Search

Abstract: Consistent with the theory of malleable ideology, research has shown that, under intergroup threat, antiegalitarian individuals will exploit the malleable character of color blindness and strategically claim to be strong supporters of it. In three studies conducted in France, we found no support for this theory when measuring color blindness but strong support when using measures of laïcité, an ideology of secularism. Indeed, those who score low on social dominance orientation (SDO) were more likely to support laïcité than antiegalitarian individuals. However, a situational threat (Study 1), a symbolic threat experimentally induced (Study 2), and a perceived symbolic threat (Study 3) were all related to increased support for laïcité by people high in SDO, without affecting those low in SDO. Thus, laïcité is a malleable ideology that can be adopted by individuals having contrasting motivations, as color blindness in the United States. Implications for the role of exact and conceptual replications in the development of a psychological science are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although different types of prejudice tend to be highly correlated, target-specific and more generalized components can nevertheless be distinguished. Here, we analyze whether indicators of the intergroup context-threat, contact, and neighborhood composition-predict the target-specific and/or generalized components of prejudice. Using data from the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study ( N = 4629), we build a multilevel model that captures the relationship between social dominance orientation, general levels of neighborhood heterogeneity, symbolic and realistic threat and cross-group friendship (averaged across target groups), and generalized prejudice. Our model simultaneously estimates the relationship between target-specific levels of these intergroup context indicators and target-specific prejudice. Results indicated that social dominance orientation remained the strongest predictor of generalized prejudice when adjusting for other variables and that indicators of the intergroup context primarily explain differences between target group ratings. Aggregate levels of cross-group friendship also had a small effect on generalized prejudice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]