Matching Items (8)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Prejudices
- Creators: Neuberg, Steven L.
Description
This project uses a functional approach to understand how members of stigmatized groups perceive emotional expressions on others' faces. The project starts from the premise that different groups are seen to pose different threats to others, and thus different groups face prejudices colored by different, specific negative emotions. For example, prejudice toward Black men is driven largely by fear, whereas prejudice toward obese people is driven largely by disgust. Members of these groups may thus come to be "expert" in perceiving fear or disgust in others' faces, depending on the specific emotional prejudices others feel toward their group. Alternatively, members of these groups may be biased to over- or under-perceive these emotional expressions on others' faces. I used a functional approach to predict that, if a Black man believes that seeing others' fear expressions will be useful to him, he will tend to overperceive fear on others' faces, whereas if an obese man believes that seeing others' disgust expressions will be useful to him, he will tend to overperceive disgust on others' faces. If, however, it is not considered useful to perceive these prejudicial emotions on others' faces, Black men and obese people will tend to underperceive these emotional expressions. This study recruited Black men, overweight men, and a group of comparison men. All participants completed an emotion detection task in which they rated faces on whether they expressed fear, disgust, or no emotion. Participants were randomly assigned to complete this emotion detection task either before or after a questionnaire designed to make salient, as well as to measure, participants' beliefs about others' prejudices and stereotypes of their group. Finally, participants completed a set of measures tapping predicted moderator variables. Results suggested that a) Black men tend to be less sensitive perceivers of both fear and disgust on others' faces than are other groups, unless prejudice is salient, and b) variables that would guide the functionality of perceiving others' prejudicial emotional expressions (e.g., belief that prejudice toward one's group is justified, belief that group status differences are legitimate, belief that one can manage stigmatizing interactions, stigma consciousness, and emotion-specific metastereotypes of one's group) do predict differences among Black men in perceiving these emotions on others' faces. Most results for overweight participants were null findings. The results' implications for the psychology of detecting prejudice, and emotional expressions more broadly, are discussed.
ContributorsNeel, Rebecca (Author) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Thesis advisor) / Shiota, Michelle N. (Committee member) / Becker, D. Vaughn (Committee member) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Traditional perspectives on sexual prejudice typically focus on the distinction between heterosexual ingroup and homosexual outgroup. In contrast, I focus on an affordance-management paradigm which views prejudices as resulting not from ingroup/outgroup relations, but instead from perceptions of the threats and opportunities posed by members of different groups. Past research has demonstrated that non-heterosexual target groups are perceived to pose a variety of threats, including threats to the socialization of young children, of child molestation, of disease, and to values. My research, however, suggests sexual prejudices arise for college students from beliefs that certain sexual orientation groups pose threats of unwanted sexual interest. For young adults, mating concerns are salient and should define relevant threats and opportunities--including those that might drive prejudices. For individuals with different active motivations, however, different threats and opportunities and threats are salient, and so the threats driving sexual prejudices may also differ. I extend my past research to consider how activating different fundamental goals (e.g., disease avoidance, parenting) alters patterns of sexual prejudice. I posit that activating disease concerns will increase prejudice specifically toward non-heterosexuals associated with disease (gay and bisexual me)--but not other non-heterosexuals (lesbians and bisexual women)--whereas activating offspring care will increase prejudice toward all non-heterosexual target groups, as all are perceived to pose socialization threats. To test this, heterosexual participants were randomly assigned to a parenting or disease-avoidance goal activation, or control condition, and then rated their general negativity towards heterosexual, bisexual, and homosexual male and female targets. They also rated their perceptions of the extent to which each target posed unwanted sexual interest, socialization, and disease threats. Contrary to predictions, activating parenting and disease avoidance systems failed to affect sexual prejudices. Furthermore, although the pattern of observed data was largely consistent with previously observed patterns, women's attitudes towards gay men in the control condition were more negative than that found in previous studies, as were men's attitudes towards bisexual and lesbian women. Multiple mechanisms underlie sexual prejudices, and research is needed to better understand the circumstances under which alternative mechanisms are engaged and have their effects.
ContributorsPirlott, Angela (Author) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Thesis advisor) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Committee member) / Mackinnon, David P. (Committee member) / Shiota, Michelle N. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
In an affordance management approach, stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination are conceptualized as tools to manage the potential opportunities and threats afforded by others in highly interdependent social living. This approach suggests a distinction between two “kinds” of stereotypes. “Base” stereotypes are relatively factual, stable beliefs about the capacities and inclinations of groups and their members, whereas “affordance stereotypes” are beliefs about potential threats and opportunities posed by groups and their members. Two experiments test the hypothesized implications of this distinction: (1) People may hold identical base stereotypes about a target group but hold very different affordance stereotypes. (2) Affordance stereotypes, but not base stereotypes, are shaped by perceiver goals and felt vulnerabilities. (3) Prejudices and (4) discrimination are more heavily influenced by affordance stereotypes than by base stereotypes. I endeavored to manipulate participants’ felt vulnerabilities to measure the predicted corresponding shifts in affordance (but not base) stereotype endorsement, prejudices, and discriminatory inclinations toward a novel target group (Sidanians). In Study 1 (N = 600), the manipulation was unsuccessful. In Study 2 (N = 338), the manipulation had a partial effect, allowing for preliminary causal tests of the proposed model. In both studies, I predicted and found high endorsement of the base stereotypes that Sidanians try to share their values and actively participate in the community, with low variability. I also predicted and found more variation in affordance (vs. base) stereotype endorsement, which was systematically related to participants’ felt vulnerabilities in Study 2. Taken together, these findings support my hypothesized distinction between base stereotypes and affordance stereotypes. Finally, I modeled the proposed correlational relationships between felt vulnerabilities, base stereotypes, affordance stereotypes, prejudices, and discriminatory inclinations in the model. Although these relationships were predominantly significant in the predicted directions, overall fit of the model was poor. These studies further our critical understanding of the relationship between stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination. This has implications for how we devise interventions to reduce the deleterious effects of such processes on their targets, perhaps focusing on changing perceiver vulnerabilities and perceived affordance (rather than base) stereotypes to more effectively reduce prejudices and discrimination.
ContributorsPick, Cari Marie (Author) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Thesis advisor) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Committee member) / Martin, Carol L (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Anti-atheist prejudice is cross-culturally prevalent and marked by intuitive distrust. However, recent research suggests that, when social perceivers know additional relevant information about others (i.e., their reproductive strategies), this information overrides religious information and nonreligious targets are trusted as much as religious targets. That is, perceivers seem to use religious information as a cue to a specific set of behavioral traits, but prioritize direct information about these traits when available. Here, I use this framework to explore the possibility that atheists are viewed positively in certain circumstances. First, atheists might be viewed positively for certain purposes because of their perceived reproductive strategies, even while being trusted less. Second, atheists who are family-oriented do not sacrifice trust, but may still be viewed positively for other traits (i.e., open-mindedness, scientific thinking). Third, given the constraints religion often imposes on behavior, atheists might be trusted more in situations where these constraints interfere with religious people’s inclination to cooperate. I tested these hypotheses using fictitious social media profiles to examine social perception. The study had a 3 (Target Religion: Religious, Nonreligious, or Atheist) × 3 (Target Reproductive Strategy: No Information, Committed, Uncommitted) experimental design (N = 550). Contrary to my predictions, participants did not rate atheists and nonreligious targets as “fast” compared to religious targets. Consistent with predictions, however, atheists and nonreligious individuals were rated significantly higher on perceived open-mindedness and scientific thinking. Finally, atheist and nonreligious targets were trusted more in two of the three trust domains: trust with scientific findings that contradict their worldview and trust with a secret about a friend’s abortion. Further analyses compared patterns of responding for religious and nonreligious individuals, finding evidence for ingroup bias in most perceptions, but not all. Results suggest that perceptions of atheists are complex, but that atheists may, at least sometimes, be viewed favorably. Finally, these results point to the importance of reproductive strategy as a dimension of social perception, as this variable had a clear effect, independent of target religion, on the hypothesized perceptions.
ContributorsMoon, Jordan W (Author) / Cohen, Adam B. (Thesis advisor) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Committee member) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Negative behaviors targeting gay men and lesbians range from violent physical assault to avoiding social or physical contact, with very different implications for those targeted. However, existing theoretical accounts of sexual prejudices are unable to differentially predict these various behaviors, leaving a large theoretical hole in the literature and hindering the design of effective interventions. I propose (a) that homosexuality and pro-gay ideology are conceptualized by many lay persons as contaminants analogous to infectious diseases and (b) that anti-gay behaviors can thus be viewed as strategic attempts to prevent, contain, treat, or eradicate the "pathogens" of homosexuality and pro-gay ideology. In three preliminary studies I demonstrate that sexually prejudiced individuals do view homosexuality and pro-gay ideology as contagious, and that sexually prejudiced people report being more likely to engage in aggressive (versus avoidant) anti-gay behavior in conditions that predict an aggressive pathogen-combating response – highly interconnected social networks. The current study explores the effect of a social network manipulation on actual behavioral responses to a gay (versus straight) interaction partner. In this study I show that sexually prejudiced participants engage in more aggression towards a gay partner compared to a straight partner under a highly interconnected network manipulation.
ContributorsFilip-Crawford, Gabrielle (Author) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Thesis advisor) / Kwan, Virginia S.Y. (Committee member) / Adelman, Madelaine (Committee member) / Becker, D. Vaughn (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
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
The present study tested the hypothesis that women dress modestly to signal to other women that they pose no mate poaching threat and are sexually restricted, and that this is especially true for religious women. Participants were 392 Muslim women living in the United States. They read two passages describing fictional situations in which they met with a potential female friend and then indicated what kind of outfit they would wear in both situations. In one situation, the participant obtained a reputation for promiscuity; in the other situation, reputation was not mentioned. I predicted that participants would choose more modest outfits for the promiscuous reputation passage, because if women dress modestly to signal sexual restrictedness, then they should dress more modestly around women with whom they have a reputation for promiscuity—to counteract such a reputation, women may wish to send a strong signal that they are not promiscuous. The hypothesis was partially supported: Less religious women chose more modest outfits for the promiscuous reputation situation than they did for the no reputation situation. This suggests that some women dress modestly to signal sexual restrictedness to other women, but that this is especially true for women who are less religious, not more. More religious women dress more modestly than less religious women, but they may not dress modestly to signal sexual restrictedness. Two important goals for this area of research are to determine the proximate reasons that more religious women dress modestly and to investigate modest dress among non-Muslim religious women.
ContributorsNorthover, Stefanie Blair (Author) / Cohen, Adam B. (Thesis advisor) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Committee member) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Committee member) / Lieberman, Debra (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020
Description
Prejudice and discrimination toward gender non-conforming individuals is prevalent and extreme in today’s society. This prejudice can manifest in social exclusion, bullying, and victimization, or physical and sexual assault, and can result in negative social, psychological, academic, and physical health outcomes (e.g., depression, anxiety, suicidality). Thus, it is important to understand the perpetrators of gender expression-based aggression and discrimination. In two studies, I addressed how and why people experience prejudice toward gender non-conforming individuals. Using an affordance management theoretical framework, Study 1 identified threats young adults perceived from gender non-conforming peers. There were differences in perceived threats to personal freedoms, social coordination, and values for gender conforming and non-conforming peers, and these perceptions differed by the political ideology of the perceiver. Study 2 explored children’s threat perceptions associated with gender non-conformity. Children perceived threats to social coordination from gender non-conforming peers but not threats to moral values. Results from both studies supported the use of this theoretical framework for studying prejudice toward gender non-conformity. Together, these studies provide unique information about adults’ and children’s reasons for prejudice toward gender non-conforming peers.
ContributorsCook, Rachel (Author) / Martin, Carol L (Thesis advisor) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Committee member) / DeLay, Dawn (Committee member) / Ghavami, Negin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2020