Need for closure (NFC) refers to the need for firm answers to reduce uncertainty. We propose that because cultural norms are closure providers, when rendering social judgments, individuals with higher NFC would be more likely to conform to the dominant norms. Furthermore, because ingroup identification increases the perceived contrast between ingroup and outgroup cultures and enhances the perceived consensual validity of the dominant cultural norms within a country, high ingroup identifiers with high NFC would adhere to their native cultural norm when managing situations in their own country; however, they would rely more on the dominant cultural norms in a foreign country when deciding how to respond in that country. Two studies provided consistent support to our hypotheses

Interpersonally controlling approaches are often used to keep individuals in line, ostensibly in order to create a safer, more civilized society. Ironically, emerging research findings indicate that when people feel controlled, they often respond by behaving in a less civilized, more antisocial manner (Gagné, 2003; Knee, Neighbors, & Vietor, 2001; Mask, Blanchard, Amiot, & Deshaies, 2005; McHoskey, 1999). The present research investigation explored whether a process of mechanistic dehumanization might help to explain the observed relation between interpersonal control and antisocial behavior, specifically with regard to tendencies toward violence. The results indicated that a significant relation between interpersonal control and tendencies toward interpersonal violence was partially mediated by perceived mechanistic dehumanization.

Little is known about the origins of dehumanization or the mechanisms through which dehumanization impacts outgroup prejudice. We address these issues by measuring and manipulating animal–human similarity perceptions in a human intergroup context. As predicted, beliefs that animals and humans are relatively similar were associated with greater immigrant humanization, which in turn predicted more favorable immigrant attitudes (Study 1). Those higher in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) or lower in Universal Orientation particularly rejected animal–human similarity beliefs, partially explaining their increased tendency to dehumanize and reject immigrants. In Study 2, perceptions of animal–human similarity were experimentally induced through editorials highlighting similarities between humans and other animals or emphasizing the human–animal divide. Emphasizing animals as similar to humans (versus humans as similar to animals, or the human–animal divide) resulted in greater immigrant humanization (even among highly prejudiced people). This humanization process facilitated more re-categorization (i.e., inclusive intergroup representations between immigrants and Canadians) and increased immigrant empathy, both of which predicted less prejudicial attitudes toward immigrants. Implications for research, theory, and interventions for dehumanization and prejudice are considered.

The uniquely human content of stereotypes was measured in nine different inter-group comparisons that varied in terms of competence and warmth. Results indicated that the infrahumanization bias understood as people’s tendency to see in-group relative to out-group stereotypes as more human occurred in almost all inter-group situations. Secondly, mainly out-groups that lack both warmth and competence were clearly infrahumanized as a result of a denial of out-group humanity. Finally, results suggested that among the different out-groups it was especially those high in competence, low in warmth that were seen as most uniquely human. As such, the current work extends previous research on infrahumanization to stereotypes, shows that group typology moderates the infrahumanization bias and demonstrates the affinity between the uniquely human and the competence dimension

Two studies examined self–other overlap and intergroup emotions as mediators of the effects of respect for persons on action tendencies towards outgroup members. In contexts of both mild (Study 1) and more severe (Study 2) intergroup conflict, respect for persons predicted action tendencies towards outgroup members: those who value the intrinsic worth of others (high respect for persons) expressed less negative and more positive action tendencies towards outgroup members than did those with low respect for persons. These effects were obtained while controlling for Social Dominance Orientation and Agreeableness (Study 1). Further, the effects of respect for persons on action tendencies were shown to be partially mediated by self–other overlap and intergroup emotions. The findings support previous work in suggesting that respect for persons is an important predictor in intergroup contexts, and they highlight potential mechanisms through which respect might operate

Individual differences in explicit prejudice have long been a central concern in intergroup relations, yet no study has investigated the latent structure of prejudice. Whereas some media reports, lay classifications, and historical notions of prejudice focus on a prejudiced type of person, more recent conceptualizations of prejudice explain it as a dimension with any given individual falling along a continuum from low to high. In the first taxometric research to assess attitudes, two studies used taxometric methods to explore whether explicit prejudice is best considered dimensional (i.e., differing in degree) or taxonic (i.e., differing in kind). In Study 1, 130 undergraduates (M age = 19.2 years, ranging from 18 to 26) completed measures of explicit prejudice toward Muslims. These results largely supported a dimensional latent structure. In Study 2, 448 non-Hispanic participants (M age = 46.2 years, ranging from 18 to 86) completed three measures of explicit prejudice toward Hispanics (modern racism, social distance, and negative traits) via the internet. Results were consistent with a dimensional latent structure. Implications for promoting intergroup relations are discussed.

Why do people persistently contribute to public goods and does it matter to them if their donation makes a difference? A costly signalling perspective suggests that donors might be more concerned about their reputation than the utility of their helping act. We report data on two steplevel public goods experiments. We find that in public (vs. private) conditions, contributions go up even when the public good is already provided (Experiment 1) or is unattainable (Experiment 2). Furthermore, these conspicuous donations appear to enhance the status and prestige of the donor because they signal some hidden quality. This research suggests that a public good contribution can be a self-presentation strategy and that the benefits of these contributions to society are sometimes of secondary importance.

The current study examines the effect of racial regard—feelings of positivity or negativity toward African Americans—on stereotype threat. Forty participants at Harvard University responded to questions concerning their social attitudes and returned later to take a difficult verbal test. This study replicated the well-established stereotype threat effect, and found evidence that both public regard (judgments concerning how others view Blacks) and private regard (how one views Blacks and feels about being Black) moderate the effect. Specifically, Blacks high in public regard and high in private regard appear more susceptible to stereotype threat effects. The article discusses the possibility that African Americans in our study face an additional cognitive burden when confronted with the need to preserve a positive identity.

Recent research has shown that the benefits associated with incubation periods during individual problem solving can be explained in terms of forgetting the material or of any strategy that serves to block progress toward success (e.g., Smith & Blankenship, 1991). While interacting groups reliably outperform individuals on both problem-solving and recall tasks, groups’ superior memory capacity may serve to hinder problem solving, especially when fixation has occurred. In the present study, individuals and three-person groups attempted to solve a set of 20 rebus puzzles on two different occasions. In the first session rebuses were accompanied by "clues," that were designed to either help or hinder problem solving. Following a 15-minute filled incubation period, the rebuses were again presented without the clues. As expected, groups recalled more of the clues than did individual problem solvers. Additionally, individual problem-solvers’ performance was improved following the incubation period on the misleading clue items but not the good clue items. Following incubation, groups improved on both the helpful and misleading clue items. The possibility that incubation effects may vary with task type in group problem-solving contexts is discussed.