Assessing the Effects of a Real-Life Contact Intervention on Prejudice Toward LGBT People.

Prejudice against sexual and gender minorities (e.g., LGBT people) is quite prevalent and is harmful. We examined an existing-and often-used-contact intervention in pre-existing groups in an educational setting and assessed its effectiveness in reducing different forms of LGBT negativity. We focused particularly on modern LGBT negativity: a relatively subtle form of prejudice, involving ambivalence, denial, and/or the belief that there is too much attention for LGBT prejudice. We used a mixed design in which condition (experimental vs. control group) was the between-participants factor, which was randomized at the group level, and time (pretest vs. posttest vs. follow-up) was the within-participants factor (N = 117). Interventions were video recorded and the behavior of LGBT educators and participants was coded. Participants responded positively to the intervention, especially to the LGBT educator's "coming-out story." Exploratory analysis of the video data indicated that the perceived effectiveness of the intervention was higher in groups where participants were more engaged, although caution is necessary in interpreting this finding. The most important measure indicated that modern LGBT negativity decreased in the intervention groups directly after the intervention, but returned to baseline levels one week later. However, in the control condition, modern LGBT negativity had increased over time. Taken together, this suggests that an actual reduction in modern LGBT negativity was short-lived (i.e., the intervention effect disappeared within 7 days).

Registered Replication Report: Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998).

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence ("professor") subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence ("soccer hooligans"). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the "professor" category and those primed with the "hooligan" category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.

On the benign qualities of behavioral disinhibition: because of the prosocial nature of people, behavioral disinhibition can weaken pleasure with getting more than you deserve.

This article focuses on social situations in which people are surprised about what is happening and inhibited about how to respond to the situation at hand. We study these situations by examining a classic topic in social psychology: how people respond to receiving better outcomes than are deserved. In these situations, the actions of an authority or a coworker push in the direction of accepting and enjoying the unfair outcome, whereas personal values for most people push in the direction of rejecting or being displeased with the outcome. This conflict may inhibit people's response to the advantageous but unfair outcomes. If people are indeed inhibited about how to respond to these kinds of outcomes, then lowering behavioral inhibition by reminding people of having acted in the past without inhibitions (in a manner that is unrelated to the outcomes participants subsequently receive) should affect reactions to the outcomes. Specifically, we hypothesize that because many people are prosocial and want to adhere to principles of fairness, reminders of behavioral disinhibition will lead to less pleasure with the unfairly obtained outcomes. The results of 8 experiments (conducted both inside and outside the psychology laboratory) revealed evidence for this benign disinhibition effect on various reactions to outcomes that are better than deserved. In further accordance with our line of reasoning, the effect is particularly pronounced among those who adhere to a prosocial orientation or who have adopted a prosocial mindset and is not observed among those with proself orientations or mindsets.