Search

Dehumanization continues to be prevalent today and predicts detrimental intergroup consequences. Thus, it is important to identify novel interventions that reduce dehumanization and explore the mechanism(s)—both established (e.g., empathy induction, intergroup contact) and relatively understudied (e.g., humor)—driving the effects. To address this issue, in Study 1 (N = 2,349), we conducted an "intervention tournament" and found that a video (i.e., "Mean Tweets") of a relatable and diverse group of young Muslims ridiculing Islamophobic comments posted on an online video of a Muslim preschool burning down effectively reduces hostility towards Muslims. Specifically, the Mean Tweets intervention significantly reduced dehumanization of Muslims and, although the effects were weaker, anti‐Muslim policy support. However, a follow‐up study conducted 1 month later revealed that these effects subsided. Next, in a preregistered study (i.e., Study 2) (N = 677), we find that our intervention reliably reduced dehumanization of Muslims, but the reduction of anti‐Muslim policy support was not replicated. While investigating our intervention's effect on anti‐Muslim policy support, we find that our intervention led participants to discount the intervention's intended message, which could have short‐circuited the intervention's effectiveness on policy support. Considering these results, we discuss the potential psychological processes (e.g., humor, message discounting, tone) underlying our dehumanization‐reducing intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Muslims are consistently the target of dehumanization and hostile policies. Previous research shows that interventions that highlight the hypocrisy wherein people collectively blame entire groups for the heinous acts of individual members of outgroups but not ingroups are effective in reducing animosity towards Muslims. However, these interventions rely on aversive materials (e.g., terrorist acts), which can hinder the scalability of interventions due to individuals' tendency to resist/avoid challenging and aversive stimuli. In three preregistered studies (combined N = 2,635), we developed and tested a nonaversive, hypocrisy-based intervention that highlights the hypocrisy involved in attributing ingroup members' prosocial acts to the entire ingroup (i.e., Christians) but not doing the same for outgroup members (i.e., Muslims). Results indicated that this collective praise intervention reliably reduces dehumanization of Muslims, anti-Muslim policy support, and collective blame of Muslims. We argue that the intervention's use of nonaversive stimuli allows for both practical and scalable applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a growing push within the social sciences to conduct translational science that not only advances theory but also achieves real world impact. The goals of this paper are (a) to encourage scholars to engage in translational science by conducting research that responds to pressing social challenges, and (b) to provide concrete recommendations on how to incorporate such practices into their research programs. To do this, we bring together perspectives of academics and practitioners who have experience merging science with practice. We begin by defining what translational science is, describing the benefits of engaging in translational science for peace and conflict studies, and highlighting past research that has done this successfully. Next, we describe various aspects of conducting translational science, such as how researchers can partner with nonacademic stakeholders to create social impact and advance scientific theory, and how they can disseminate findings for public impact. We also address key challenges researchers might face when conducting translational research and provide practical tips that social scientists can use to effectively engage in what we coined the "Bruneauian" approach for how to address such challenges. Specifically, we focus on the skills needed for study design and deployment, how researchers can sensitively interact with vulnerable communities, statistical and methodological considerations, logistical challenges, and how to develop relationships with practitioners. Finally, we conclude with a practitioner's perspective on how to foster these types of relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]