An experimental study of the process of felt understanding in intergroup relations: Japanese and Chinese relations in Japan.

"Felt understanding" is a crucial determinant of positive interpersonal and intergroup relationships. However, the question of why felt understanding shapes intergroup relations has been neglected. In a pre-registered test of the process in intergroup relations with a sample from East Asia, we manipulated felt understanding (understood versus misunderstood by an outgroup) in an experimental study (N = 476). The results supported the expectation that felt understanding would lead to a more positive intergroup orientation and action intention. The results of parallel mediation analyses showed that felt understanding indirectly predicted intergroup outcomes through felt positive regard, intergroup overlap, and outgroup stereotypes. Furthermore, the results of post-hoc sequential mediation analyses indicated that felt understanding indirectly predicted intergroup outcomes sequentially through felt positive regard and intergroup overlap, followed by outgroup stereotypes.

When and Why Antiegalitarianism Affects Resistance to Supporting Black-Owned Businesses.

Understanding how initiatives to support Black-owned businesses are received, and why, has important social and economic implications. To address this, we designed three experiments to investigate the role of antiegalitarian versus egalitarian ideologies among White American adults. In Study 1 (N = 199), antiegalitarianism (vs. egalitarianism) predicted viewing initiatives supporting a Black-owned business as less fair, but only when the business was competing with other (presumably White-owned) businesses. In Study 2 (N = 801), antiegalitarianism predicted applying survival-of-the-fittest market beliefs, particularly to Black-owned businesses. Antiegalitarianism also predicted viewing initiatives supporting Black-owned businesses as less fair than initiatives that targeted other (presumably White-owned) businesses, especially for tangible (vs. symbolic) support that directly impacts the success of a business. In Study 3 (N = 590), antiegalitarianism predicted rejecting a program investing in Black-owned businesses. These insights demonstrate how antiegalitarian ideology can have the effect of maintaining race-based inequality, hindering programs designed to reduce that inequality.

Solidarity with whom? Minority perspectives on allyship in Danish queer spaces.

Social psychological research has witnessed a burgeoning interest in advantaged group allies acting in solidarity with disadvantaged groups to challenge systems of inequality. While solidarity from advantaged group members is often deemed critical for social change, the perceptions of disadvantaged group members regarding ally participation are seldom addressed. This research delved into how LGBTQIA+ individuals in Denmark conceptualize allyship. Through 26 semi-structured interviews with participants and organizers of queer pride events, a thematic analysis identified three themes addressing how allyship materializes, what risks it bears and who it involves. Specifically, we present a three-levelled framework of allyship, which captures practices of allyship on a personal, relational and structural level. Our analysis also reveals the risk of allyship when it is not perceived as genuine and complexities of group boundaries when discussing allyship, shedding light on intersectional challenges within minority communities. These findings illustrate the nuances involved in providing and receiving allyship within and across various social (sub)groups.

How Can Debiasing Research Aid Efforts to Reduce Discrimination?

PUBLIC ABSTRACT: Scientists studying intergroup biases are often concerned with lessening discrimination (unequal treatment of one social group versus another), but many interventions for reducing such biased behavior have weak or limited evidence. In this review article, we argue one productive avenue for reducing discrimination comes from adapting interventions in a separate field-judgment and decision-making-that has historically studied "debiasing": the ways people can lessen the unwanted influence of irrelevant information on decision-making. While debiasing research shares several commonalities with research on reducing intergroup discrimination, many debiasing interventions have relied on methods that differ from those deployed in the intergroup bias literature. We review several instances where debiasing principles have been successfully applied toward reducing intergroup biases in behavior and introduce other debiasing techniques that may be well-suited for future efforts in lessening discrimination.

Be the Change You Want to See: Intergroup Helping Reduces InGroup Bias and Facilitates OutGroup Bias in Trading Behaviors.

This research investigated how an instance of intergroup helping affects intergroup attitudes and cooperative behavior. Past research demonstrates that helping behavior elicits prosociality, both reciprocally and toward uninvolved third parties. However, much of this research has either ignored group membership altogether or has assumed a shared group identity between benefactor and beneficiary. Where intergroup helping has been directly evaluated, more negative intergroup attitudes are often observed. The current study examined the effects of an instance of intergroup helping, introduced during a card game, on the beneficiary's attitudes of closeness and cooperative trading behavior as well as those of ingroup and outgroup witnesses to the helping act. Results from this well-powered study (N = 1,249) indicate that although intergroup helping is less likely to impact feelings of closeness, intergroup cooperative trading increases for both the beneficiary and the intergroup observers. These findings add to the understanding of how helping impacts intergroup relations.

Investigating How High Perceived Economic Inequality Exacerbates Intergroup Competition, Zero-Sum Beliefs, and Perceived Intergroup Prejudice.

Rising economic inequality is associated with more prejudice. Little empirical data, however, investigate how inequality affects individuals' psychological processing and, in turn, exacerbates perceptions of prejudice in people's geographic area. We hypothesized that higher perceived economic inequality triggers beliefs that unequal economies are zero-sum and leads to beliefs that people are in competition for limited resources, which may ultimately exacerbate perceived prejudice. Through nine experiments (Studies 1-5 in the manuscript and three additional studies in the Supplement), we provide evidence that higher perceived inequality increases perceived prejudice against a wide range of outgroups. Furthermore, zero-sum beliefs and perceived competition serially mediate this relationship (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 4, we investigate nuance in this hypothesized model by testing whether higher perceived economic inequality exacerbates perceived racial/ethnic prejudice among a large, diverse sample and find a similar pattern of results. Finally (Study 5), we demonstrate that assuaging competition beliefs mitigates perceived prejudice.

Collective psychological ownership as a new angle for understanding group dynamics.

Even without legal ownership, groups can experience objects, places, and ideas as belonging to them ('ours'). This state of mind-collective psychological ownership-is understudied in social psychology, yet it is central to many intergroup conflicts and stewardship behaviour. We discuss our research on the psychological processes and social-psychological implications of collective psychological ownership. We studied territorial ownership, in different parts of the world and at different geographical levels, offering not only a cross-national but also conceptual replication of the processes. Our findings show that collective psychological ownership is inferred based on primo-occupancy, investment, and formation. Further, we demonstrate that collective psychological ownership can have positive intragroup and negative intergroup outcomes, which are guided by perceived group responsibility and exclusive determination right. We then discuss ownership threat (losing what is 'ours'), and we consider the role of group identification in ownership-related processes. We conclude by providing directions for future research.

Improving intergroup relations with meta-perception correction interventions.

We explore meta-perceptions (i.e., what we think others think about reality), their impact on intergroup conflict, and the interventions correcting these often-erroneous perceptions. We introduce a two (direct or indirect) by two (with or without framing) framework classifying these interventions, and we critically assess the benefits and constraints of these approaches.

Identity fusion is associated with outgroup trust and social exploration: Evidence for the fusion-secure base hypothesis.

Identity fusion - a powerful form of group alignment - is a strong predictor of using violence to defend the ingroup. However, recent theorizing suggests, in the absence of outgroup threat, fusion may instead promote intergroup trust and cooperation. Across five studies we find evidence that fusion to a range of groups (e.g., country, football team) was consistently positively associated with a willingness to trust others generally, trust outgroup members, and social exploration. An internal meta-analysis indicated that fusion was more strongly associated with trust and social exploration, compared to several measures of group identification. These findings provide support for the fusion-secure base hypothesis (Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2023, 27(2), 107-127) and suggest that fusion has the potential to increase a willingness to interact with, and trust, outgroup members.

Imagine Being Humble: Integrating Imagined Intergroup Contact and Cultural Humility to Foster Inclusive Intergroup Relations.

To reduce prejudice and to promote intergroup harmony and equality, the imagined intergroup contact technique, based on the mental simulation of an encounter with an outgroup member, has been proposed. Though a substantial body of research has provided support for the efficacy of imagined intergroup contact in prejudice reduction, an alternative strand of research has raised questions about its effectiveness. In this experiment, we combined imagined intergroup contact with cultural humility, that is, an other-oriented, humble approach toward people with different cultural backgrounds, recognizing status and power imbalances and privileges. Specifically, we tested whether instructions aimed at eliciting cultural humility during imagined contact boosted its effectiveness in reducing prejudice and promoting future contact intentions, compared to a standard imagined contact condition and to a control imagination task. Intergroup anxiety was tested as a mediator of the effects of culturally humble imagined contact on reduced prejudice and on future contact intentions. We found that culturally humble imagined contact, compared to the two other conditions, reduced intergroup anxiety and yielded indirect effects on reduced prejudice and increased future contact intentions. The findings will be discussed by focusing on the integration of cultural humility in prejudice reduction techniques based on intergroup contact.

What black people value when white people confront prejudice.

Previous research in psychology has focused on how confronting racial prejudice affects White people - White perpetrators and bystanders - and reduces their prejudice. We shift the focus to Black people - Black people targeted by prejudice and Black observers - and examine how Black people perceive White people's confrontations. Two hundred forty-two Black participants evaluated White participants' responses to anti-Black comments (i.e., confrontations), which were text-analyzed and content-coded to identify the characteristics that Black participants valued the most. Analyses revealed that Black participants valued confrontations that were coded as direct, targeting the action, labeling the prejudiced action as such, and connecting individual acts of prejudice to systemic racism. Notably, this style of confrontation is not what research suggests is best for White people, for reducing Whites' prejudice. Accordingly, the present work contributes to our understanding of confronting prejudice and the value of centering Black experiences and perspectives rather than White comfort and prejudice.

Does the union always make the force? Group status and recategorization influence the perceived physical formidability of potential coalition groups.

Coalitions among individuals and between groups, which have had critical evolutionary benefits for humans, play an important role in contemporary life. One key element of the processes of assessing potential allies is how they may contribute to the perceived physical formidability - fighting ability or the capacity to inflict costs on others - of the alliance. In three studies, focused for the first time on intergroup coalitions, we investigated how qualities of the groups such as status (social prestige) and the relationship between them influence the perceived physical formidability of a coalition (i.e., European Union, EU). Study 1 found that the inclusion of a group with higher or similar (but not lower) status increased the perceived formidability of the EU. Studies 2 and 3 showed that learning that ingroup members recategorized a low-status group within a common-group identity increased the perceived formidability of the EU including that group, compared with the conditions in which either outgroup members recategorized or no information was provided. Study 3 also revealed mediation by fusion - a visceral connection - with outgroup members, which has been relatively unexplored. Taken together, these studies reveal that both, status and social identity processes, may significantly affect the estimations of coalitional formidability.

Visual humanization of refugees: A visual rhetorical analysis of media discourse on the war in Ukraine.

This study examines how news images of refugees in the context of the war in Ukraine mobilize intergroup relations. A visual rhetorical analysis is used to examine the rhetorical strategies employed in news images of Ukrainian refugees in a mainstream Finnish national newspaper from February 25 to May 31, 2022. The data consisted of 465 images. The study constructed four humanizing visual rhetorical strategies based on the visual expression in news images: maternalizing, fragilizing, agonizing, and activizing. The rhetorical strategies constructed four subject positions for Ukrainian refugees: vulnerable victims, innocent victims, suffering Ukrainians, and persistent/resilient Ukrainians. All rhetorical strategies implicitly communicated the subject position of evil to Russia. The paper contributes to the current knowledge of the humanization of refugees in media discourse and the potential of media images to mobilize intergroup relations. Methodologically, the paper elaborates visual rhetorical analysis as a means of social psychological study of refugee discourse in the context of war.

Rationally blind? Rationality polarizes policy support for colour blindness versus multiculturalism.

Do White Americans prefer society to be 'colour-blind' by rising above racial identities, or 'multicultural' by openly discussing and considering them? We developed an ideology-rationality model to understand support for these diversity perspectives. Specifically, since people endorse a diversity perspective in line with their ideological values, we hypothesized that conservatism is related to a relative preference for colour blindness over multiculturalism. However, since colour blindness and multiculturalism are complex and multi-layered ideologies, we further hypothesized that the relationship between conservatism and a preference for colour blindness over multiculturalism is especially pronounced under higher levels of rationality. Results confirmed the hypotheses, either when rationality was operationalized within a dual process theory (Study 1, N = 496) or experimentally induced within a tripartite model of cognition (Study 2, N = 497). Higher levels of rationality guided White Americans high in conservatism towards a stronger preference for colour-blindness, but those low in conservatism towards a stronger preference for multiculturalism. These results suggest that among White Americans the endorsement of colour blindness versus multiculturalism stems from the interplay between ideological orientation and rationality and that rational considerations about racial policies may further divide rather than unify along ideological lines.

Group Formation and the Evolution of Human Social Organization.

Humans operate in groups that are oftentimes nested in multilayered collectives such as work units within departments and companies, neighborhoods within cities, and regions within nation states. With psychological science mostly focusing on proximate reasons for individuals to join existing groups and how existing groups function, we still poorly understand why groups form ex nihilo, how groups evolve into complex multilayered social structures, and what explains fission-fusion dynamics. Here we address group formation and the evolution of social organization at both the proximate and ultimate level of analysis. Building on models of fitness interdependence and cooperation, we propose that socioecologies can create positive interdependencies among strangers and pave the way for the formation of stable coalitions and groups through reciprocity and reputation-based partner selection. Such groups are marked by in-group bounded, parochial cooperation together with an array of social institutions for managing the commons, allowing groups to scale in size and complexity while avoiding the breakdown of cooperation. Our analysis reveals how distinct group cultures can endogenously emerge from reciprocal cooperation, shows that social identification and group commitment are likely consequences rather than causes of group cooperation, and explains when intergroup relations gravitate toward peaceful coexistence, integration, or conflict.

The impact of conspiracy beliefs on a targeted group: Perceived popularity of Jewish-targeted conspiracy beliefs elicits outgroup avoidant behaviours.

In three studies with Jewish participants, we explored the consequences of intergroup conspiracy theories on those targeted. In Study 1 (N = 250), perceived Jewish conspiracy theory popularity was positively associated with intergroup threat and negatively associated with the closeness of contact with non-Jewish people. Study 2 (n = 194) employed an experimental design where Jewish participants were exposed to the idea that many (vs. few) non-Jewish people believe in Jewish conspiracy theories. A path model demonstrated that exposure to the many (vs. few) manipulation increased intergroup threat, which was then positively associated with emotional reactions. Intergroup anxiety and ingroup anger were then positively associated with avoidance, whilst ingroup anxiety was positively associated with approach tendencies. Study 3 (n = 201) used the same experimental design, and a path model revealed that conspiracy popularity increased intergroup threat, which, in turn, was positively associated with ingroup anger and anxiety. Ingroup anxiety was then associated with intentions to help ingroup members. Notably, conspiracy popularity rendered participants less likely to interact with a non-Jewish partner in a behavioural task. Our work provides evidence that conspiracy beliefs, especially when perceived to be widely held, are likely to significantly impact targeted ingroup members.

Mobilizing or Sedative Effects? A Narrative Review of the Association Between Intergroup Contact and Collective Action Among Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups.

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT: In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects. PUBLIC ABSTRACT: We present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects.

Dishonest collaboration in an intergroup context.

Collaborations may sometimes increase the likelihood of engaging in dishonest behaviour. As yet, it remains unknown what factors contribute to this phenomenon. Here, we investigate whether it matters with whom people are collaborating for the extent to which they are dishonest. We aim to (I) replicate dishonest collaboration effects and (II) examine whether collaborating with an ingroup member (vs. outgroup member) amplifies dishonesty. In three pre-registered studies (N = 782), we used the sequential dyadic die-rolling paradigm in both student (Study 1: Lab context) and community samples (Studies 2-3: Field context). In this paradigm, two players form a dyad (either with an ingroup or an outgroup member) and earn winnings depending on both their own and the other's dice roll. Crucially, dice rolls are private, and players can inflate their winnings by misreporting their dice roll. Collectively, our studies replicate the dishonest collaboration effect, showing the robustness of collaborative dishonesty over samples and contexts. However, our studies suggest that dishonesty is similar when collaborating with an ingroup versus an outgroup member. Alternative processes are discussed that may play a role in collaborative dishonesty resulting in the absence of an intergroup effect.

Stuck on Intergroup Attitudes: The Need to Shift Gears to Change Intergroup Behaviors.

Decades of research on how to improve intergroup relations have primarily examined ways to change prejudiced attitudes. However, this focus on negative intergroup attitudes has yielded few effective solutions. Because intergroup relations are shaped by behavior during intergroup interactions, it is necessary to identify constructs that have a strong causal impact on intergroup behavior change. In this article, I will discuss evidence showing that intergroup attitude change is neither a sufficient nor necessary cause for intergroup behavior change. Empirical research suggests that intergroup attitudes are difficult to change and have a limited effect on intergroup behavior. I also distinguish between constructs that primarily affect intergroup attitude change (e.g., counterstereotypical exemplars, evaluative conditioning) and constructs that primarily affect intergroup behavior change (e.g., social norms, self-efficacy). Further, suggestions for future research will also be provided to advance understanding of the various psychological constructs that influence intergroup behavior change, which will help us develop effective methods of improving intergroup relations.

How our ideological out-group shapes our emotional response to our shared socio-political reality.

What shapes our emotional responses to socio-political events? Following the social identity approach, we suggest that individuals adjust their emotional responses to socio-political stimuli based on their ideological out-group's responses, in a manner that preserves the comparative and normative fit of ideological in-group-out-group categories. In Study 1 and Study 2 (pre-registered), Jewish-Israeli leftists and rightists were exposed to their ideological out-group's alleged emotional response to a stimulus associated with Israeli-Palestinian relations, which was either stereotypical (leftists expressing low anger and rightists expressing high anger) or non-stereotypical (leftists expressing high anger and rightists expressing low anger). Across studies, participants reported more positive affect towards their ideological out-group when its response to the stimulus was non-stereotypical versus stereotypical, yet their own response to the stimulus became more "extreme" (towards the low end of the anger scale for leftists, and towards the high end of the anger scale for rightists), shifting farther away from their ideological out-group norm. Our findings suggest that in highly polarized contexts, where "leftist" and "rightist" identities are largely defined in comparison to one another, the "positioning" of ideological groups relative to one another plays a role in shaping their responses to their shared socio-political reality.