"I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals flaming!" : preference for stereotype consistency as a function of a person x situation interaction /

The study centers on the power of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) as predictors of prejudice against stereotypical and nonstereotypical homosexuals under the threat of death and the threat of uncertainty. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is an individual difference variable that measures the tendency for individuals to unquestionably follow those perceived to be authorities. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is an individual difference variable that measures the degree to which an individual prefers inequality among social groups. The RWA and SDO Scales are considered to be two of the strongest predictors of prejudice, such as prejudice against homosexuals. The study focuses on the unique predictive power of these two variables in predicting prejudice against homosexuals. The study also examines the role of situational threat in prejudice, specifically the threat of death (mortality salience) and the threat of uncertainty (uncertainty salience). Competing predictions from theories involving the threat of death (Terror Management Theory) and the threat of uncertainty (Uncertainty Management Theory) are also tested. The preference for expected information in the form of stereotypes concerning male homosexuals (that is, a stereotypical or non-stereotypical homosexual) were tested. The difference between the predictive power ofRWA and SDO was examined by measuring how these variables predict liking of a stereotypical or non-stereotypical homosexual under the threat of death, the threat of uncertainty, or a control condition. Along with completing a measure for RWA and a measure for SDO, participants were asked to think of their own death, of their being uncertain or about watching television then were asked to read about a week in the life of either a stereotypical or non-stereotypical male homosexual. Participants were then asked to evaluate the individual and his essay. Based on the participants' evaluations, results from 180 heterosexual university students show that RWA and SDO are strong predictors for disliking of a stereotypical homosexual under the threat of uncertainty and disliking of a non-stereotypical homosexual under the threat of death. Furthermore, however, results show that RWA is a particularly strong predictor of disliking of a stereotypical homosexual under the threat of uncertainty, whereas SDO is an exceptionally strong predictor of disliking of the non-stereotypical homosexual under the threat of death. This further adds to the notion that RWA and SDO are indeed unique predictors of prejudice. Implications are also explored, including the fact that the study simuhaneously examined the role of individual difference variables and situational threat variables, as well as exploratory analysis on Dominating Authoritarians.

"Re-huminization": the role of human-animal similarity in predicting prejudice towards immigrants and non-human animals

Research implies that there ~ay be an association between attitudes toward margil1alized human outgroups and non-human animals. Very few studies, however, have specifically tested this relation empirically. The general purpose of the present research was to determine if such a relation exists and if perceptions of human-animal similarity avail as a common predictor of both types of attitudes. Ideological orientations associated with prejudiced attitudes (Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, and Universal Orientation) were also examined as individual differences in predicting perceptions of human-animal similarity. As predicted, people who endorsed prejudiced attitudes toward human outgroups (Study 1) and immigrants in particular (Studies 2 and 3), were more likely to endorse prejudiced attitudes toward non-human animals. In Study 2, perceptions that humans are superior (versus similar) to other animals directly predicted higher levels of prejudice toward non-human animals, whereas the effect of human superiority beliefs on immigrant prejudice was mediated by dehumanization. In other words, greater perceptions of humans as superior (versus similar) to other animals "allowed for" greater dehumanization of immigrants, which in turn resulted in heightened immigrant prejudice. Furthermore, people higher in Social Dominance Orientation or Right-Wing Authoritarianism were particularly likely to perceive humans as superior (versus similar) to other animals, whereas people characterized by a greater Universal Orientation were more likely to perceive humans and non-human animals as similar. Study 3 examined whether inducing perceptions of human-animal similarity through experimental manipulation would lead to more favourable attitudes toward non-human animals and immigrants. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of four 11 editorials designed to highlight either the similarities or differences between humans and other animals (i.e., animals are similar to humans; humans are similar to animals;~~nimals are inferior to humans; humans are superior to animals) or to a neutral control condition. Encouragingly, when animals were described as similar to humans, prejudice towards non-human animals and immigrants was significantly lower, and to some extent this finding was also true for people naturally high in prejudice (i.e., high in Social Dominance Orientation or Right-Wing Authoritarianism). Inducing perceptions that nonhuman animals are similar to humans was particularly effective at reducing the tendency to dehumanize immigrants ("re-humanization"), lowering feelings of personal threat regarding one's animal-nature, and at increasing inclusive intergroup representations and empathy, all of which uniquely accounted for the significant decreases in prejudiced attitudes. Implications for research, theory and prejudice interventions are considered.

Predictors of prejudice perceptions and the role of group identification in international students

The purpose of the present study was first to determine what influences international students' perceptions of prejudice, and secondly to examine how perceptions of prejudice would affect international students' group identification. Variables such as stigma vulnerability and contact which have been previously linked with perceptions of prejudice and intergroup relations were re-examined (Berryman-Fink, 2006; Gilbert, 1998; Nesdale & Todd, 2000), while variables classically linked to prejudicial attitudes such as right-wing authoritarianism and openness to experience were explored in relation to perceptions of prejudice. Furthermore, the study examined how perceptions of prejudice might affect the students' identification choices, by testing two opposing models. The first model was based on the motivational nature of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) while the second model was based on the cognitive nature of self-categorization theory/ rejection-identification model (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; Schmitt, Spears, & Branscombe,2003). It was hypothesized that stigma vulnerability, right-wing authoritarianism, openness to experience and contact would predict both personal and group perceptions of prejudice. It was also hypothesized that perceptions of prejudice would predict group identification. If the self-categorizationlrejection-identification model was supported, international students would identify with the international students. If the social mobility strategy was supported, international students would identify with the university students group. Participants were 98 international students who filled out questionnaires on the Brock University Psychology Department Website. The first hypothesis was supported. The combination of stigma vulnerability, right-wing authoritarianism, openness to experience and contact predicted both personal and group prejudice perceptions of international students. Furthermore, the analyses supported the self-categorizationlrejectionidentification model. International identification was predicted by the combination of personal and group prejudice perceptions of international students.

Subliminal Exposure to Empathy Primes: A New Method to Reduce Intergroup Bias?

An abundant literature has demonstrated the benefits of empathy for intergroup relations (e.g., Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002). In addition, empathy has been identified as the mechanism by which various successful prejudice-reduction procedures impact attitudes and behaviour (e.g., Costello & Hodson, 2010). However, standard explicit techniques used in empathy-prejudice research have a number of potential limitations (e.g., resistance; McGregor, 1993). The present project explored an alternative technique, subliminally priming (i.e., outside of awareness) empathy-relevant terms (Study 1), or empathy itself (Study 2). Study 1 compared the effects of exposure to subliminal empathy-relevant primes (e.g., compassion) versus no priming and priming the opposite of empathy (e.g., indifference) on prejudice (i.e., negative attitudes), discrimination (i.e., resource allocation), and helping behaviour (i.e., willingness to empower, directly assist, or expect group change) towards immigrants. Relative to priming the opposite of empathy, participants exposed to primes of empathy-relevant constructs expressed less prejudice and were more willingness to empower immigrants. In addition, the effects were not moderated by individual differences in prejudice-relevant variables (i.e., Disgust Sensitivity, Intergroup Disgust-Sensitivity, Intergroup Anxiety, Social Dominance Orientation, Right-wing Authoritarianism). Study 2 considered a different target category (i.e., Blacks) and attempted to strengthen the effects found by comparing the impact of subliminal empathy primes (relative to no prime or subliminal primes of empathy paired with Blacks) on explicit prejudice towards marginalized groups and Blacks, willingness to help marginalized groups and Blacks, as well as implicit prejudice towards Blacks. In addition, Study 2 considered potential mechanisms for the predicted effects; specifically, general empathy, affective empathy towards Blacks, cognitive empathy towards Blacks, positive mood, and negative mood. Unfortunately, using subliminal empathy primes “backfired”, such that exposure to subliminal empathy primes (relative to no prime) heightened prejudice towards marginalized groups and Blacks, and led to stronger expectations that marginalized groups and Blacks improve their own situation. However, exposure to subliminal primes pairing empathy with Blacks (relative to subliminal empathy primes alone) resulted in less prejudice towards marginalized groups and more willingness to directly assist Blacks, as expected. Interestingly, exposure to subliminal primes of empathy paired with Blacks (vs. empathy alone) resulted in more pro-White bias on the implicit prejudice measure. Study 2 did not find that the potential mediators measured explained the effects found. Overall, the results of the present project do not provide strong support for the use of subliminal empathy primes for improving intergroup relations. In fact, the results of Study 2 suggest that the use of subliminal empathy primes may even backfire. The implications for intergroup research on empathy and priming procedures generally are discussed.