Replicating and extending Sengupta et al. (2023): Contact predicts no within-person longitudinal outgroup-bias change

Intergroup contact has long been touted as a premier means to reduce prejudice and forge positive bonds with outgroups. Given its origins in psychological research, it is perhaps of little surprise that contact is expected to induce change within people over time. Yet using random-intercepts crossed-lagged modeling that parses within-person from between-person effects, Sengupta et al. (2023) recently found no evidence of within-person change, only unexplained between-person effects, regarding contact's effects on outgroup solidarity in New Zealand. We conceptually replicated their study, focusing on modern racism and an affect thermometer as the outcomes, in a three-wave study of White British participants (NT1 = 946, NT2 = 667, NT3 = 591) and their attitudes toward foreigners. We replicated the general pattern described by Sengupta and colleagues, confirming between-person effects without within-person effects, suggestive of third-variable explanations. As a novel finding, we discover that differences in social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) can account for the observed between-person effects. Problematically for contact theory, contact effects, at least those relying on self-reported accounts, increasingly appear to reflect differences between people (person factors) rather than being context-driven (situation factors)-such that those lower (vs. higher) in SDO and RWA are more favorable toward outgroups, rather than intergroup contact bringing about positive outcomes itself. Implications for theory development and intervention are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Attitudes Toward Cisgender Women's Participation in Sex Work: Opportunity for Agency or Harmful Exchange?

Despite the stigmatization of sex work in society, little empirical research has examined attitudes toward sex work, especially its modern incarnations (e.g., sugar relationships, webcamming). Here, a sample of 298 US residents (Mage = 40.06 years; 59.1% male, 40.9% female) was recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Various theoretical predictors (e.g., right-wing authoritarianism [RWA]), sociosexuality) were set to predict the degree to which four sex work domains (prostitution, pornography, sugar relationships, webcamming) provide cisgender women agency (beneficial) or harm them (detrimental). We found that the domains of sex work were organized hierarchically, as theorized by the so-called "whorearchy," whereby the more "unfavorable" domains (e.g., prostitution) fall at the bottom, and the more "favorable" ones (e.g., webcamming) sit at the top. Additionally, multiple regression analyses revealed that RWA (negatively) and sociosexuality (positively) were the strongest predictors of sex work agency across various domains. In predicting harm, RWA, feminism, religiosity, and age were unique positive predictors, whereas sociosexuality and male (vs. female) self-identified sex were unique negative predictors, across the four domains of sex work. Moreover, individual differences (e.g., RWA) were often significantly stronger predictors of agency or harm among female than male participants. The results suggest that although sex work domains vary in agency and harm ratings, individual differences (most notably, RWA and sociosexuality) are important predictors across domains, especially for cisgender women. Given the growing prevalence of such online forms of sex work, along with growing evidence of sugar relationships, it will become increasingly important to track reactions as these forms of sex work evolve.

A cautionary note on interpreting research findings in the presence of statistical suppression

In regression analyses predictor variables can suppress the effects of other predictor variables, sometimes even resulting in "flipped" relations relative to their zero-order relations (i.e. negative suppression). Drawing on research examining the relations between religion and prejudice, and between ideology and desiring "tall poppies" (successful people) to fall, we highlight examples where researchers appear to have made inappropriate or confusing interpretations of their findings. We compare these examples to a best practice illustration involving associations between psychopathy and counter-productive work behavior. Finally, we provide practical guidelines for thinking about suppression effects in research programmes.

Privilege lost: How dominant groups react to shifts in cultural primacy and power

As a function of their race, gender, class, and other social categories, long-standing privileges in social hierarchies have been afforded to some groups of people to the detriment of others. Recently, scholars have made considerable headway studying the social gains made by disadvantaged groups, including a better understanding of how relatively advantaged groups (e.g., White people; men) often pushback against and resist shifts in group-based power or prestige. The present body of work curates social psychological perspectives on the sense of privilege lost, the belief that one’s dominant group is losing ground to other groups. Here, we outline several dominant themes emerging from scholars in this field, including a better understanding of the psychological nature of group-based threat reactions, and for whom such demographic/power changes are deemed troubling, thus triggering pushback. We make recommendations for shaping future research on the perceived loss of group status and power.

Dealing with declining dominance: White identification and anti-immigrant hostility in the US

Increasing diversity and the anticipation of its resulting cultural change is raising vociferous protestations among White Americans. Here, we explore moderation and mediation of its intergroup implications. Among a nationally representative sample of White Americans, Study 1 ( n = 2,257) revealed that living in a region that experienced a greater (vs. lesser) increase in racial diversity in recent years was associated with more anti-immigrant attitudes, but only among those who were highly White-identified. In an experiment, Study 2 ( n = 420, White Americans) revealed that collective nostalgia (i.e., longing for the ingroup’s past) mediated the relation between anticipated cultural change resulting from shifting demographics and anti-immigrant attitudes, but only for those who were highly White-identified. Thus, anti-immigrant sentiment among White Americans in response to changing demographics and culture is seen primarily among those personally invested in their White racial identity, an effect partly explained by a longing for bygone days.

Reductions in perceived COVID-19 threat amid UK's mass public vaccination programme coincide with reductions in outgroup avoidance (but not prejudice)

It has long been proposed that perceptions of threat contribute to greater outgroup negativity. Much of the existing evidence on the threat–prejudice association in the real world, however, is cross‐sectional in nature. Such designs do not adequately capture individual‐level changes in constructs, and how changes in constructs relate to changes in other theoretically relevant constructs. The current research exploited the unique opportunity afforded by the mass COVID‐19 vaccination programme in the United Kingdom to explore whether reductions in pathogen threat coincide with reductions in outgroup prejudice and avoidance. A two‐wave longitudinal study (N₁ = 912, N₂ = 738) measured British adult's perceptions of COVID‐19 threat and anti‐immigrant bias before and during mass vaccine rollout in the United Kingdom. Tests of latent change models demonstrated that perceived COVID‐19 threat significantly declined as the vaccine programme progressed, as did measures of outgroup avoidance tendencies, but not prejudiced attitudes. Critically, change in threat was systematically correlated with change in outgroup avoidance: those with greater reductions in perceived COVID‐19 threat were, on average, those with greater reductions in outgroup avoidance. Findings provide important and novel insights into the implications of disease protection strategies for intergroup relations during an actual pandemic context, as it unfolds over time.

Reconsidering reconsent: Threats to internal and external validity when participants reconsent after debriefing

We overwhelmingly utilize (partially) informed consent for, and debriefing of, human research participants. Also common is the practice of reconsent, particularly where changes in study protocols (or in participants themselves) occur midstream - participants consent again to remaining in the project or to having their data included. Worryingly under-discussed is post-debriefing reconsent, wherein participants can withdraw their data after learning more fully of the study's goals and methods. Yet, major ethics bodies in Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom promote such practice, with vague and potentially problematic guidelines. Here, the author provides examples involving such reconsent practice, highlighting potentially serious problems that are scientific (e.g. threats to internal and external validity) and ethical (i.e. to the participant, their peers, the researcher and society) in nature. Particularly, problematic is the introduction, by design, of unknowable bias in our research findings. For example, highly prejudiced participants could withdraw data from a discrimination study after learning of the study's hypotheses and goals. The practice may arguably contradict an Open Science goal of increasing research transparency. This call for discussion about the direction of psychological science methods aims to engage a broader discussion in the research community.

News media impact on sociopolitical attitudes

In the present project we assessed whether partisan news affects consumers’ views on polarizing issues. In Study 1 nationally representative cross-sectional data (N = 4249) reveals that right-leaning news consumption is associated with more right-leaning attitudes, and left-leaning news consumption is associated with more left-leaning attitudes. Additional three-wave longitudinal data (N = 484) in Study 2 reveals that right-leaning news is positively (and left-leaning news is negatively) associated with right-leaning issue stances three months later, even after controlling for prior issue stances. In a third (supplemental) study (N = 305), random assignment to right-leaning (but not left-leaning) news (vs. control) experimentally fostered more right-leaning stances, regardless of participants’ previously held political ideology. These findings suggest that partisan news, and particularly right-leaning news, can polarize consumers in their sociopolitical positions, sharpen political divides, and shape public policy.

Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake.

Pushing Back Against the Microaggression Pushback in Academic Psychology: Reflections on a Concept-Creep Paradox

Echoing the 1960s, the 2020s opened with racial tensions boiling. The Black Lives Matter movement is energized, issuing pleas to listen to Black voices regarding day-to-day discrimination and expressing frustrations over the slow progress of social justice. However, psychological scientists have published only several opinion pieces on racial microaggressions, primarily objections, and strikingly little empirical data. Here I document three trends in psychology that coincide with the academic pushback against microaggressions: concept-creep concerns, especially those regarding expanded notions of harm; the expansion of right-leaning values in moral judgments (moral foundations theory); and an emphasis on prejudice symmetry, with the political left deemed equivalently biased against right-leaning targets (e.g., the rich, police) as the right is against left-leaning targets (e.g., Black people, women, LGBT+ people). Psychological scientists have ignored power dynamics and have strayed from their mission to understand and combat prejudice against disadvantaged populations, rendering researchers distracted and ill-equipped to tackle the microaggression concept. An apparent creep paradox, with calls to both reduce (e.g., harm) and expand (e.g., liberal prejudices, conservative moral foundations) concepts, poses a serious challenge to research on prejudice. I discuss the need for psychology to better capture Black experiences and to "tell it like it is" or risk becoming an irrelevant discipline of study.

Tensions within and between vegans and vegetarians: Meat-free motivations matter

Under the superordinate umbrella of "veg*n", vegans and vegetarians share a disavowal of meat consumption but differ regarding the use of animal products and by-products. Furthermore, within each subgroup there exist multiple motivations (or reasons) for diet choice, some with more moral overtones than others. Despite being on the same "team" relative to the meat-eating majority, there is tremendous potential for expressions of subgroup distinctiveness and tension. In an online sample of veg*ns, we asked participants to report on views of and experiences with veg*ns, including separately evaluating vegans and vegetarians for animal, environmental, health, or religious reasons (i.e., 8 groups). Overall vegan (vs. vegetarian) participants expressed more subgroup bias, with vegans consistently preferred over vegetarians. Both vegans and vegetarians preferred veg*ns with "ethical" motivations (animal or environmental), and reported negative experiences with their subgroup outgroups (i.e., vegetarians and vegans, respectively). Problematically, in terms of group cohesion, vegetarians reported elevated anxiety and vigilance in their interactions with animal vegans especially. Overall the results suggest that, despite sharing a superordinate category and goal, and despite recent calls for veg*nism to become a more inclusive and wider tent, substantial tensions exist that can disrupt group cohesion and productivity.

Ideological and psychological predictors of COVID-19-related collective action, opinions, and health compliance across three nations

Until vaccines or treatments are widely available and used, behavioral change (e.g. social distancing) on an unparalleled collective scale is the chief way to curb the spread of COVID-19. Relying on ideology and collective action models as conceptual frameworks, in the present study the role of ideological and psychological factors in COVID-19-related opinions, health compliance behaviors, and collective action were examined in three countries. Results, examining country as a moderator, showed some politically conservative orientations, especially social dominance orientation, relate to less collective action, less support of measures to manage COVID-19, and lower compliance. Variables, including empathy for those affected by COVID-19 and group efficacy also predicted COVID-19-related attitudes and behavior. Belief in science and perceived risk also emerged as key factors to impact compliance-related attitudes and behaviors. Implications for motivating collective compliance are discussed.

A multilevel analysis of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights support across 77 countries: The role of contact and country laws

Although intergroup contact reduces prejudice generally, there are growing calls to examine contextual factors in conjunction with contact. Such an approach benefits from more sophisticated analytic approaches, such as multilevel modelling, that take both the individual (Level-1) and their environment (Level-2) into account. Using this approach, we go beyond attitudes to assess both individual and contextual predictors of support for gay/lesbian and transgender rights. Using a sample of participants across 77 countries, results revealed that personal gay/lesbian contact (Level-1) and living in a country with more gay/lesbian rights (Level-2) predicted greater support for gay/lesbian rights (n = 71,991). Likewise, transgender contact and living in a country with more transgender rights predicted more support for transgender rights (n = 70,056). Cross-level interactions are also presented and discussed. Overall, findings highlight the importance of both individual and contextual factors in predicting support for LGBT communities.

Butchers' and deli workers' psychological adaptation to meat

In many societies today, the average consumer is largely removed from the earlier stages of meat production wherein meat, in many ways, resembles an animal. The present study examined the emotional and psychological consequences of recurrent meat handling. Fifty-six individuals with commercial experience handling meat (butchers and deli workers) were contrasted with 103 individuals without such experience. Participants were presented images of meat from 3 animals-cows, sheep, and fish-that were experimentally manipulated in their degree of animal resemblance. Participants rated the images on measures of disgust, empathy for the animal, and meat-animal association. Broader beliefs and attitudes about meat and animals were also assessed. We used mixed-effect linear modeling to examine the role of time spent handling meat in participants' psychological adaptation to it. We observed significant reductions in disgust, empathy, and meat-animal association within the first year or 2 of meat handling for all types of meat. Time spent handling meat also predicted the degree to which a person defended and rationalized meat consumption and production, independent of a participant's gender and age. The findings have implications for understanding how people adapt to potentially aversive contexts such as handling animal parts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Rethinking human-animal relations: The critical role of social psychology

People deeply value their social bonds with companion animals, yet routinely devalue other animals, considering them mere commodities to satisfy human interests and desires. Despite the inherently social and intergroup nature of these complexities, social psychology is long overdue in integrating human-animal relations in its theoretical frameworks. The present body of work brings together social psychological research advancing our understanding of: 1) the factors shaping our perceptions and thinking about animals as social groups, 2) the complexities involved in valuing (caring) and devaluing (exploiting) animals, and 3) the implications and importance of human-animal relations for human intergroup relations. In this article, we survey the diversity of research paradigms and theoretical frameworks developed within the intergroup relations literature that are relevant, perchance critical, to the study of human-animal relations. Furthermore, we highlight how understanding and rethinking human-animal relations will eventually lead to a more comprehensive understanding of many human intergroup phenomena.

Eating with our eyes (closed): Effects of visually associating animals with meat on antivegan/vegetarian attitudes and meat consumption willingness

Negative attitudes toward vegetarians/vegans (i.e., veg*ns) are common, particularly among those who desire/like/consume meat more. In two studies, we replicated and extended past work, showing that visual reminders of meat’s animal origins (vs. images of meat alone) decreased meat consumption willingness via increased empathy for animals, distress about meat consumption, and disgust for meat. We also assessed how animal–meat reminders influence antiveg*n attitudes. In Study 1 ( N = 299) experimental animal–meat reminders (vs. meat-alone images) indirectly reduced negative attitudes toward veg*ns via increased empathy and distress (together, but not independently). The same manipulation in Study 2 ( N = 280) lowered antiveg*n attitudes through greater empathy and lowered veg*n threat through greater distress. Implications for promoting less antiveg*n attitudes are discussed.

On the Generalization of Intergroup Contact: A Taxonomy of Transfer Effects

The contact hypothesis proposes that bringing groups together under favorable conditions can improve intergroup relations. It is now well established that intergroup contact can improve attitudes not only toward the out-group as a whole but also toward other, noncontacted groups ( secondary transfer effect). We review evidence of a further, higher-order generalization effect whereby intergroup contact also impacts more general cognitive processes outside of the intergroup context (i.e., tertiary transfer effects). We present a taxonomy of transfer effects that explains these generalization effects as distinct outcomes of the contact process yet contingent on the same component process, specifically, the assessment of the semantic distance between the target (e.g., contacted individual) and the frame (e.g., group prototype). This conceptualization provides an explanatory framework for uniting the disparate forms of transfer effect in the contact literature, clarifying why primary and secondary transfer effects are facilitated by low semantic distance and why contact is more cognitively demanding under conditions of high semantic distance, but with greater potential for cognitive growth.

Aggression Toward Sexualized Women Is Mediated by Decreased Perceptions of Humanness

Researchers have argued that the regulation of female sexuality is a major catalyst for women's intrasexual aggression. The present research examined whether women behave more aggressively toward a sexualized woman and whether this is explained by lower ratings of the target's humanness. Results showed that women rated another woman lower on uniquely human personality traits when she was dressed in a sexualized (vs. conventional) manner. Lower humanness ratings subsequently predicted increased aggression toward her in a behavioral measure of aggression. This effect was moderated by trait intrasexual competitiveness; lower humanness ratings translated into more aggression, but only for women scoring relatively high on intrasexual competition. Follow-up studies revealed that the effect of sexualized appearance on perceived humanness was not due to the atypicality of the clothing in a university setting. The current project reveals a novel psychological mechanism through which interacting with a sexualized woman promotes aggressive behavior toward her.

Harmonizing expression of measurement results in wine analysis: Best practices when testing and reporting sugar in wine

This technical brief addresses using appropriate methodology and uniform terminology to ensure consistency in measurement and interpretation of wine components described as sugars, when required in wine trade. Different analytical approaches when testing for sugar in wine, variation in reporting units, and non-uniform interpretation of sugar terminology are known to create unnecessary barriers in wine trade. This brief proposes a unified system of reporting sugar in wine that is grounded in scientific and practical knowledge to reduce potential trade barriers. The following are suggested best practices when testing and reporting sugar in wine: clarify the meaning of the abbreviation “RS” when used, since it could stand for residual sugars, reducing sugars, or reducing substances, which have different meanings (1), define residual sugar as the sum of glucose, fructose and sucrose expressed as g/L of wine (2), use methods that are specific for wine sugars, rather than non-specific methods that test for reducing substances, to avoid erroneously high results (3), avoid reporting sugar alcohols, such as glycerol, as a sugar (4), avoid testing for sugars not expected in wine, such as maltose and lactose (5).

Intergroup Contact as an Agent of Cognitive Liberalization

Intergroup contact is widely recognized as one of the most validated methods of improving attitudes toward out-groups. Yet what is intergroup contact "good for" beyond this function? To answer this question we take a panoramic view of the literature, beginning with the recognition that contact is multifaceted in both form (e.g., face-to-face, indirect, simulated) and outcome (e.g., attitudes, cognition, behavior). Taking this highly inclusive view of what contact is and what contact does suggests that it plays a fundamental role in the shaping of human cognition. An increasingly diverse body of research demonstrates that contact exerts a generalizing reaction across target out-groups, making respondents less inward looking and more open to experiences. Contact shapes ideology regarding how the world ought to operate (i.e., ideologies about social hierarchy or regulation); over time, it can promote new ways of problem-solving, enhance cognitive flexibility, and foster creativity. For these reasons, we believe that contact is a key liberalizing agent that shapes human cognition and experience; consequently, contact theory should now share the stage with other prominent theories (e.g., cognitive dissonance) that speak to a broader understanding of human nature.

Conservatism predicts lapses from vegetarian/vegan diets to meat consumption (through lower social justice concerns and social support)

Lapses from vegetarian and vegan (i.e., veg*n) food choices to meat consumption are very common, suggesting that sustaining veg*nism is challenging. But little is known about why people return to eating animals after initially deciding to avoid meat consumption. Several potential explanatory factors include personal inconvenience, meat cravings, awkwardness in social settings, or health/nutrition concerns. Here we test the degree to which political ideology predicts lapsing to meat consumption. Past research demonstrates that political ideology predicts present levels of meat consumption, whereby those higher in right-wing ideologies eat more animals, even after controlling for their hedonistic liking of meat (e.g., Dhont & Hodson, 2014). To what extent might political ideology predict whether one has lapsed from veg*n foods back to meat consumption? In a largely representative US community sample (N = 1313) of current and former veg*ns, those higher (vs. lower) in conservatism exhibited significantly greater odds of being a former than current veg*n, even after controlling for age, education, and gender. This ideology-lapsing relation was mediated (i.e., explained) by those higher (vs. lower) in conservatism: (a) adopting a veg*n diet for reasons less centered in justice concerns (animal rights, environment, feeding the poor); and (b) feeling socially unsupported in their endeavor. In contrast, factors such as differential meat craving or lifestyle inconvenience played little mediational role. These findings demonstrate that ideology and justice concerns are particularly relevant to understanding resilience in maintaining veg*n food choices. Implications for understanding why people eat meat, and how to develop intervention strategies, are discussed.

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

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

When and why is religious attendance associated with antigay bias and gay rights opposition? A justification-suppression model approach

Even in relatively tolerant countries, antigay bias remains socially divisive, despite being widely viewed as violating social norms of tolerance. From a Justification-Suppression Model (JSM) framework, social norms may generally suppress antigay bias in tolerant countries, yet be "released" by religious justifications among those who resist gay rights progress. Across large, nationally representative US samples (Study 1) and international samples (Study 2, representing a total of 97 different countries), over 215,000 participants, and various indicators of antigay bias (e.g., dislike, moral condemnation, opposing gay rights), individual differences in religious attendance was uniquely associated with greater antigay bias, over and above religious fundamentalism, political ideology, and religious denomination. Moreover, in 4 of 6 multilevel models, religious attendance was associated with antigay bias in countries with greater gay rights recognition, but was unrelated to antigay bias in countries with lower gay rights recognition (Study 2). In Study 3, Google searches for a religious justification ("love the sinner hate the sin") coincided temporally with gay-rights relevant searches. In U.S. (Study 4) and Canadian (Study 5) samples, much of the association between religious attendance and antigay bias was explained by "sinner-sin" religious justification, with religious attendance not associated with antigay bias when respondents reported relatively low familiarity with this justification (Study 5). These findings suggest that social divisions on homosexuality in relatively tolerant social contexts may be in large part due to religious justifications for antigay bias (consistent with the JSM), with important implications for decreasing bias. (PsycINFO Database Record

They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization

Although the act of dehumanizing an outgroup is a pervasive and potent intergroup process that drives discrimination and conflict, no formal research has examined the consequences of being dehumanized by an outgroup-that is, "metadehumanization." Across 10 studies (N = 3,440) involving several real-world conflicts spanning 3 continents, we provide the first empirical evidence that metadehumanization (a) plays a central role in outgroup aggression that is (b) mediated by outgroup dehumanization, and (c) distinct from metaprejudice. Studies 1a and 1b demonstrate experimentally that Americans who learn that Arabs (Study 1a) or Muslims (Study 1b) blatantly dehumanize Americans are more likely to dehumanize that outgroup in return; by contrast, experimentally increasing outgroup dehumanization did not increase metadehumanization (Study 1c). Using correlational data, Study 2 documents indirect effects of metadehumanization on Americans' support for aggressive policies toward Arabs (e.g., torture) via Arab dehumanization. In the context of Hungarians and ethnic minority Roma, Study 3 shows that the pathway for Hungarians from metadehumanization to aggression through outgroup dehumanization holds controlling for outgroup prejudice. Study 4 examines Israelis' metaperceptions with respect to Palestinians, showing that: (a) feeling dehumanized (i.e., metadehumanization) is distinct from feeling disliked (i.e., metaprejudice), and (b) metadehumanization uniquely influences aggression through outgroup dehumanization, controlling for metaprejudice. Studies 5a and 5b explore Americans' metaperceptions regarding ISIS and Iran. We document a dehumanization-specific pathway from metadehumanization to aggressive attitudes and behavior that is distinct from the path from metaprejudice through prejudice to aggression. In Study 6, American participants learning that Muslims humanize Americans (i.e., metahumanization) humanize Muslims in turn. Finally, Study 7 experimentally contrasts metadehumanization and metahumanization primes, and shows that resulting differences in outgroup dehumanization are mediated by (a) perceived identity threat, and (b) a general desire to reciprocate the outgroup's perceptions of the ingroup. In summary, our research outlines how and why metadehumanization contributes to cycles of ongoing violence and animosity, providing direction for future research and policy. (PsycINFO Database Record

Common Ideological Roots of Speciesism and Generalized Ethnic Prejudice: The Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD–HARM)

Recent research and theorizing suggest that desires for group–based dominance underpin biases towards both human outgroups and (non–human) animals. A systematic study of the common ideological roots of human–human and human–animal biases is, however, lacking. Three studies (in Belgium, UK, and USA) tested the Social Dominance Human–Animal Relations Model (SD–HARM) proposing that Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a key factor responsible for the significant positive association between ethnic outgroup attitudes and speciesist attitudes towards animals, even after accounting for other ideological variables (that possibly confound previous findings). Confirming our hypotheses, the results consistently demonstrated that SDO, more than right–wing authoritarianism (RWA), is a key factor connecting ethnic prejudice and speciesist attitudes. Furthermore, Studies 2 and 3 showed that both SDO and RWA are significantly related to perceived threat posed by vegetarianism (i.e. ideologies and diets minimizing harm to animals), but with SDO playing a focal role in explaining the positive association between threat perceptions and ethnic prejudice. Study 3 replicated this pattern, additionally including political conservatism in the model, itself a significant correlate of speciesism. Finally, a meta–analytic integration across studies provided robust support for SD–HARM and offers important insights into the psychological parallels between human intergroup and human–animal relations. Copyright © 2016 European Association of Personality Psychology

From outgroups to allied forces: Effect of intergroup cooperation in violent and nonviolent video games on boosting favorable outgroup attitudes

Here we addressed whether even violent video games can improve intergroup attitudes if played cooperatively with an outgroup, in keeping with the Contact Hypothesis. In addition, we examined potential mechanisms of this effect. In Experiment 1 (N = 77), Canadians played a violent video game (Call of Duty: Black Ops) against zombies, either cooperatively or independently (i.e., at the same time but solo) with a (supposed) University of Buffalo participant. As expected, cooperative (vs. solo) play significantly improved outgroup attitudes and pro-outgroup participant behavior, effects explained by heightened 1-group recategorization (i.e., feeling psychologically on the same team and connected with the outgroup member). In Experiment 2 (N = 239), effects of cooperation (vs. solo play) held whether playing a violent or nonviolent video game. Importantly, our findings offer an engaging and pragmatic solution to the pervasive issue of setting up and negotiating opportunities for successful intergroup cooperation.