Integration policies shape ethnic-racial majorities' threat reactions to increasing diversity.

Increasing ethnic and racial diversity often fuels feelings of threat among ethnic-racial majorities (e.g., self-identified white Americans and European nationals). We contend that these threat perceptions depend on the policy context. Across four studies, we test whether more inclusive immigrant integration policies attenuate ethnic-racial majorities' threat reactions. Studies 1 to 3 (n = 469, 733, and 1745, respectively) used experimental methods with white American participants in the United States. Study 4 (n = 499,075) used secondary analysis of survey data comparing attitudes of nationals in 30 European countries and measured the impact of actual changes in diversity and policies over 10 years. Our results show that integration policies shape threat reactions even in those situations when increasing diversity could be seen as the most threatening: when narratives highlight the majority's impending minority position or when diversity suddenly increases. When policies are more inclusive toward immigrants, ethnic-racial majority participants report less threat (or no threat) in response to increasing diversity.

Welcome to Be Like Us: Expectations of Outgroup Assimilation Shape Dominant Group Resistance to Diversity.

We propose a theoretical framework for when and why members of dominant groups experience threat and express intolerant attitudes in response to social change. Scholarship on symbolic threat suggests that the detection of intergroup differences in values and norms is sufficient to elicit negative intergroup attitudes. Building on this theory, we argue that the experience of threat is actually shaped by prospective beliefs about difference (i.e., expectations of whether outgroups will assimilate to ingroup norms over time or not). Across two studies and two accompanying pilots, we show how outgroup assimilation expectation shapes dominant groups' experiences of threat, specifically as it relates to their ability to define the norms of their superordinate category (prototypicality threat). We observe that members of dominant groups are surprisingly tolerant of both social change and intergroup difference in the present, so long as they expect outgroup assimilation in the future.

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.

Being treated fairly in groups is important, but not sufficient: The role of distinctive treatment in groups, and its implications for mental health.

Organizations and other groups often recognize the importance of members treating each other in a fair (dignified, unbiased) manner. This type of treatment is key to fostering individuals' sense of belonging in the group. However, while a sense of belonging is important, individuals also need to be shown that they have some distinct value to the group-enabling them to not only "fit in" but also "stand out." Building from research on fair treatment, we explicate another form, distinctive treatment, whereby others show interest and appreciation for an individual's more distinguishing, group-relevant qualities. In six studies using multiple methods (e.g., experimental, longitudinal) and in multiple types of groups (work organizations, student communities, racial/ethnic minority groups), we show that fair and distinctive treatment play fundamentally different roles-shaping individuals' perceived belonging versus intragroup standing, respectively-and with downstream benefits for mental health (less anxiety, fewer depressive symptoms). Overall, this illustrates that promoting fair treatment in groups is important, but not sufficient. Experiencing distinctive treatment is also key. Each type of treatment provides unique social evaluative information that fosters a healthy sense of self. This research further indicates that distinctive treatment may be a vital yet overlooked element to promoting diversity and inclusion in groups, as it provides a path for recognizing and appreciating, and thus encouraging, a diversity of ideas, insights, knowledge and skills that individuals bring to the group.

Local policy proposals can bridge Latino and (most) white Americans' response to immigration.

In the past 15 years, the adoption of subnational immigration policies in the United States, such as those established by individual states, has gone from nearly zero to over 300 per year. These include welcoming policies aimed at attracting and incorporating immigrants, as well as unwelcoming policies directed at denying immigrants access to public resources and services. Using data from a 2016 random digit-dialing telephone survey with an embedded experiment, we examine whether institutional support for policies that are either welcoming or hostile toward immigrants differentially shape Latinos' and whites' feelings of belonging in their state (Arizona/New Mexico, adjacent states with contrasting immigration policies). We randomly assigned individuals from the representative sample (n = 1,903) of Latinos (US and foreign born) and whites (all US born) to consider policies that were either welcoming of or hostile toward immigrants. Across both states of residence, Latinos, especially those foreign born, regardless of citizenship, expressed more positive affect and greater belonging when primed with a welcoming (vs. hostile) policy. Demonstrating the importance of local norms, these patterns held among US-born whites, except among self-identified politically conservative whites, who showed more negative affect and lower levels of belonging in response to welcoming policies. Thus, welcoming immigration policies, supported by institutional authorities, can create a sense of belonging not only among newcomers that is vital to successful integration but also among a large segment of the population that is not a direct beneficiary of such policies-US-born whites.

Organizational respect dampens the impact of group-based relative deprivation on willingness to protest pay cuts.

Although group-based relative deprivation predicts people's willingness to protest unfair outcomes, perceiving that one's subgroup is respected increases employees' support for organizations. An integration of these perspectives suggests that subgroup respect will dampen the impact of group-based relative deprivation on workers' responses to unfair organizational outcomes. We examined this hypothesis among university faculty (N = 804) who underwent a system-wide pay cut. As expected, group-based relative deprivation predicted protest intentions. This relationship was, however, muted among those who believed university administrators treated their area of expertise (i.e., their subgroup) with a high (vs. low) level of respect. Moderated mediation analyses confirmed that group-based relative deprivation had a conditional indirect effect on protest intentions via participants' (dis)identification with their university at low to moderate, but not high, levels of subgroup respect. Our finding that satisfying relational needs can attenuate responses to group-based relative deprivation demonstrates the benefits of integrating insights from distinct research traditions.

More than a feeling: discrete emotions mediate the relationship between relative deprivation and reactions to workplace furloughs.

A key insight from investigations of individual relative deprivation (IRD) is that people can experience objective disadvantages differently. In this study, university faculty (N = 953) who reported greater IRD in response to a mandatory furlough (i.e., involuntary pay reductions) were more likely to (a) voice options designed to improve the university (voice), (b) consider leaving their job (exit), and (c) neglect their work responsibilities (neglect), but were (d) less likely to express loyalty to the university (loyalty). Consistent with the emotions literature, (a) anger mediated the relationship between IRD and voice, (b) fear between IRD and exit, (c) sadness between IRD and neglect, and (d) gratitude between IRD and loyalty. IRD was inversely associated with self-reported physical and mental health via these different emotional pathways. These results show how discrete emotions can explain responses to IRD and, in turn, contribute to organizational viability and the health of its members.

Subgroup respect, social engagement, and well-being: A field study of an ethnically diverse high school.

Recent research points toward the utility of the pluralist (multicultural) model as a viable alternative to the traditional assimilation model of cultural integration. In this study, we extend this work by evaluating when and to what extent feelings that members of a common group respect and value one's ethnic group membership (subgroup respect) shape social engagement and well-being. We do so in the context of a survey of students at a diverse, public high school. Subgroup respect was linked to more positive evaluations of both school authorities and students from ethnic outgroups as well as to lower levels of school disengagement. Consistent with past research, these relationships held only among ethnic minority groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos) but not among Whites. Findings about the relationship between subgroup respect and indicators of well-being were more mixed, with the relationship most evident among Asians Americans and Latinos and especially on indicators of physical health. Implications for understanding the consequences of pluralism are discussed in light of the observed ethnic group differences.

Testing an integrative model of respect: implications for social engagement and well-being.

Prior research demonstrates that feelings of respect affect important aspects of group functioning and members' psychological well-being. One limitation is that respect has been variously defined as reflecting individuals' status in the group, degree to which they are liked by the group, and how fairly they are treated in interactions with group members. These different conceptions are integrated in the dual pathway model of respect. The authors tested the model's prediction that fair treatment from group members shapes attitudes toward the group and self via two distinct pathways: status and inclusion. Findings from a field study supported the model and yielded new insights: Whereas perceptions of status predicted social engagement, liking was more important in predicting well-being (especially among dominant subgroups). Discussion focuses on the utility of the dual pathway model for understanding how respect perceptions are formed and how they affect the welfare of groups and individuals.

Procedural justice and social regulation across group boundaries: does subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance?

The relational model of authority suggests that people are inclined to accept the decisions of ethnic outgroup authorities when they identify with a superordinate category they share with the authority, and when the authority satisfies their relational justice concerns. Using responses from a random sample of African Americans, Latinos, and Whites about their cross-ethnic interactions with legal authorities, the findings indicated that those who are highly identified with the superordinate category of America indicate greater reliance on relational concerns and less on instrumental concerns when evaluating the authority's decision. In contrast, identification with one's ethnic subgroup did not moderate the linkage between relational concerns and acceptance. Across all ethnic groups, there were positive rather than negative correlations between measures of American and ethnic identity. Together, these findings indicate that subgroup identity does not undermine the relational basis of social regulation and that relationship-based governance is compatible with multiculturalism.

Justice and the regulation of social relations: when and why do group members deny claims to social goods?

When do group members withhold monetary resources, abandon procedural protections, and deny fair and respectful treatment to potential claimants? Two experiments investigated the conditions that influence judgments about others' entitlement to these three social goods. Past research suggests that exchange concerns underlie entitlement judgments such that an instrumentally beneficial relationship will promote greater support for claims to social goods. Drawing from group-value theory (Lind & Tyler, 1988), an alternative hypothesis is proposed which suggests that entitlement judgments are motivated by concerns about preserving the core norms and values that comprise the group's identity. The findings support the group-value hypothesis that discrimination in entitlement judgments is motivated by social identity concerns. Furthermore, this tendency to discriminate against those who challenge the group's core norms and values is moderated by the nature of the social good. The effect is strongest with regard to judgments about economic goods (money) and is attenuated with regard to judgments about procedural goods (procedural protection) and especially relational goods (fair and respectful treatment). It is suggested that the level of discrimination exhibited in the domain of procedural and relational goods is kept in check by culturally rooted beliefs that these social goods should be distributed according to egalitarian principles.