Search

Word embeddings provide quantitative representations of word semantics and the associations between word meanings in text data, including in large repositories in media and social media archives. This article introduces social psychologists to word embedding research via a consideration of bias analysis, a topic of central concern in the discipline. We explain how word embeddings are constructed and how they can be used to measure bias along bipolar dimensions that are comparable to semantic differential scales. We review recent studies that show how familiar social biases can be detected in embeddings and how these change over time and in conjunction with real‐world discriminatory practices. The evidence suggests that embeddings yield valid and reliable estimates of bias and that they can identify subtle biases that may not be communicated explicitly. We argue that word embedding research can extend scholarship on prejudice and stereotyping, providing measures of the bias environment of human thought and action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current research examines how status-legitimizing beliefs ( SLBs) influence White people's perceptions of anti-White bias, endorsement of zero-sum beliefs, and support for Affirmative Action. We suggest that SLBs perpetuate inequality by increasing White people's perceptions of zero-sum beliefs and anti- White bias, which in turn lead to decreased support for Affirmative Action. White individuals primed with SLBs perceived greater anti- White bias, endorsed greater zero-sum beliefs, and indicated less support for Affirmative Action than individuals primed with neutral content. Mediation analysis revealed that the SLB prime decreased support for Affirmative Action by increasing perceptions of anti- White bias. This research offers experimental evidence that SLBs contribute to White people's perceptions of anti- White bias and to decreased support for Affirmative Action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A core feature of intractable conflicts is the tendency to cognitively freeze on existing, pro-ingroup beliefs. In three experiments, conducted in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, we tested the idea that an external incentive for negotiating peace helps unfreeze cognitions. In Experiment 1, making salient that peace with the Palestinians would reduce the Iranian nuclear threat (an external incentive) led to a process of unfreezing. In Experiment 2, we examined whether collective angst as an emotional sentiment (i.e., concern for the ingroup's future vitality as a temporally stable emotional disposition) moderated the aforementioned external incentive-cognitive unfreezing link. As predicted, external incentive salience promoted cognitive unfreezing, but only among people low in collective angst (i.e., people who are not concerned for the ingroup's future). In Experiment 3, we sought to replicate the results of Experiment 2. However, socio-political forces (i.e., a significant upswing in tensions between Palestinians and Israelis) likely served to freeze cognitions to such an extent that thawing was not possible by the means demonstrated in Experiments 1 and 2. The importance of confidence in a peace process is discussed in the context of efforts to unfreeze cognitions during an intractable conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Psychological essentialism, the perception that groups possess inherent properties binding them and differentiating them from others, is theoretically relevant to predicting prejudice. Recent developments isolate two key dimensions: essentialistic entitativity ( EE; groups as unitary, whole, entity-like) and essentialistic naturalness ( EN; groups as fixed and immutable). We introduce a novel question: does tapping the covariance between EE and EN, rather than pitting them against each other, boost prejudice prediction? In Study 1 (re-analysis of Roets & Van Hiel, 2011b, Samples 1-3, in Belgium) and Study 2 (new Canadian data) their common/shared variance, modelled as generalized essentialism, doubles the predictive power relative to regression-based approaches with regard to racism (but not anti-gay or -schizophrenic prejudices). Theoretical implications are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a well-established tendency for people to see themselves as better than average (self-enhancement), although the universality of this phenomenon is contested. Much less well-known is the tendency for people to see themselves as more human than average (self-humanizing). We examined these biases in six diverse nations: Australia, Germany, Israel, Japan, Singapore, and the USA. Both biases were found in all nations. The self-humanizing effect was obtained independent of self-enhancement, and was stronger than self-enhancement in two nations (Germany and Japan). Self-humanizing was not specific to Western or English-speaking cultures and its magnitude was less cross-culturally variable than self-enhancement. Implications of these findings for research on the self and its biases are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]