psychological theories on prejudice and discrimination. Then, pandemic-related discrimination in light of past experiences is discussed and explanations put forward for the theoretical perspectives and inferences specific to COVID-19. Finally, recommendations are made in order to prevent and combat discrimination related to infectious diseases.

Perceived Group Threat, Perceived Injustice, and Self-Reported Right-Wing Violence: An Integrative Approach to the Explanation Right-Wing Violence

The present study aims at explaining individual differences in self-reported political violence. We integrate key concepts from the field of criminology that are conceptually related to social identity theory (Flemish identity, feelings of group superiority, and ethnocentrism) and the dual process model on prejudice (perceived injustice, perception of threat, and right-wing authoritarianism). In our model, social identity concepts are hypothesized to play a mediating role between mechanisms derived from the dual process model and political violence. To test the integrated model, a model was run for testing the strength of direct and indirect effects of perceived injustice, authoritarianism thrill-seeking behavior, feelings of superiority, Flemish nationalism, ethnocentrism, right-wing extremist beliefs, and exposure to racist peers on political violence. The analyses are based on a web survey (N = 723) among adolescents and young adults in Flanders, Belgium. Results indicate that social identity variables play an important mediation role between perceptions and ideological attitudes related to injustice, and political violence. The main path revealed by our study is that perceived injustice may result in heightened perceptions of threat, which in turn positively influence levels of right-wing authoritarianism. Mediated by ethnocentrism, this variable has a significant and positive effect on right-wing beliefs, which in turn has a positive effect on political violence.

Reward and punishment in a team contest

A team contest entails both public good characteristics within the teams as well as a contest across teams. In an experimental study, we analyse behaviour in such a team contest when allowing to punish or to reward other team members. Moreover, we compare two types of contest environment: One in which two teams compete for a prize and another one in which we switch off the between-group element of the contest. We find that reward giving, as opposed to punishing, induces higher contributions to the team contest. Furthermore, expenditures on rewarding other co-players are significantly higher than those for punishing.

The Role of Social Cognition in Medical Decision Making with Asian American Patients

Asian Americans, the fastest growing racial group in the USA, face a host of major health disparities. There are several reasons for these disparities, and one possible contributor is provider perceptions of Asian Americans, which in turn can affect their medical decision making when treating Asian American patients. There is evidence for the influence of provider perceptions on medical decision making among patients of other racial minority groups; however, literature on Asian American patients is lacking. The present paper addresses this gap in the literature by using social cognitive theory to outline the mechanisms through which provider perception of Asian American patients can affect diagnostic and treatment decisions. These mechanisms include stereotypes and implicit biases, illusory correlations, and cognitive load. Recommendations for future research and policy development are provided.

With socioeconomic status controlled, cigarette use is lower among American Indians/Alaska Natives than whites

BACKGROUND

Higher crude prevalence of cigarette use among American Indians/Alaska Natives (AI/AN) than non-Hispanic whites (NHW) has helped engender an assumption that race/ethnicity explains the difference. This study examines whether being AI/AN versus NHW predicts greater use when socioeconomic status and demographics are controlled.

METHODS

Data came from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2013-2017). Using logistic regressions with socioeconomic (income, education) and demographic (gender, age, marital status) controls, differences between AI/AN (n = 4,305) and NHW (n = 166,348) regarding heavier cigarette use (past month daily use, past month use of 300+ cigarettes, and nicotine dependence) and current cigarette use (past month use plus 100+ cigarettes in lifetime) were assessed. Adjusted predicted probabilities were also constructed.

RESULTS

NHW, compared to AI/AN, had greater odds of daily use: adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 1.23 (95% CI: 1.03-1.49); predicted probabilities-15.3% and 13.0%, respectively. NHW had greater odds of using 300+ cigarettes: AOR = 1.47 (CI: 1.19-1.83); predicted probabilities-13.6% and 9.9%. NHW had greater odds of being nicotine dependent: AOR = 1.57 (CI: 1.31-1.89); predicted probabilities-10.3% and 7.1%. A difference in current use was not found. As controls, income and education were especially impactful.

CONCLUSIONS

With controls, particularly for socioeconomic status, heavier cigarette use was lower among AI/AN than NHW, and a current cigarette use difference was not indicated. This contradicts the idea that being AI/AN versus NHW independently predicts greater cigarette use, and it underscores the importance of socioeconomic status for understanding cigarette use among AI/AN.

Ethics Versus Success? The Acceptance of Unethical Leadership in the 2016 US Presidential Elections

Before and after the 2016 US Presidential Election, this research examined Trump and Clinton supporters’ attributions about behavior of each leader, both of whose ethicality had been publicly questioned. American voters (N = 268) attributed significantly more dispositional factors to the outgroup leader than to the ingroup leader. Moreover, when the ingroup candidate won the election (i.e., among Trump supporters), unethical leadership subsequently became more acceptable and there was less desire to tighten the election process when dealing with unethical candidates. The opposite pattern was found among voters whose ingroup candidate lost the election (Clinton supporters). The results and implications are discussed.

A Task-Based Taxonomy of Cognitive Biases for Information Visualization

Information visualization designers strive to design data displays that allow for efficient exploration, analysis, and communication of patterns in data, leading to informed decisions. Unfortunately, human judgment and decision making are imperfect and often plagued by cognitive biases. There is limited empirical research documenting how these biases affect visual data analysis activities. Existing taxonomies are organized by cognitive theories that are hard to associate with visualization tasks. Based on a survey of the literature we propose a task-based taxonomy of 154 cognitive biases organized in 7 main categories. We hope the taxonomy will help visualization researchers relate their design to the corresponding possible biases, and lead to new research that detects and addresses biased judgment and decision making in data visualization.

Cultural Variation and Similarities in Cognitive Thinking Styles Versus Judgment Biases: A Review of Environmental Factors and Evolutionary Forces

Cultural psychological research has compellingly demonstrated that reliable East-West differences exist in basic cognitive styles: in contrast to the analytic, focal, linear thinking prevalent in the West, East Asians prefer to engage in more holistic, contextual, and intuitive thinking. However, despite the consensus on these cultural differences in thinking style, the literature on cross-cultural variation in actual cognitive biases is far more equivocal. The Fundamental Attribution Error (and by extension the Ultimate Attribution Error) has received the most attention among cognitive biases in the cultural arena; multiple studies have shown both evidence for cultural differences and evidence for universality. Similarly equivocal findings have emerged for other cognitive biases like the hindsight bias, positive illusions, and social exchange. Error Management Theory offers to reconcile this paradox of why consistent variation in thinking style do not necessarily lead to similarly consistent differences in cognitive biases; different mechanisms drive preferences (i.e., for how to think) versus actual behaviors (i.e., involving judgments/decisions). While different features of the physical environment likely gave rise to differences in preferences, pressures from the social environment likely pushed cognitive processing in common judgment tasks (like inferring another person’s mind or one’s own) in similar directions.

The Psychology of Motivated versus Rational Impression Updating

People's beliefs about others are often impervious to new evidence: we continue to cooperate with ingroup defectors and refuse to see outgroup enemies as rehabilitated. Resistance to updating beliefs with new information has historically been interpreted as reflecting bias or motivated cognition, but recent work in Bayesian inference suggests that belief maintenance can be compatible with procedural rationality. We propose a mentalizing account of belief maintenance, which holds that protecting strong priors by generating alternative explanations for surprising information involves more mentalizing about the target than nonrational discounting. We review the neuroscientific evidence supporting this approach, and discuss how both types of processing can lead to fitness benefits.

The influence of defendant race and mental disorder type on mock juror decision-making in insanity trials

This study examined the joint influence of defendant race (Black/White) and mental disorder type (schizophrenia/depression) on mock juror decisions in a Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) case. We reasoned that unwillingness to vote for insanity would be more pronounced for a Black defendant with schizophrenia, given overlapping dangerousness and criminality stereotypes associated with those groups. Online community participants (N = 216) read a fictional second-degree murder case in which we varied mental disorder type and defendant race, then provided a verdict (guilty/NGRI) and answered questions regarding the trial. In line with hypotheses, participants were significantly more likely to vote guilty for a Black defendant with schizophrenia as compared to depression, but there were no significant differences for the White defendant. Results of this study suggest that bias in insanity trials can be exacerbated for a racialized defendant.

What is mindreading?

Theory of mind, also known as mindreading, refers to our ability to attribute mental states to agents in order to make sense of and interact with other agents. Recently, theorists in this literature have advanced a broad conception of mindreading. In particular, psychologists and philosophers have examined how we attribute knowledge, intention, mentalistically loaded stereotypes, and personality traits to others. Moreover, the diversity of our goals in a social interaction-precision, efficiency, self/in-group protection-generates diversity in the mindreading processes we employ. Finally, the products of mindreading are varied, as well. We produce different sorts of mindreading explanations depending on our epistemic goals and the situational context. In this article, I piece together these different strands of research to present a broad conception of mindreading that is complex, messy, and interesting. This article is categorized under: Philosophy > Knowledge and Belief Philosophy > Psychological Capacities.

Collectively biased representations of the past: Ingroup Bias in Wikipedia articles about intergroup conflicts

Individuals tend to present their own group (the ingroup) in a systematically more favourable way (ingroup bias). By examining socially negotiated and publicly accessible Wikipedia articles about intergroup conflicts, we investigated ingroup bias at a collective level. Specifically, we compared articles about the same intergroup conflicts (e.g., the Falklands War) in the corresponding language versions of Wikipedia (e.g., the Spanish and English Wikipedia articles about the Falklands War). Study 1 featured a content coding of translated Wikipedia articles by trained raters, which showed that articles systematically presented the ingroup in a more favourable way (e.g., Argentina in the Spanish article and the United Kingdom in the English article) and, in reverse, the outgroup as more immoral and more responsible for the conflict. These findings were replicated and extended in Study 2, which was limited to the lead sections of articles but included considerably more conflicts and many participants instead of a few trained coders. This procedure allowed for separate analyses for each conflict, which showed considerable variance in the results pattern with a stronger ingroup bias for (1) more recent conflicts and (2) conflicts in which the proportion of ingroup members among the top editors was larger. Finally, a third study ruled out that these effects were driven by translations or the raters' own nationality. Therefore, this paper is the first to demonstrate ingroup bias in Wikipedia - a finding that is of practical as well as theoretical relevance as we outline in the discussion.