Cruelty and indifference are the point: Preference for hierarchy is related to support for policies that harm marginalized groups through feeling both less empathy and more schadenfreude

Individuals who have relatively higher levels of social dominance orientation (SDO; Ho et al., 2015) are more likely to support policies and engage in behaviors that harm marginalized groups through both passive (e.g., neglect) and active (e.g., subjugation) means. While SDO is positioned as a relevant antecedent to outcomes regarding intergroup conflict, the mechanisms by which SDO impact group harm are underspecified. In this paper we investigate the social emotions of intergroup empathy and schadenfreude—the congruent negative and incongruent positive emotional reactions, respectively, a person has in response to the suffering of members from another social group—as key mediators between SDO and intergroup harm. More specifically, we test a model in which SDO leads to active harm primarily through feeling schadenfreude while SDO leads to passive harm primarily through not feeling empathy. In four pre-registered studies (N = 3,468), we show initial support for this model, as SDO’s associations with actively harmful policy support were more strongly mediated through schadenfreude than empathy, while SDO’s associations with passively harmful policy support were more strongly mediated through empathy than schadenfreude. We discuss the relevance of these findings to intergroup conflict interventions more broadly, as well as highlight the role of schadenfreude in motivating intergroup harm.

Factors Associated with Online Hate Acceptance: A Cross-National Six-Country Study among Young Adults

The Internet, specifically social media, is among the most common settings where young people encounter hate speech. Understanding their attitudes toward the phenomenon is crucial for combatting it because acceptance of such content could contribute to furthering the spread of hate speech as well as ideology contamination. The present study, theoretically grounded in the General Aggression Model (GAM), investigates factors associated with online hate acceptance among young adults. We collected survey data from participants aged 18–26 from six countries: Finland (n = 483), France (n = 907), Poland (n = 738), Spain (n = 739), the United Kingdom (n = 959), and the United States (n = 1052). Results based on linear regression modeling showed that acceptance of online hate was strongly associated with acceptance of violence in all samples. In addition, participants who admitted to producing online hate reported higher levels of acceptance of it. Moreover, association with social dominance orientation was found in most of the samples. Other sample-specific significant factors included participants’ experiences with the Internet and online hate, as well as empathy and institutional trust levels. Significant differences in online hate acceptance levels and the strength of its connections to individual factors were found between the countries. These results provide important insights into the phenomenon, demonstrating that online hate acceptance is part of a larger belief system and is influenced by cultural background, and, therefore, it cannot be analyzed or combatted in isolation from these factors.

Children’s inequality aversion in intergroup contexts: The role of parents’ social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism and moral foundations

Although children are overall sensitive to inequality and prefer fair allocation of resources, they also often display ingroup favouritism. Inquiring about the factors that can shape the tension between these two driving forces in children, we focused on the role of parents. Extending the limited literature in this field, the present work examined whether individual differences in 3-to 11-year-old White children’s (N = 154, 78 boys) evaluations of fair versus pro-ingroup behaviours in an intergroup context vary as a function of both mothers’ and fathers’ social dominance orientation (SDO), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and moral foundations. Parents completed a questionnaire. Children were presented with a scenario in which two ingroup members distributed candies to two other children, one White and one Black, either in an egalitarian way or displaying a clear ingroup favouritism. Afterwards, their attitudes towards the two ingroup members who had distributed the candies were assessed through both an Implicit Association Test and explicit questions. Although children displayed on average an explicit preference for the fair over the pro-ingroup target, this preference did not emerge at the implicit level. Most importantly, both children’s explicit and implicit attitudes were related to mothers’ SDO, indicating that at increasing level of mothers’ SDO children’s inequality aversion tended to drop. Overall, these results emphasize the relevance of mothers’ support for social hierarchy in relation to the way in which children balance the two competing drives of equality endorsement and pro-ingroup bias.

Analysis of Hate Speech and Hate Crimes From A Social Psychological Perspective: A Review

Hate crime and hate speech are extreme examples of negative intergroup relations. It is thought that it would be very useful to analyze the variables that lead up to for dealing with hate speech and crimes that have many physical and psychological destructive consequences for the exposed group members. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to address some of the social psychological variables associated with hate speech and hate crimes and to suggest solutions to reduce hate speech and hate crimes in this context. For this purpose, first of all, hate speech and hate crimes were defined and various examples were presented in this direction. Later, hate crimes and hate speech were examined in terms of social identity identification, social dominance orientation, system justification, realistic and symbolic threat perception, frustration and scapegoat concepts. The relationship between hate speech and crimes of this concept has been embodied with research findings and examples from various regions in Turkey and the world. Finally, some solution suggestions have been presented by making use of this theoretical knowledge in terms of combating hate crimes and hate speeches. Keywords: Hate crime, hate speech, intergroup relations, social psychology

The degree of heterogeneity of news consumption in Germany—Descriptive statistics and relations with individual differences in personality, ideological attitudes, and voting intentions

This study aimed to examine the degree of homogeneity versus heterogeneity of individuals’ political information environments across offline and online media types and relations with sociodemographic variables, personality, and political attitudes. In two online surveys, German participants (sample 1: N = 686; sample 2: N = 702) provided information on sociodemographic variables, consumption of political news, and voting intentions, and completed the Big Five Inventory and Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scales. Results revealed that absolutely homogeneous political news consumption was evident for a small proportion of individuals (2.04% and 0.43%). Openness (positively) and Agreeableness (negatively) exhibited significant associations with the degree of heterogeneity of political information environments across samples. No consistent patterns of relations with either the ideological attitudes of RWA and SDO or voting intentions were observed. The findings shed light on the existence of absolutely homogeneous political information environments and “who” might be prone to a more homogeneous versus more heterogeneous information environment.

Social Psychological Predictors of Belief in Fake News in the Run-Up to the 2019 Hungarian Elections: The Importance of Conspiracy Mentality Supports the Notion of Ideological Symmetry in Fake News Belief

Accessing information online is now easier than ever. However, also false information is circulated in increasing quantities. We sought to identify social psychological factors that could explain why some people are more susceptible to false information. Specifically, we investigated whether psychological predispositions (social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, system justification beliefs (SJB), openness, need for closure, conspiracy mentality), competencies (scientific and political knowledge, interest in politics) or motivated reasoning based on social identity (political orientation) could help explain who believes fake news. Hungarian participants (N = 295) judged political (anti- and pro-government) and non-political news. The Hungarian context—characterized by low trust in media, populist communication by the government and increasing polarization—should be fertile ground for the proliferation of fake news. The context in making this case particularly interesting is that the major political fault line in Hungary runs between pro- and anti-government supporter groups and not, for instance, between conservative and liberal ideology or partisanship. We found clear support for the motivational reasoning explanation as political orientation consistently predicted belief in both fake and real political news when their contents aligned with one’s political identity. The belief in pro-government news was also associated with higher SJB among pro-government supporters. Those interested in politics showed better capacity to distinguish real political news from the fake ones. Most importantly, the only psychological predisposition that consistently explained belief in all types of fake news was a conspiracy mentality. This supports the notion of ideological symmetry in fake news belief—where a conspiracy mentality can be found across the political spectrum, and it can make people susceptible to disinformation regardless of group-memberships and other individual differences.

Risks of expressing your authentic self in sport: the influence of stigma covering on perceived job fit and hiring recommendations

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to examine how identity covering techniques can influence raters' perceptions of job candidates who have a socially stigmatized identity. Specifically, the authors explore how raters respond to two types of candidates: one who does not mention his gay identity during the interview process, and one who openly discusses their gay identity during the interview process. The authors also investigate whether job type (sport operations vs business operations) and the rater's views toward social equality influence perceptions of job fit and subsequent hiring recommendations.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted an experiment to examine whether an applicant's level of stigma covering, type of job posting and rater's views toward social equality influenced perceptions of job fit. The authors then tested whether perceptions of job fit mediated hiring recommendations. Adults in the USA (n = 237) who were employed and had served on a hiring committees participated in the survey.FindingsWhen applying for sport operations jobs, as opposed to business operations jobs, gay male applicants are viewed more favorably if they engage in high levels of identity covering. Further, the applicant's level of stigma covering influenced raters who reported high or moderate social dominance orientation but did not impact raters with low social dominance orientation. Overall, the findings reveal that identity covering techniques do have relevance for studying the dynamics of hiring gay men who apply for jobs in the sport industry.Originality/valueThe study advances the understanding of identity management techniques by examining the nuances of how applicants can choose to disclose their stigmatized identity, and how those decision influence the hiring process.

Why do we argue about science? Exploring the psychological antecedents of rejection of science

<p>Science is recognised and accepted as an important tool for understanding the world in which we live, yet some people hold beliefs that go against the best available scientific evidence. For example, many people believe human-caused climate change is not occurring, or that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous. Previous research has investigated a range of possible drivers of this ‘rejection of science’ (Lewandowsky, Oberauer, & Gignac, 2013), including ignorance, distrust of scientists, and ideological motivations. The studies in this thesis extend this line of inquiry, focusing first on the role of perceptions of scientific agreement. I report experimental evidence that people base their beliefs on ‘what they think scientists think’ (Study 1). However, an analysis of longitudinal data (Study 2) suggests that our personal beliefs may also skew our perceptions of scientific agreement. While the results of Study 1 and Study 2 somewhat conflict, they do converge on one finding: perceptions of consensus alone do not fully explain rejection of science. In the remainder of the thesis I cast a wider net, examining how ideological beliefs are linked to rejection of science. Study 3 draws on social media data to reveal that political ideology is associated with rejection of science in the context of who people choose to follow on the platform Twitter. A final set of studies (4, 5, and 6) examine the role of two motivational antecedents of political ideology, Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), in rejection of science across five publicly debated issues. I also explore several potential mediators which might explain these effects. I report, for the first time, that RWA and SDO predict rejection of science across a range of issues and one mediator emerges as a consistent link: distrust of scientists. People who are less opposed to authoritarian (RWA) or hierarchical (SDO) values are less trusting of scientists and, in turn, more likely to reject specific scientific findings. I discuss potential strategies to address or circumvent this ideologically-motivated distrust of science. Taken as whole, this thesis extends our understanding of why people disagree with an established scientific consensus on socially important issues. Knowledge of the scientific consensus matters, but our deeper beliefs about society can also draw us closer to, or push us further from evidence-based conclusions.</p>

Tests of Social Dominance on Charitable Intent Towards Minorities

<p>This thesis investigates the hypothesis that the design of adverts for charitable causes may be unintentionally priming viewers in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO: Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Huang and Liu (2005) found evidence that presenting people with material that makes social hierarchies salient can temporarily increase a person's level of SDO. As many charities make differences in social hierarchy salient as part of their advertisement campaigns, it is possible that such advertisements may unintentionally prime the SDO of viewers. Given prior research that indicates that high SDO is correlated with antisocial attitudes (Sibley & Duckitt, 2010), such priming may be reducing the likelihood that viewers would donate towards the charitable cause. First, a pre-test was conducted to test the psychometric structure and reliability of the SDO7 (Ho, et al., in print) and the Counter Dominance Orientation measure (CDO: Pratto et al., 2012). Confirmatory factor analysis of each measure found a four-factor model of SDO and a two-factor model of CDO. Subsequently, 139 first-year students of psychology were used to test the previously-mentioned hypothesis. Participants were asked to critically evaluate one of two adverts for a student support service, with the one in the experimental condition being for a service for Māori and Pacifica students. The intent of this advert was to prime viewers on SDO. Afterwards, they engaged in a hypothetical public goods game where a portion of the money pool would go towards the service the advert was for. If the hypothesis was correct, participants who were primed on SDO would be less willing to contribute towards a cause that supported minorities, but the data did not support this. Implications and potential future research, both for the new measures and the hypothesis are explored.</p>