Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: values
- Creators: Cohen, Adam B.
Description
Existing work suggests that intergroup negativity is caused by dissimilarities of values between groups. In contrast, I propose that incompatible values--regardless of whether they are similar or dissimilar--cause intergroup negativities. Because values act as cues to tangible goals and interests, groups' values suggest desired outcomes that may conflict with our own (i.e., incompatible values). The current study conceptually and empirically disentangles value-dissimilarity and value-incompatibility, which were confounded in previous research. Results indicated that intergroup negativities were strongly predicted by value-incompatibility, and only weakly and inconsistently predicted by value-dissimilarity. I further predicted that groups' values cue specific threats and opportunities to perceivers and that, in reaction to these inferred affordances, people will experience threat-relevant, specific emotional reactions (e.g., anger, disgust); however, results did not support this prediction. I also predicted that, because the inferred threats that groups pose to one another are not always symmetric, the negativities between groups may sometimes be asymmetric (i.e., Group A feels negatively toward Group B, but Group B feels neutral or positively toward Group A). This prediction received strong support. In sum, reframing our understanding of values as cues to conflicts-of-interest between groups provides principles for understanding intergroup prejudices in more nuanced ways.
ContributorsVarley Lee, Allison (Author) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Thesis advisor) / Siroky, David (Committee member) / Aktipis, C Athena (Committee member) / Cohen, Adam B. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
National surveys indicate that Americans hold greater prejudice toward atheists than many other historically stigmatized groups. The religious prosociality perspective posits that people will demonstrate prejudice toward anyone who does not believe in a monitoring and punishing god, including atheists, because of the perception that those who lack belief in a monitoring and punishing god cannot be trusted to act in a prosocial manner. The sociofunctional perspective posits that people will demonstrate distinct forms of prejudice toward individuals who present certain types of threats to the group, and previous research suggests that atheists are perceived as posing a threat to group values. In the current study, participants rated targets whose values largely matched their own values more favorably than targets whose values did not largely match their own values. Also, participants rated both targets who believed in a monitoring and punishing god and targets who believed in a god who does not monitor nor punish more favorably than atheist targets. These judgments spanned a variety of measures, including emotional reactions to the target, judgments of target traits, and preferred social distance from the target. Results were consistent with the sociofunctional perspective but did not support the religious prosociality perspective.
ContributorsVarley, Allison (Author) / Nagoshi, Craig T. (Thesis advisor) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Committee member) / Cohen, Adam B. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013