Search

Ingroup bias is often treated as the default outcome of intergroup comparisons. We argue that the mechanisms of impression formation depend on what information people infer from groups. We differentiate between belief-indicative groups that are more informative of beliefs and affect attitudes through ingroup bias and status-indicative groups that are more informative of status and affect attitudes through a preference for higher status. In a cross-cultural factorial experiment (N total = 1,281), we demonstrate that when information about targets' multiple group memberships is available, belief-indicative groups affect attitudes via ingroup bias, whereas status-indicative groups—via preference for higher status. These effects were moderated by social-structural context. In two follow-up studies (N total = 451), we develop and validate a measure of belief- and status-indicativeness (BISI) of groups. BISI showed expected correlations with related constructs of entitativity and essentialism. Belief-indicativeness of groups was a better predictor of ingroup bias than entitativity and essentialism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we analyze the relationship between positive psychology and peace psychology. We discuss how positive emotions, engagement, meaning, personal well-being, and resilience may impact peace at different levels, ranging from the personal and interpersonal to community, national, and global peace. First, we argue that an individual's positive experiences, personal well-being, and personal resilience, as defined in current positive psychology, may in fact contribute to personal and interpersonal peace but can also entail detrimental consequences for other individuals, communities, and nations. Second, we describe how peace psychology contains traces of positive psychology, especially with its focus on the pursuit of social justice. Third, reviewing and extending the concept of community resilience, we outline directions for further conceptual and empirical work in positive psychology inspired by peace psychology. Such work would do well to transcend positive psychology's current bias toward individualism and nationalism and to conceptualize well-being and resilience at the level of the "global community." This extended "positive peace psychology" perspective would have important implications for our understanding of how to overcome oppression and work toward global peace.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01670.x Byline: J. Christopher Cohrs (1), Monika Stelzl (2) Abstract: Recent theoretical frameworks assume that the ideological attitudes of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) predict individuals' attitudes toward immigrant groups, and that these predictive relations are affected by contextual factors. Based on these assumptions, we conducted a meta-analysis of the relations between ideological attitudes and anti-immigrant attitudes in 155 samples from 17 countries (total N= 38,522 participants). As potential correlates of cross-national differences in these relations, socioeconomic indices, cultural worldviews, and collective perceptions of immigrants were considered. RWA was a particularly strong predictor of anti-immigrant attitudes in countries where immigrants were perceived as increasing the crime rate and as not being beneficial to the economy (e.g., Germany, Italy); and SDO was a particularly strong predictor in countries with a higher relative unemployment rate of immigrants (e.g., Belgium, Sweden). We discuss the interplay of individual and sociocultural factors and offer directions for future research. Author Affiliation: (1)Queen's University Belfast (2)St. Thomas University Article note: (*) Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Christopher Cohrs, Queen's University Belfast, School of Psychology, Belfast BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland [e-mail: c.cohrs@qub.ac.uk].

Research suggests that different motivational dynamics underlie right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO). These differences may be framed in the theory of basic human values. RWA may trace back to conservation versus openness-to-change values, and SDO to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values. Based on a large-scale German survey, associations of RWA and SDO with personal values and attitudes in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, were analyzed. Results indicated that RWA related more strongly than SDO to conservation values and threat-related attitudes toward Islam as an expression of the motivational goals of social control and security, whereas RWA and SDO related equally to self-enhancement versus self-transcendence values and concern for negative consequences of military action as an expression of the motivational goal of altruistic concerts. Thus, the motivational bases of RWA and SDO appear to be only partly different. Keywords: right-wing authoritarianism; social dominance orientation; personal values; September 11th; political attitudes