Are Danes’ Immigration Policy Preferences Based on Accurate Stereotypes?

Stereotypes about 32 country-of-origin groups were measured using an online survey of the adult, non-elderly Danish population (n = 476 after quality control). Participants were asked to estimate each group’s net fiscal contribution in Denmark. These estimates were then compared to the actual net fiscal contributions for the 32 groups, taken from a report by the Danish Ministry of Finance. Stereotypes were found to be highly accurate, both at the aggregate level (r = 0.81) and at the individual level (median r = 0.62). Interestingly, participants over- rather than underestimated the net fiscal contributions of groups from countries with a higher percentage of Muslims. Indeed, this was true at both the aggregate and individual levels (r = −0.25 and median r = −0.49, respectively). Participants were also asked to say how many immigrants from each group should be admitted to Denmark. There was a very strong correlation between participants’ aggregate immigration policy preferences and their estimates of the 32 groups’ fiscal contributions (r = 0.98), suggesting that their preferences partly reflect accurate stereotypes. Most of the analyses were pre-registered.

Accuracy of consensual stereotypes in moral foundations: A gender analysis

The current study explored the accuracy of consensual moral stereotypes that women and men hold about each other, as well as whether the gender differences in morality found in previous literature replicate on a sample of Pakistani individuals. A sample of 300 was used with an equal number of men and women. Data from 50 of the respondents was collected online, whereas the rest was collected in person from universities. The 30-item Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ30) was used as a measure of five Moral Foundations, which are the basic elements of moral psychology as posited by Moral Foundations Theory. Men and women answered the questionnaire for themselves and then a second time, according to their perception of how a typical member of the other gender would respond which gave a measure of their stereotype. Comparison of actual scores of men and women revealed a statistically significant difference where women scored higher than men on the Harm foundation (p = 0.001). All other foundations, except for the Authority foundation showed the same pattern of differences as the previous literature, although they did not reach statistical significance. Stereotypes about men held by women were inaccurate underestimations on the Harm and Fairness foundations. The stereotype about women, held by men, was accurate on the Fairness foundation and inaccurate on the Authority foundation in the direction of underestimation. This research serves to further the study of Moral Foundations Theory as well as exploring the reasons behind the inaccurate moral stereotypes that men and women hold about each other, and actual gender differences in morality.

Examining Differences in Audience Recall and Reaction Between Mediated Portrayals of Mental Illness as Trivializing Versus Stigmatizing

Researchers have documented the ways in which media stigmatize mental illness. However, media also portray mental illness trivially when diseases are mocked, oversimplified, shown to be less severe than in actuality, or represented as beneficial to an individual. Trivialization of mental illnesses could potentially lead audiences to be less likely to seek help or less likely to support related policy efforts. Therefore, it is important to understand how audiences recall and react to stigmatizing and trivializing mental illness portrayals. An experiment (N = 175) asked participants to recall either a media portrayal where mental illness was stigmatized or a portrayal where it was trivialized. Results suggest that audiences recall certain components of stigmatization and trivialization better than others. And, recollections of trivialization were associated with different patterns of word use than stigmatization. A second experiment (N = 141) found similar patterns when showing participants specific examples of different mental illness portrayals and asking them to immediately recall the content. Overall, these results suggest that theory and conceptual models about the nature and effects of mental illness portrayals could be updated to include both stigmatization and trivialization.

Exaggerating Accessible Differences: When Gender Stereotypes Overestimate Actual Group Differences

Stereotypes are often presumed to exaggerate group differences, but empirical evidence is mixed. We suggest exaggeration is moderated by the accessibility of specific stereotype content. In particular, because the most accessible stereotype contents are attributes perceived to differ between groups, those attributes are most likely to exaggerate actual group differences due to regression to the mean. We tested this hypothesis using a highly accessible gender stereotype: that women are more socially sensitive than men. We confirmed that the most accessible stereotype content involves attributes perceived to differ between groups (pretest), and that these stereotypes contain some accuracy but significantly exaggerate actual gender differences (Experiment 1). We observe less exaggeration when judging less accessible stereotype content (Experiment 2), or when judging individual men and women (Experiment 3). Considering the accessibility of specific stereotype content may explain when stereotypes exaggerate actual group differences and when they do not.

Ethnic and National Stereotypes: The Princeton Trilogy Revisited and Revised

Three studies assessed changes in the content, consensus, and favorableness of 10 ethnic and national stereotypes by replicating and extending the Princeton trilogy. Results indicated that throughout the past 60 years, almost all of the ethnic and national stereotypes that were examined had changed in content, and more than half had changed in consensus. Most changes in consensus reflected increases rather than decreases, suggesting that modern members of stereotyped groups may confront stereotypes more frequently than did previous members of stereotyped groups. However, the damaging effects that consensual stereotypes can have on members of these groups may be tempered by the finding that most of the stereotypes became more favorable. These results are discussed in terms of changing social roles, intergroup contact, and stereotype accuracy.

Précis of Social Perception and Social Reality: Why accuracy dominates bias and self-fulfilling prophecy

Social Perception and Social Reality (Jussim 2012) reviews the evidence in social psychology and related fields and reaches three conclusions: (1) Although errors, biases, and self-fulfilling prophecies in person perception are real, reliable, and occasionally quite powerful, on average, they tend to be weak, fragile, and fleeting. (2) Perceptions of individuals and groups tend to be at least moderately, and often highly accurate. (3) Conclusions based on the research on error, bias, and self-fulfilling prophecies routinely greatly overstate their power and pervasiveness, and consistently ignore evidence of accuracy, agreement, and rationality in social perception. The weight of the evidence – including some of the most classic research widely interpreted as testifying to the power of biased and self-fulfilling processes – is that interpersonal expectations relate to social reality primarily because they reflect rather than cause social reality. This is the case not only for teacher expectations, but also for social stereotypes, both as perceptions of groups, and as the bases of expectations regarding individuals. The time is long overdue to replace cherry-picked and unjustified stories emphasizing error, bias, the power of self-fulfilling prophecies, and the inaccuracy of stereotypes, with conclusions that more closely correspond to the full range of empirical findings, which includes multiple failed replications of classic expectancy studies, meta-analyses consistently demonstrating small or at best moderate expectancy effects, and high accuracy in social perception.

Culture and National Well-Being: Should Societies Emphasize Freedom or Constraint?

Throughout history and within numerous disciplines, there exists a perennial debate about how societies should best be organized. Should they emphasize individual freedom and autonomy or security and constraint? Contrary to proponents who tout the benefits of one over the other, we demonstrate across 32 nations that both freedom and constraint exhibit a curvilinear relationship with many indicators of societal well-being. Relative to moderate nations, very permissive and very constrained nations exhibit worse psychosocial outcomes (lower happiness, greater dysthymia, higher suicide rates), worse health outcomes (lower life expectancy, greater mortality rates from cardiovascular disease and diabetes) and poorer economic and political outcomes (lower gross domestic product per capita, greater risk for political instability). This supports the notion that a balance between freedom and constraint results in the best national outcomes. Accordingly, it is time to shift the debate away from either constraint or freedom and focus on both in moderation.

The DSM: mindful science or mindless power? A critical review

In this paper we review the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental health (DSM), its scientific bases and utility. The concepts of "normality," "pathology," and boundaries between them are critically reviewed. We further use the concepts of mindfulness and mindlessness, and evidence from cognitive and social sciences to investigate the DSM clinical and social impact and we argue against its assigned overpower. We recommend including alternative perspectives to the DSM, such as mindfulness and positive psychology. We also argue for including mindfulness training in psychiatric residency and clinical psychology programs.

College Women Miss the Mark When Estimating the Impact of Full-Time Maternal Employment on Children’s Achievement and Behavior

The goals of the current study were to apply the construct of stereotype accuracy to the domain of college women’s perceptions of the effects of full-time maternal employment on children. Both accuracy/inaccuracy and positive/negative direction were examined. Participants were 1,259 college women who provided stereotyped projections about the effects of full-time employment on children’s IQ scores, formal achievement tests, school grades, and internalizing and externalizing behavior problems. Their stereotype effect sizes were compared to meta-analytic effect sizes used to estimate the “actual” effects of maternal employment on children. Individual differences in these stereotypes were also examined. Results indicate that, on average, college women overestimated the negative effects of full-time maternal employment on child outcomes, especially behavior problems. Significant variability in the direction and accuracy of the stereotypes was explained by individual characteristics such as gender ideology, extrinsic work values, and beliefs about the costs of maternal employment. Concerns are that college-educated young women may retreat from the labor force due to stereotypes about the effects of their future employment on children. Efforts by researchers, practitioners, and policy makers should be directed toward disseminating accurate information and dispelling myths about the likely impact of maternal employment on children’s development.

DSM-V and the stigma of mental illness

Stigma associated with mental illness has been shown to have devastating effects on the lives of people with psychiatric disorders, their families, and those who care for them. In the current article, the relationship between diagnostic labels and stigma is examined in the context of the forthcoming DSM-V. Three types of negative outcomes are reviewed in detail - public stigma, self-stigma, and label avoidance. The article illustrates how a clinical diagnosis may exacerbate these forms of stigma through socio-cognitive processes of groupness, homogeneity, and stability. Initial draft revisions recently proposed by the DSM-V work groups are presented, and their possible future implications for stigma associated with mental illness are discussed.