Myths and Reality About Confronting Anti-Gay Prejudice: Who Confronts and Why (Not)?

There are lay theories about who would confront heterosexist prejudice, with people often citing women, educated, and liberals as being more likely to speak up. However, prior work is inconclusive about such predictors of confrontation. We tested which individual-level characteristics predict bystander confrontation, and what motivates or prevents straight individuals from confronting-focusing on socio-political ideology and gender. We conducted our study among Eastern-Southeastern Europeans (N = 132), and we employed a behavioral paradigm, where participants believed they witnessed and had an opportunity to confront anti-gay discrimination. We found 24% confrontation rate, which was not predicted by age, socioeconomic status, education level, or heterosexism. Moreover, we found that women or liberals were as likely to confront as men or conservatives were, respectively, however, their motivations and obstacles differed. Opposed to our prediction, men were not discouraged from confronting because of fear of being misidentified as gay, while as predicted, women were discouraged due to concerns about their assertiveness and efficacy. We also found that as predicted, liberals were encouraged to confront for equality/intergroup-oriented reasons, and conservatives were encouraged by individual/merit-oriented reasons. We suggest that intervention programs relying on personalized messages can be utilized to motivate confronting heterosexist prejudice along ideological lines.

Inducing collective action intentions for healthcare reform through medical crowdfunding framing

As a response to the shortcomings of the U.S. healthcare system, Americans are increasingly turning to crowdfunding platforms to bankroll their health-related costs. However, although medical crowdfunding has rapidly become institutionalized as part of the U.S. healthcare financing landscape, empirical evidence on how Americans perceive its role in healthcare and the impact it might have on public attitudes is scarce. To shed more light on the above, we analyze data from one correlational and one experimental study conducted over September-November 2021. Our correlational study reveals that political orientation is associated with Americans' views on medical crowdfunding. Specifically, we find that those who self-identified as conservative perceived medical crowdfunding as a valid part of the system, and more positively than a universal healthcare system. In contrast, medical crowdfunding is perceived less positively, as hindering a system of universal and affordable healthcare by those more liberally-oriented. In our experimental study, we explore how medical crowdfunding narratives can induce social attitudes conducive to change. Specifically, we test the effect of politicized narratives (vs. control) on group efficacy and subsequently on collective action intentions for healthcare reform, as a function of political orientation. Our results show that politicized narratives might induce collective action intentions through higher group efficacy, but only among those who self-identified as conservative. Liberally-oriented individuals held high collective action intentions for healthcare reform and were not affected by the manipulation. Our work is the first to establish empirically that medical crowdfunding, when employing politicized narratives, can induce collective action intentions, but this effect is moderated by political ideology.

Political ideology and moral dilemmas in public good provision

Individuals often face dilemmas in which non-cooperation serves their self-interest and cooperation favors society at large. Cooperation is often considered the moral choice because it creates equality and fairness among citizens. Accordingly, individuals whose political ideology attaches greater value to equality than to agency and self-reliance should not only cooperate on more rather than less efficient public goods, but also more on public goods from which individuals benefit equally rather than unequally. We examine this possibility by comparing ideologically left-leaning and right-leaning individuals' cooperation on multiple public goods that varied in efficiency and (in)equality in returns. We find that left-leaning individuals cooperate more than right-leaning ones, but only on public goods that benefit everyone equally, and not more on public goods that generate inequalities. Left-leaning individuals also trust and expect others to cooperate more on equal- versus unequal-returns public goods, while self-identified right-leaning individuals do not differentiate between these. Interestingly, ideology does not predict which public good is deemed more morally appropriate to cooperate on. Results combined specify when and why self-identified leftists can(not) be expected to cooperate more than rightists and reveal how moral decision-making depends on structural elements of the public good provision problems that citizens face.

Support for group-based inequality among members of low-status groups as an ingroup status-enhancement strategy

We discuss the idea that competition-based motives boost low-status group members’ support for group-based hierarchy and inequality. Specifically, the more low-status group members feel motivated to compete with a relevant high-status outgroup, based on the belief that existing status positions may be reversed, the more they will defend status differentials (i.e., high social dominance orientation; SDO). Using minimal groups (N = 113), we manipulated ingroup (low vs. high) status, and primed unstable status positions to all participants. As expected, we found that SDO positively mediates the relation between ingroup identification and collective action, when ingroup’s status is perceived to be low and status positions are perceived as highly unstable. We discuss the implications of considering situational and contextual factors to better understand individuals’ support for group-based hierarchies and inequality, and the advantages of considering ideological processes in predicting collective action.

Can cross-group contact turn advantaged group members into allies? The role of inequality-delegitimizing contact and interpersonal connection

Previous research shows that positive contact with members of disadvantaged groups can have positive, neutral, or negative effects on advantaged group members’ support of actions for social change towards more equality. The present work provides an experimental test of this effect and introduces two moderators which highlight the fundamental role of (a) communication about perception of the illegitimacy of intergroup inequality and (b) interpersonal connection with the contact partner. In two experiments ( N = 88 and N = 192), first-time cross-group contact was initiated between members of two universities that differ on social status. Results revealed that cross-group contact per se did not increase advantaged group members’ solidarity-based action to reduce inequality. However, cross-group contact did increase advantaged group members’ solidarity-based actions when the disadvantaged group partner engaged in inequality-delegitimizing contact by describing the intergroup inequality as illegitimate and when the advantaged group member reported a strong interpersonal connection with the disadvantaged contact partner.

Social Dominance Orientation Boosts Collective Action Among Low-Status Groups

We propose that low-status group members' support for group-based hierarchy and inequality (i.e., social dominance orientation; SDO) may represent an ideological strategy to guarantee the legitimacy of future ingroup status-enhancement. Specifically, we argue that, under unstable social structure conditions, SDO serves as an ideological justification for collective action tendencies aimed at competing for a higher status. In such context, SDO should be positively related with actions aimed to favor the ingroup (i.e., collective actions) by increasing group members' motivation to engage in direct competition with a relevant higher-status outgroup. We conducted two studies under highly competitive and unstable social structure contexts using real life groups. In Study 1 (N = 77), we induced Low vs. High Ingroup (University) Status and in Study 2 (N = 220) we used competing sports groups. Overall, results showed that, among members of low-status groups, SDO consistently increased individuals' motivation to get involved in actions favoring the ingroup, by boosting their motivation to compete with the opposing high-status outgroup. We discuss the results in light of the social dominance and collective action framework.