Outgroup Antipathy Research Articles

Can a Sense of Shared War Experience Increase Refugee Acceptance?

How can one increase openness towards conflict refugees in states that have experienced conflict? While highlighting shared war experience may reduce hostility toward refugees by enabling people to better understand the plight of refugees, it may also foment higher levels of out-group antipathy due to heightened feelings of threat. To answer this question, we leverage the context of South Korea, a country that technically remains at war with North Korea for more than 70 years and yet attracts asylum seekers as an advanced economy. This provides a hard case to shift residents' refugee acceptance, as challenges associated with accepting refugees are amplified with ongoing threat concerns. Employing an original survey, we find that when the parallels between the human costs of the Korean War and current conflicts are underscored, refugee acceptance increases, particularly among those whose families were displaced by the war. Moreover, this strategy is more effective than perspective-taking exercises.

Populism as Dog-Whistle Politics: Anti-Elite Discourse and Sentiments Toward Minority Groups

AbstractPast research has devoted more attention to the consequences of populism for party politics and democratic governance than to its effects on public attitudes—and particularly, how populist claims interact with nationalism to exacerbate exclusionary beliefs among the public. Using online survey experiments, we examine whether exposure to populism increases out-group antipathy among Democrats and Republicans. In Study 1, we randomly assign respondents to three conditions featuring vignettes based on political speeches: a morally neutral argument, a populist critique of political elites and a morally framed anti-immigration appeal. The results demonstrate that the populist treatment generates lower feeling-thermometer ratings of minority groups than the control condition, but only among Republicans and Trump supporters. Study 2 uses a similar design to evaluate the link between left-wing economic populism and economic nationalism: the populist condition features a critique of economic elites, the nationalist condition blames China for the offshoring of US jobs and the outcome variable measures respondents’ sentiments toward China. Economic nationalism generates increased anti-China sentiment among moderate and conservative Democrats but economic populism does not. Together, these findings suggest that the effects of populism on nationalist antipathies observed in Study 1 are driven by the discursive bundling of anti-elite talk with ethno-nationalism on the political right, which stands in contrast to the decoupling of economic populism from economic nationalism on the left. The former has effectively turned populism into a form of dog-whistle politics among Republicans, and Trump supporters in particular.

How group processes push excluded people into a radical mindset: An experimental investigation

Social exclusion is a condition that seems to allow terrorism to flourish. Since radicalization is argued to occur mostly in the context of group identification and accompanying processes, we hypothesized that these may contribute to pushing excluded individuals toward radicalism. To investigate this, we performed four studies. In Studies 1 to 3, we conducted experiments in which we manipulated exclusion (vs. inclusion), created new in-groups, and measured radicalism intentions in the context of eco- or animal rights extremism. In Study 4, we tested the focal variables in a reanalysis of coded qualitative data on an Islamist sample. In Study 1, the exclusion–radicalism link revealed to be mediated by in-group sympathy as opposed to out-group antipathy. Studies 2 to 4 specifically identified perceived group threat as a driver of radicalism in the aftermath of exclusion. This work provides first experimental evidence for the catalyzing power of relationships in the exclusion–radicalism link.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Antipathy Toward Immigrants and Sexual Minorities in the Early Days of the Coronavirus Pandemic in Italy

Theory and research in social, evolutionary, and political psychology indicates that subjective feelings of threat and exposure to objectively threatening circumstances—including pandemic diseases—may contribute to increased affinities for political conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism, and prejudice against out-group members. We investigated these possibilities in the context of Italy, which was the first Western country to be severely affected by the spread of COVID-19. Early on in the pandemic, from March 3–8, 2020, we surveyed 757 Italian adults ranging in age from 18 to 78 years. Results revealed that antipathy toward immigrants and sexual minorities was predicted by (male) sex, COVID-19 anxiety, RWA, and political distrust. Furthermore, COVID-19 anxiety magnified the effect of RWA on disliking of immigrants and sexual minorities (but not obese or disabled people). Contrary to prediction, political trust failed to attenuate the effects of COVID-19 anxiety or RWA on out-group antipathy. Implications for the theories of right-wing authoritarianism and political ideology as motivated social cognition, as well as the state of contemporary Italian politics are discussed.

Will Americans Vote for Muslims? Cultural Outgroup Antipathy, Candidate Religion, and U.S. Voting Behavior

AbstractWe assess how likely Americans are to support political candidates who are Muslim, and the extent to which support for Muslim candidates is structured by “cultural outgroup antipathy”—generalized antipathy targeting cultural outgroups. We employ two survey experiments included in the 2007 and 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies that juxtapose a hypothetical state legislative candidate's Muslim faith with Arab ethnicity, African American race, and both Democratic and Republican party affiliation. Identifying a candidate as Muslim significantly reduces voter support and that reduction is largest among people with higher levels of cultural outgroup antipathy. The effect is consistent regardless of whether the candidate is also identified as being Arab or African American or is just presented as a Muslim. We also find that cultural outgroup antipathy diminished electoral support for same-party Muslim candidates among Democrats but not among Republicans.

Measuring multiple identities: what is lost with a zero-sum approach

This paper demonstrates the substantive and methodological flaws of a zero-sum, oppositional approach to conceptualizing multiple identities and suggests that each identity should be measured separately. Using original survey data from secondary school students in the Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia (N = 4417), the paper demonstrates that the oppositional approach is only appropriate where individuals perceive the identities to be incongruent. However, I argue that even where this commonly used oppositional approach fits the macro-level context, it is a normatively tainted measure of identity. Moreover, it can only gauge the relative importance of the two identities, and does not shed light on the absolute strength of either identity. By comparing the performance of each measurement approach as predictors of out-group antipathy, the paper demonstrates how the zero-sum approach clouds important relationships between each form of identification and other variables of interest.

Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses

Despite its early origins and adaptive functions, empathy is not inevitable; people routinely fail to empathize with others, especially members of different social or cultural groups. In five experiments, we systematically explore how social identity, functional relations between groups, competitive threat, and perceived entitativity contribute to intergroup empathy bias: the tendency not only to empathize less with out-group relative to in-group members, but also to feel pleasure in response to their pain (and pain in response to their pleasure). When teams are set in direct competition, affective responses to competition-irrelevant events are characterized not only by less empathy toward out-group relative to in-group members, but also by increased counter-empathic responses: Schadenfreude and Glückschmerz (Experiment 1). Comparing responses to in-group and out-group targets against responses to unaffiliated targets in this competitive context suggests that intergroup empathy bias may be better characterized by out-group antipathy rather than extraordinary in-group empathy (Experiment 2). We also find that intergroup empathy bias is robust to changes in relative group standing—feedback indicating that the out-group has fallen behind (Experiment 3a) or is no longer a competitive threat (Experiment 3b) does not reduce the bias. However, reducing perceived in-group and out-group entitativity can significantly attenuate intergroup empathy bias (Experiment 4). This research establishes the boundary conditions of intergroup empathy bias and provides initial support for a more integrative framework of group-based empathy.

Bleeding-Heart Liberals and Hard-Hearted Conservatives: Subtle Political Dehumanization Through Differential Attributions of Human Nature and Human Uniqueness Traits

This research demonstrated that human nature (HN) and human uniqueness (HU) traits capture the content of Americans’ stereotypes about liberals and conservatives, respectively. Consistent with expectations derived from dehumanization theory, people more strongly associated HN traits with liberals than with conservatives, and more strongly associated HU traits with conservatives than with liberals. A trait × target ideology × perceiver ideology × trait valence interaction suggested that both liberals and conservatives more strongly associated their ingroup with stereotype-consistent positive traits, and their outgroup with stereotype-consistent negative traits. Mediation analyses revealed that outgroup antipathy, but not ingroup liking, explained the relationship between ideology and political outgroup dehumanization. Finally, humanness traits captured subtle differences in political stereotype content not captured with the warmth and competence dimensions derived from the stereotype content model. Together, these results indicate that differential attributions of HN and HU traits capture political stereotype content and function to subtly dehumanize one’s political opponents.

Bleeding-Heart Liberals and Hard-Hearted Conservatives: Subtle Political Dehumanization Through Differential Attributions of Human Nature and Human Uniqueness Traits

This research demonstrated that human nature (HN) and human uniqueness (HU) traits capture the content of people’s stereotypes about liberals and conservatives, respectively. Consistent with expectations derived from dehumanization theory, people more strongly associated HN traits with liberals than with conservatives, and more strongly associated HU traits with conservatives than with liberals. A trait × target ideology × perceiver ideology × trait valence interaction suggested that both liberals and conservatives more strongly associated their in-group with stereotype-consistent positive qualities, and their out-group with stereotype-consistent negative qualities. Mediation analyses revealed that out-group antipathy, but not in-group liking, explained the relationship between ideology and political out-group dehumanization. Finally, humanness traits captured subtle differences in political stereotype content not captured with the warmth and competence ratings derived from the stereotype content model. Together, these results indicate that differential attributions of HN and HU traits capture political stereotype content and function to subtly dehumanize one’s political opponents.

The Impact Of Political Discourse On Group Beliefs And Outgroup Antipathy Among Latvian Youth

A study was conducted among young Latvians to test the effects of different conceptualizations of Latvian national identity on group beliefs and on attitudes towards Russians. It was hypothesized that exposure to inclusive discourse presenting Latvia as a multicultural society rather than an ethnic homeland would have a direct negative effect on feelings of vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority and helplessness with regard to the Latvian nation and a positive effect on attitudes towards Russians. The hypothesis was tested in one survey study conducted in Riga among ethnic Latvians (N = 150).

Patriotism or Nationalism? Understanding Post-September 11, 2001, Flag-Display Behavior1

People reacted to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in a number of different ways. One reaction was to display the American flag on one's home, car, or person. The goal of this research was to understand the underlying motivations that led to this widespread behavior. Specifically, to what extent was post-9/11 flag-display behavior motivated by patriotism (love of country and in-group solidarity), nationalism (uncritical acceptance of national, state, and political authorities and out-group antipathy), or a combination of both? Results of a national survey (N= 605) provided much stronger support for the hypothesis that post-9/11 flag-display behavior was an expression of patriotism, not nationalism. Other results supported the notion that patriotism can exist without nationalism, even in the context of people's reactions to a terrorist attack.

A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo

Most theories in social and political psychology stress self‐interest, intergroup conflict, ethnocentrism, homophily, ingroup bias, outgroup antipathy, dominance, and resistance. System justification theory is influenced by these perspectives—including social identity and social dominance theories—but it departs from them in several respects. Advocates of system justification theory argue that (a) there is a general ideological motive to justify the existing social order, (b) this motive is at least partially responsible for the internalization of inferiority among members of disadvantaged groups, (c) it is observed most readily at an implicit, nonconscious level of awareness and (d) paradoxically, it is sometimes strongest among those who are most harmed by the status quo. This article reviews and integrates 10 years of research on 20 hypotheses derived from a system justification perspective, focusing on the phenomenon of implicit outgroup favoritism among members of disadvantaged groups (including African Americans, the elderly, and gays/lesbians) and its relation to political ideology (especially liberalism‐conservatism).

Contrasting Theoretical Approaches to Intergroup Relations

The current forum is designed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of social identity, social dominance, and system justification as theoretical approaches to the study of intergroup relations. Each of these approaches tries to account for variation in the development of ingroup cohesion and outgroup antipathy among individual group members, across groups, and in different societies—three levels at which theorists have commonly sought explanations for variability in intergroup attitudes and behavior. Social dominance theory is the most ambitious of the theories but does not succeed in explaining intergroup relations equally well at all three levels. However, it has excelled in highlighting individual differences in the need and desire to dominate members of lower‐status groups and in exploring the interaction between individuals and institutions. Social identity theory is primarily concerned with the attributes of groups that foster the development of ingroup bias and examines the conditions under which this occurs. It is more fully developed in this respect than the other approaches but ignores variation at the individual level and, to a lesser degree, the societal level. System justification theory considers a mix of individual‐ and societal‐level factors, focusing on the role of support for the status quo in producing acceptance of status inequalities among members of low‐status groups, even when it is against their own interest to do so. The theory highlights an important problem—the quiescence of low‐status groups—but more work is needed to flesh out the theory and its central concepts.

Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest.

Prejudice against fat people was compared with symbolic racism. An anti-fat attitudes questionnaire was developed and used in several studies testing the notion that antipathy toward fat people is part of an ideology of blame. Three commonalities between antifat attitudes and racism were explored: (a) the association between values, beliefs, and the rejection of a stigmatized group, (b) the old-fashioned antipathy toward deviance of many sorts, and (c) the lack of self-interest in out-group antipathy. Parallels were found on all 3 dimensions. No in-group bias was shown by fat people. Fatism appears to behave much like symbolic racism, but with less of the negative social desirability of racism.

Prejudice against fat people: ideology and self-interest.

Prejudice against fat people was compared with symbolic racism. An anti-fat attitudes questionnaire was developed and used in several studies testing the notion that antipathy toward fat people is part of an "ideology of blame." Three commonalities between antifat attitudes and racism were explored: (a) the association between values, beliefs, and the rejection of a stigmatized group, (b) the old-fashioned antipathy toward deviance of many sorts, and (c) the lack of self-interest in out-group antipathy. Parallels were found on all 3 dimensions. No in-group bias was shown by fat people. Fatism appears to behave much like symbolic racism, but with less of the negative social desirability of racism.

Arriving at "Truth" by Definition: The Case of Stereotype Inaccuracy

Two related assumptions are challenged: (1) that stereotypes are inaccurate by definition, and (2) that stereotypes function merely as fallacious rationalizations for outgroup antipathy. A review of the literature indicates that stereotypy is a multidimensional concept, that degree of accuracy is a relatively unexplored variable, and that stereotypy and prejudice are not synonymous terms. The metasociology of stereotype investigation is explored. It is suggested that the liberal sympathies of social scientists discourage a test of ethnic stereotype accuracy.