Social dominance orientation and group context in implicit group prejudice

Neuroanatomical correlates of system-justifying ideologies: a pre-registered voxel-based morphometry study on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation

System-justifying ideologies are a cluster of ideals that perpetuate a hierarchical social system despite being fraught with inequalities. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are two ideologies that have received much attention in the literature separately and together. Given that these ideologies are considered to be stable individual differences that are likely to have an evolutionary basis, there has yet to be any examination for volumetric brain structures associated with these variables. Here, we proposed an investigation of overlapping and non-overlapping brain regions associated with RWA and SDO in a sample recruited in Singapore. Indeed, it will be interesting to determine how RWA and SDO correlate in a country that proactively promotes institutionalized multi-culturalism such as Singapore. RWA and SDO scores were collected via self-report measures from healthy individuals (39 males and 43 females; age 25.89 ± 5.68 years). Consequently, voxel-based morphometry (VBM) whole brain and region of interest (ROI) analyses were employed to identify neuroanatomical correlates of these system-justifying ideologies. RWA and SDO scores were strongly correlated despite the low ideological contrast in Singapore's sociopolitical context. The whole brain analysis did not reveal any significant clusters associated with either RWA or SDO. The ROI analyses revealed clusters in the bilateral amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) that were associated with both RWA and SDO scores, whereas two clusters in the left anterior insula were negatively associated with only SDO scores. The study corroborates the claim of RWA and SDO as stable individual differences with identifiable neuroanatomical correlates, but our exploratory analysis suggests evidence that precludes any definitive conclusion based on the present evidence.

Neuroanatomical correlates of system-justifying ideologies: a pre-registered voxel-based morphometry study on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation

System-justifying ideologies are a cluster of ideals that perpetuate a hierarchical social system despite being fraught with inequalities. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are two ideologies that have received much attention in the literature separately and together. Given that these ideologies are considered to be stable individual differences that are likely to have an evolutionary basis, there has yet to be any examination for volumetric brain structures associated with these variables. Here, we proposed an investigation of overlapping and non-overlapping brain regions associated with RWA and SDO in a sample recruited in Singapore. Indeed, it will be interesting to determine how RWA and SDO correlate in a country that proactively promotes institutionalized multi-culturalism such as Singapore. RWA and SDO scores were collected via self-report measures from healthy individuals (39 males and 43 females; age 25.89 ± 5.68 years). Consequently, voxel-based morphometry (VBM) whole brain and region of interest (ROI) analyses were employed to identify neuroanatomical correlates of these system-justifying ideologies. RWA and SDO scores were strongly correlated despite the low ideological contrast in Singapore's sociopolitical context. The whole brain analysis did not reveal any significant clusters associated with either RWA or SDO. The ROI analyses revealed clusters in the bilateral amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) that were associated with both RWA and SDO scores, whereas two clusters in the left anterior insula were negatively associated with only SDO scores. The study corroborates the claim of RWA and SDO as stable individual differences with identifiable neuroanatomical correlates, but our exploratory analysis suggests evidence that precludes any definitive conclusion based on the present evidence.

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.

Supervisors’ social dominance orientation, nation-based exchange relationships, and team-level outcomes

The prevalence of teams in contemporary organizations and the trend toward diversity in a workforce composed of members from multiple countries have drawn the attention of researchers on the consequences of diversity in workplaces. While there are potential benefits to diversity, relationship conflicts among team members may also result and affect team functioning. The aim of the present study was to explore how supervisors’ social dominance orientation, a tendency to support the arbitrary dominance of specific social groups over others, may relate to relationship conflicts and reduced team commitment within teams. A two-wave study in a sample of 931 individuals from 108 workgroups was conducted to examine the relationship between supervisors’ social dominance orientation and team functioning. Analyses indicated that supervisor social dominance orientation was associated with increased within-team differentiation of leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships based on team members’ national origin. Such LMX differentiation (LMXD) was related to more within-team relationship conflict and in turn to reduced collective team commitment. The implications of these findings for research on supervisor social dominance orientation, within-team nationality diversity, and team functioning are discussed.

Identity salience moderates the effect of social dominance orientation on COVID-19 'rule bending'

Amidst the economic, political, and social turmoil caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, contrasting responses to government mandated and recommended mitigation strategies have posed many challenges for governments as they seek to persuade individuals to adhere to prevention guidelines. Much research has subsequently examined the tendency of individuals to either follow (or not) such guidelines, and yet a 'grey area' also exists wherein many rules are subject to individual interpretation. In a large study of Canadians (N = 1032, Mage = 34.39, 52% female; collected April 6, 2020), we examine how social dominance orientation (SDO) as an individual difference predicts individual propensity to 'bend the rules' (i.e., engaging in behaviors that push the boundaries of adherence), finding that SDO is significantly and positively associated with greater intentions toward rule-bending behaviors. We further find that highlighting a self-oriented or in-group identity enhances the relationship between SDO and rule-bending, whereas making salient a superordinate-level identity (e.g., Canada) attenuates this effect. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

A Comparison of Juror Decision Making in Race-Based and Sexual Orientation-Based Hate Crime Cases

Several constructs have been identified as relevant to the juror decision-making process in hate crime cases. However, there is a lack of research on the relationships between these constructs and their variable influence across victim group. The purpose of the current study was to reexamine factors relevant to the juror decision-making process in hate crime cases within a structural model, and across victim group, to gauge the relative strength and explanatory power of various predictors. In the current study, 313 participants sentenced a perpetrator found guilty of a hate crime committed against either a Black man or a gay man; participants also responded to individual difference measures relevant to mock juror hate crime decision making, including prejudice toward the victim's social group. Using path analysis, we explored the role of juror prejudice on sentencing decisions in hate crime cases as well as similarities and differences based on the victimized group. Results indicated that, when the victim was a Black man, modern racism influenced sentencing both directly and indirectly through perpetrator blame attributions, explaining 18% of the variance in sentencing. In contrast, when the victim was a gay man, modern homophobia did not directly predict sentencing, and the overall model explained only 4% of the variance in sentencing, suggesting variables beyond juror prejudice may be better suited to explain juror decision making in sexual orientation-based hate crimes. The current study suggests that the role of juror prejudice in hate crime cases varies as a function of the victimized group and raises questions about the importance of juror prejudice in the sentencing of hate crime cases, particularly antigay prejudice. The importance of blame attributions, social dominance orientation, and juror beliefs regarding penalty enhancements for hate crime cases, as well as policy implications, are also addressed.

Examining dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes

Two research lines have dominated the quest for the antecedents of outgroup attitudes. Whereas the first has viewed outgroup attitudes as a result of individual differences, the second stressed the importance of the intergroup situation. In order to investigate the interplay of individual differences and situational characteristics, key predictors of the individual differences perspective (i.e. right‐wing authoritarianism or RWA, and social dominance orientation or SDO) and the intergroup relations perspective (i.e. ingroup identification and ingroup threat) were simultaneously tested. Two studies revealed additive but no interaction effects of RWA and SDO, ingroup identification and threat. Additionally, Study 1 showed that threat effects remain limited to the outgroup that is portrayed as threatening and do not generalize to other outgroups. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The intergenerational transmission of social dominance: A three‐generation study

This study examined the transmission of social dominance orientation (SDO) from parents and grandparents to children. It was predicted that parents as well as grandparents would pass their social dominance attitudes to children. Children's levels of SDO would thus be the highest when parental and grandparental attitudes are high; the lowest when parental and grandparental attitudes are low; and intermediate when parental and grandparental attitudes are incongruent. These hypotheses were examined in a sample of 93 families including children (in early adulthood), one of their parents, and one of their grandparents. Results yielded support for the predictions. These findings' implications are discussed in terms of their potential to explain previous inconsistent results on the transmission of social attitudes to children. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Theta resting EEG in the right TPJ is associated with individual differences in implicit intergroup bias

Why are some people more biased than others in their implicit evaluations during social interaction? The dispositional determinants of individual differences in implicit intergroup bias are poorly understood. Here, we explored whether such variability might be explained by stable neural traits. For that purpose, we used the source-localized resting electroencephalograms of 83 members of naturalistic social groups to explain their bias in an in-/outgroup implicit association test. Lower levels of resting theta current density in the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) were associated with stronger implicit intergroup bias and explained unique variability in bias beyond relevant personality questionnaires. These findings demonstrate the added value of the neural trait approach in predicting inter-individual differences in implicit social cognition. Given that low levels of resting theta current density during wakefulness likely reflect increased cortical activation, our results suggest that individuals with an efficiently working right TPJ possess capacities to mediate specific cognitive processes that predispose them towards stronger implicit intergroup bias. As the human species has evolved living in distinct social groups, the capacity to quickly differentiate friend from foe became highly adaptive and might thus constitute an essential part of human nature.

Ideology Matters: College Students’ Emotional Reactions to the Killing of Trayvon Martin

Building on previous theory and research, we explored the associations among race, intergroup ideologies and emotional reactions to the killing of Trayvon Martin and the acquittal of George Zimmerman among 298 Black and White college students. We also examined the indirect effect of ethnocultural empathy on the links between race, intergroup ideologies, and emotional responding. Using latent class analysis, we identified three latent intergroup ideological classes: Racial Hierarchy-Enhancing Ideology, Universal Hierarchy-Enhancing Ideology (i.e., above sample mean color-blind racial ideology and or social dominance orientation) and Critical Reflection Attenuating Ideology (i.e., above sample mean critical consciousness). Membership in the Critical Reflection Attenuating Ideology group was associated with greater prosocial emotional responding as compared to the two hierarchy-enhancing latent groups. Finally, ethnocultural empathy had an indirect effect on the links between race, latent intergroup ideological classes, and emotional responding.

A Review of the Popular and Scholarly Accounts of Donald Trump’s White Working-Class Support in the 2016 US Presidential Election

Popular and scholarly accounts of Trump’s ascendency to the presidency of the United States on the part of the American white working-class use different variables to define the sociodemographic group because there is no “working-class White” variable available in benchmark datasets for researchers to code. To address this need, the Author ran a multinomial regression to assess whether income, education and racial identity predict working-class membership among white Americans, finding that income and education are statistically significant predictors of working-class whiteness, while racial identity is not. Arriving at a robust definition of “white working-class” in light of these findings, the paper next turns to a review of the extant literature. By retrieving studies from searches of computerised databases, hand searches and authoritative texts, the review critically surmises the explanatory accounts of Trump’s victory. Discussion of the findings from the review is presented in three principal sections. The first section explains how working-class White communities, crippled by a dearth of social and geographic mobility, have been “left behind” by the political elites. The second section examines how white Americans, whose dominant group position is threatened by demographic change, voted for Trump because of resonance between his populist rhetoric and their latent “racist” attitudes. The third and final section explores the implications of a changing America for native-born whites, and how America’s increasing ethnoracial diversity is eroding relations between its dominant and nondominant groups. The Author surmises by arguing that these explanatory accounts must be understood in the context of this new empirical approximation of “working-class White”.

Preferences for group dominance track and mediate the effects of macro-level social inequality and violence across societies

Whether and how societal structures shape individual psychology is a foundational question of the social sciences. Combining insights from evolutionary biology, economy, and the political and psychological sciences, we identify a central psychological process that functions to sustain group-based hierarchies in human societies. In study 1, we demonstrate that macrolevel structural inequality, impaired population outcomes, socio-political instability, and the risk of violence are reflected in the endorsement of group hegemony at the aggregate population level across 27 countries (n = 41,824): The greater the national inequality, the greater is the endorsement of between-group hierarchy within the population. Using multilevel analyses in study 2, we demonstrate that these psychological group-dominance motives mediate the effects of macrolevel functioning on individual-level attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, across 30 US states (n = 4,613), macrolevel inequality and violence were associated with greater individual-level support of group hegemony. Crucially, this individual-level support, rather than cultural-societal norms, was in turn uniquely associated with greater racism, sexism, welfare opposition, and even willingness to enforce group hegemony violently by participating in ethnic persecution of subordinate out-groups. These findings suggest that societal inequality is reflected in people's minds as dominance motives that underpin ideologies and actions that ultimately sustain group-based hierarchy.

The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice

The present article reviews evidence for the malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. In contrast to assumptions that such responses are fixed and inescapable, it is shown that automatic stereotypes and prejudice are influenced by, (a) self- and social motives, (b) specific strategies, (c) the perceiver's focus of attention, and (d) the configuration of stimulus cues. In addition, group members' individual characteristics are shown to influence the extent to which (global) stereotypes and prejudice are automatically activated. This evidence has significant implications for conceptions of automaticity, models of stereotyping and prejudice, and attitude representation. The review concludes with the description of an initial model of early social information processing.

Implicit and Explicit Consequences of Exposure to Violent and Misogynous Rap Music

In two experiments, primed subjects were exposed to violent and misogynistic rap music and control subjects were exposed to popular music. Experiment 1 showed that violent and misogynistic rap music increased the automatic associations underlying evaluative racial stereotypes in high and low prejudiced subjects alike. By contrast, explicit stereotyping was dependent on priming and subjects’ prejudice level. In Experiment 2, the priming manipulation was followed by a seemingly unrelated person perception task in which subjects rated Black or White targets described as behaving ambiguously. As expected, primed subjects judged a Black target less favorably than a White target. By contrast, control subjects rated Black and White targets similarly. Subjects’ level of prejudice did not moderate these findings, suggesting the robustness of priming effects on social judgments.

What Do Implicit Measures Tell Us?: Scrutinizing the Validity of Three Common Assumptions

Experimental paradigms designed to assess “implicit” representations are currently very popular in many areas of psychology. The present article addresses the validity of three widespread assumptions in research using these paradigms: that (a) implicit measures reflect unconscious or introspectively inaccessible representations; (b) the major difference between implicit measures and self-reports is that implicit measures are resistant or less susceptible to social desirability; and (c) implicit measures reflect highly stable, older representations that have their roots in long-term socialization experiences. Drawing on a review of the available evidence, we conclude that the validity of all three assumptions is equivocal and that theoretical interpretations should be adjusted accordingly. We discuss an alternative conceptualization that distinguishes between activation and validation processes.

Impartiality in humans is predicted by brain structure of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex

The moral force of impartiality (i.e. the equal treatment of all human beings) is imperative for providing justice and fairness. Yet, in reality many people become partial during intergroup interactions; they demonstrate a preferential treatment of ingroup members and a discriminatory treatment of outgroup members. Some people, however, do not show this intergroup bias. The underlying sources of these inter-individual differences are poorly understood. Here we demonstrate that the larger the gray matter volume and thickness of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), the more individuals in the role of an uninvolved third-party impartially punish outgroup and ingroup perpetrators. Moreover, we show evidence for a possible mechanism that explains the impact of DMPFC's gray matter volume on impartiality, namely perspective-taking. Large gray matter volume of DMPFC seems to facilitate equal perspective-taking of all sides, which in turn leads to impartial behavior. This is the first evidence demonstrating that brain structure of the DMPFC constitutes an important source underlying an individual's propensity for impartiality.

Social Dominance in Context and in Individuals

We tested the internal reliability and predictive validity of a new 4-item Short Social Dominance Orientation (SSDO) scale among adults in 20 countries, using 15 languages ( N = 2,130). Low scores indicate preferring group inclusion and equality to dominance. As expected, cross-nationally, the lower people were on SSDO, the more they endorsed more women in leadership positions, protecting minorities, and aid to the poor. Multilevel moderation models showed that each effect was stronger in nations where a relevant kind of group power differentiation was more salient. Distributions of SSDO were positively skewed, despite use of an extended response scale; results show rejecting group hierarchy is normative. The short scale is effective. Challenges regarding translations, use of short scales, and intersections between individual and collective levels in social dominance theory are discussed.

Does personality explain in-group identification and discrimination? Evidence from the minimal group paradigm

The idea that a person's personality can help explain prejudice has a long history in social psychology. The classic counter-argument has been that prejudice is much more a function of people's group memberships and the nature of intergroup relations rather than individual differences. Bringing these two lines of research together, it has been suggested that personality factors may not only affect intergroup discrimination directly, but also indirectly by predisposing some individuals to identify more strongly with some relevant in-group membership. Two experiments were conducted to investigate this possibility. The participants completed various personality measures (e.g. authoritarianism, personal need for structure and ethnocentrism as well as social dominance orientation (SDO) in Experiment 2). They were then assigned to minimal groups either randomly, by choice, or (supposedly) on the basis of attitudinal similarity. In Experiment 2, the minimal group paradigm was also adapted to examine the role of SDO. Overall, there was no evidence of significant relationships between traditional personality measures and either in-group identification or discrimination. In-group identification alone emerged as the strongest predictor of discrimination. There was evidence that those participants who scored higher in SDO were more likely to act in ways that supported the creation of a power hierarchy. The implications for broader understanding of prejudice are discussed.

Interracial prison contact: The pros for (socially dominant) cons

Individuals high in social dominance orientation (SDO; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) endorse group hierarchies and social inequality. Surprisingly little research has addressed contextual factors associated with reduced intergroup biases among such individuals. The present investigation considers a Person x Situation approach to this question in two British prisons, exploring the contextual factors outlined in the Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954). White inmates scoring higher in SDO exhibited significantly less in-group bias when reporting increased contact with Black inmates (Studies 1 & 2), when perceiving that favourable contact conditions are institutionally supported (Study 1), or when experiencing more pleasant personal interactions with Black inmates (Study 2). These SDO x Contact Condition moderation effects were mediated in Study 2: among high-SDO individuals, increased empathy towards Black inmates mediated the relation between contact variables and lower in-group bias. Implications for considering individual differences and empathy in contact settings are considered.

Mechanisms of moral disengagement and their differential use by right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation in support of war

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are associated with the approval of war as a political intervention [McFarland, 2005]. We examined whether the effects of RWA and SDO on war support are mediated by moral-disengagement mechanisms [i.e., responsibility reduction, moral justification, minimizing consequences, and dehumanizing-blaming victims; Bandura, 1999] and whether the ideologies use the mechanisms differently. Our data were consistent with the possibility that minimizing consequences (Study 1) and moral justification (Study 2) mediate the effects of RWA and SDO on approval of war. Both ideologies were positively associated with all moral-disengagement mechanism though more strongly so for RWA. Comparisons within ideologies suggest that RWA was most strongly associated with moral justification and SDO was most strongly associated with dehumanizing-blaming victims. We discuss implications and limitations.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation, and Attachment: An Italian Study

The paper presents the results of a theoretical and empirical study of the relations between right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and attachment. A study on 353 Italian university students in Turin was conducted. A correlation between RWA and SDO was found, and a structural equation model of the origins of RWA and SDO was built using attachment style as a principal predictor of the two constructs. Several psychosocial variables (course of studies undertaken, group participation, and importance of religion) were also used as predictors. The major results were: (a) RWA and SDO correlate positively, but not very strongly; (b) attachment styles directly and/or indirectly influence RWA and SDO; and (c) RWA and SDO each have specific predictors, but also share one predictor, importance of religion, which raises RWA scores, but lowers SDO scores. The limits and future developments of this research are discussed.

Perceptions of immigrants: modifying the attitudes of individuals higher in social dominance orientation

Previous research has demonstrated that directly challenging people's beliefs about immigrants may result in even stronger anti-immigration attitudes, especially among those higher in social dominance orientation (SDO). In addition, inducing the perception that immigrants are part of a larger ingroup does not modify immigration attitudes. In three studies, the article explores conditions that can reduce prejudice toward immigrants among those high in SDO. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that focusing attention on group identity maintains prejudice, whereas focusing attention on others reduces prejudice among those higher in SDO. Study 3 extends the findings of the first two studies by demonstrating that focusing attention on others in a way that induces perception of similarity with immigrants maintains negative attitudes toward immigrants, whereas focusing on individual values reduces prejudice among those higher in SDO. Implications for how prejudice could be reduced among those high in SDO through de-emphasis on group identity are discussed.

Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change

A central theme in recent research on attitudes is the distinction between deliberate, "explicit" attitudes and automatic, "implicit" attitudes. The present article provides an integrative review of the available evidence on implicit and explicit attitude change that is guided by a distinction between associative and propositional processes. Whereas associative processes are characterized by mere activation independent of subjective truth or falsity, propositional reasoning is concerned with the validation of evaluations and beliefs. The proposed associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model makes specific assumptions about the mutual interplay of the 2 processes, implying several mechanisms that lead to symmetric or asymmetric changes in implicit and explicit attitudes. The model integrates a broad range of empirical evidence and implies several new predictions for implicit and explicit attitude change.

Implicit anti-fat bias in physical educators: physical attributes, ideology and socialization

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the implicit and explicit prejudice of physical education (PE) students before, and following extensive professional training, and to examine the relationship of anti-fat prejudice to relevant psychosocial predictors.

DESIGN

Implicit and explicit anti-fat prejudice of year one and three PE students (cross-sectional sample) were assessed and compared to a similarly matched (age, body mass index (BMI), education) sample of psychology students.

SUBJECTS

Three hundred and forty-four university students, 180 PE students, 164 psychology students (67% female, mean age 20 years, BMI: mean 23.18 kg/m(2)).

MEASUREMENTS

Measures of implicit and explicit anti-fat prejudice were administered to PE and psychology students in either their second week, or near completion of their third year, of university study. Physical identity, body esteem and social dominance orientation (SDO) were assessed in order to establish their relationship with anti-fat bias.

RESULTS

PE students displayed higher levels of implicit anti-fat bias than psychology students, and other health professionals. Additionally, year three PE students displayed higher levels of implicit anti-fat attitudes than year one PE students. The higher implicit anti-fat biases exhibited by year three PE students were associated with SDO, and lower body esteem.

CONCLUSION

Physical educators, and particularly those more socialized in the PE environment, display strong negative prejudice toward obese individuals that is greater than that displayed by other groups. These prejudices appear to be supported by an over-investment in physical attributes, and ideological beliefs.

Implicit measures in social cognition. research: their meaning and use

Behavioral scientists have long sought measures of important psychological constructs that avoid response biases and other problems associated with direct reports. Recently, a large number of such indirect, or "implicit," measures have emerged. We review research that has utilized these measures across several domains, including attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes, and discuss their predictive validity, their interrelations, and the mechanisms presumably underlying their operation. Special attention is devoted to various priming measures and the Implicit Association Test, largely due to their prevalence in the literature. We also attempt to clarify several unresolved theoretical and empirical issues concerning implicit measures, including the nature of the underlying constructs they purport to measure, the conditions under which they are most likely to relate to explicit measures, the kinds of behavior each measure is likely to predict, their sensitivity to context, and the construct's potential for change.

Implicit Self and Identity

Recent advances in research on implicit social cognition offer an opportunity to challenge common assumptions about self and identity. In the present article, we critically review a burgeoning line of research on self-related processes known to occur outside conscious awareness or conscious control. Our discussion focuses on these implicit self-related processes as they unfold in the context of social group memberships. That is, we show that group memberships can shape thoughts, preferences, motives, goals, or behaviors without the actor's being aware of such an influence or having control over such expressions. As such, this research brings to the fore facets of the self that often contrast with experiences of reflexive consciousness and introspection. Far from being rigid or monolithic, these processes are highly flexible, context-sensitive, and deeply rooted in socio-structural realities. As such, work on implicit self and identity renew thinking about the interplay between the individual and the collective.

Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions

Social dominance orientation (SDO) has been proposed as an important variable in the explanation of prejudice. We distinguish between three conceptualizations of SDO: SDO as a personality trait (personality model), SDO as a moderator of the effects of situational variables (Person x Situation model), and SDO as a mediator of the effect of social position on prejudice (group socialization model [GSM]). Four studies (N = 1.657) looking at the relations between social positions, SDO, and prejudice in a natural setting and in a laboratory setting provide strong support for the GSM. In contrast to previous correlational findings, there is evidence of a cause (dominant social position), an effect (prejudice increases), and a mediator (SDO). These results suggest new perspectives on the integration of individual and contextual determinants of prejudice.

Intergroup bias

This chapter reviews the extensive literature on bias in favor of in-groups at the expense of out-groups. We focus on five issues and identify areas for future research: (a) measurement and conceptual issues (especially in-group favoritism vs. out-group derogation, and explicit vs. implicit measures of bias); (b) modern theories of bias highlighting motivational explanations (social identity, optimal distinctiveness, uncertainty reduction, social dominance, terror management); (c) key moderators of bias, especially those that exacerbate bias (identification, group size, status and power, threat, positive-negative asymmetry, personality and individual differences); (d) reduction of bias (individual vs. intergroup approaches, especially models of social categorization); and (e) the link between intergroup bias and more corrosive forms of social hostility.