Search

As multiracial children of foreign-born parents, Kamala Harris and Barack Obama embody diversity in politics for many perceivers. Yet some have also questioned their loyalty to their respective groups. We explored perceptions of dual group members' (DGM; dual nationals, multiracial people, and dual state residents) loyalty among first-party (those who share a group membership with a DGM target) and third-party perceivers (those who do not). Studies 1a–2b showed that first- and third-party perceivers rated DGMs as less loyal than their single group member (SGM) counterparts. However, only first- (Studies 2a–2b) but not third-party (Studies 1a–1b) perceivers preferred SGMs to DGMs for loyalty-dependent roles. Study 3 revealed that perceivers who were higher in patriotism supported DGMs for loyalty-dependent roles less when they were first- (vs. third) party observers. These studies suggest that perceivers readily intuit that DGMs are less loyal than SGMs and, under some conditions, this may lead to discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dominant groups have claimed to be the targets of discrimination on several historical occasions during violent intergroup conflict and genocide.The authors argue that perceptions of ethnic victimization among members of dominant groups express social dominance motives and thus may be recruited for the enforcement of group hierarchy. They examine the antecedents of perceived ethnic victimization among dominants, following 561 college students over 3 years from freshman year to graduation year. Using longitudinal, cross-lagged structural equation modeling, the authors show that social dominance orientation (SDO) positively predicts perceived ethnic victimization among Whites but not among Latinos, whereas victimization does not predict SDO over time. In contrast, ethnic identity and victimization reciprocally predicted each other longitudinally with equal strength among White and Latino students. SDO is not merely a reflection of contextualized social identity concerns but a psychological, relational motivation that undergirds intergroup attitudes across extended periods of time and interacts with the context of group dominance.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00443.x Byline: Arnold K. Ho (*), Lotte Thomsen (*), Jim Sidanius (*) Abstract: Despite the fact that few people appear to endorse negative stereotypes of Blacks, such stereotypes are widely disseminated in our culture. Consequently, such stereotypes can have pervasive consequences on one's impressions of African Americans, even by low-prejudice Whites and by Blacks themselves. Thus, we predicted that student judgments of intellectual competence would be more important when students were making global performance evaluations of Black faculty than of White faculty. Furthermore, to the extent that intellectual competence is more salient in the judgment of Black faculty, such judgments should be essentially the same among Black and White students, and for low- and high-prejudice students. For the most part, analyses of instructor evaluations at a major American university supported these expectations. Author Affiliation: (*)Harvard University Article note: (1) Arnold K. Ho, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, William James Hall, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138. E-mail: arnoldho@fas.harvard.edu

Many societies today are organised as race-based social hierarchies, with clear boundaries between racial groups at the top versus bottom. The growth of multiracial populations has been heralded as holding the potential to blur existing group boundaries. But whether multiracial people do blur boundaries depends critically on how monoracial perceivers categorise them. We review our research programme on how monoracial perceivers' categorisation of multiracials depends on sociopolitical motives. We present the Sociopolitical Motive × Intergroup Threat Model of Racial Categorisation, which describes how sociopolitical motives interact with specific threats to drive multiracial categorisation, and how this depends on perceivers' group position in the racial status hierarchy. Our empirical work is based on the U.S. context, but we discuss how our research, grounded in theories of intergroup relations that have been tested cross-culturally – social dominance, system justification, authoritarianism, and social identity theories – may apply more broadly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Psychological research suggests that Black-White individuals are often conceptualized as Black and White, and that essentialist beliefs about race are negatively associated with conceptualizing Black-White individuals as such. The present research examined what people think it means to be Black and White (e.g., a mixture of Black and White vs. completely Black and completely White) and whether essentialism is indeed negatively associated with such concepts. Method: We used multiple methodologies (e.g., surveys, open-ended explanations, experimental manipulations) to examine how Black, White, and Black-White perceivers conceptualized Black-White individuals (Studies 1-3) and the extent to which essentialist beliefs, both dispositional (Studies 2-3) and experimentally induced (Study 4), predicted those concepts. Results: We find that U.S. Black-White individuals most often conceptualized "Black and White" to mean a mixture of Black and White (Study 1), as did U.S. White individuals and U.S. Black individuals (Studies 2 and 3), and that racial essentialism--both dispositional (Studies 2 and 3) and experimentally manipulated (Study 4)--was positively associated with this conception. Conclusion: Our data shed new light on the complexity of race concepts and essentialism and advance the psychological understanding of Black-White identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across three pre‐registered studies with children (ages 4–9) and adults (N = 303), we examined whether how a group is predicted evaluations of how group members should be (i.e., a descriptive‐to‐prescriptive tendency), under conditions in which the descriptive group norms entailed beliefs that were fact‐based (Study 1), opinion‐based (Study 2), and ideology‐based (Study 3). Overall, participants tended to disapprove of individuals with beliefs that differed from their group, but the extent of this tendency varied across development and as a function of the belief under consideration (e.g., younger children did not show a descriptive‐to‐prescriptive tendency in the context of facts and ideologies, suggesting that they prioritized truth over group norms). Implications for normative reasoning and ideological polarization are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypodescent emerged in U.S. history to reinforce racial hierarchy. Research suggests that among contemporary U.S. adults, hypodescent continues to shape social perception. Among U.S. children, however, hypodescent is less likely to be endorsed. Here, we tested for hypodescent by introducing U.S. children (ages 4-9) and adults (N = 273) to hierarchically ordered novel groups (one was high status and another was low status) and then to a child who had one parent from each group. In Study 1, we presented the groups in a third-party context. In Study 2, we randomly assigned participants to the high-status or the low-status group. Across both studies, participants did not reliably endorse hypodescent, raising questions as to what elicits this practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals' perceptions of biracials can vary based on the motives of the perceiver. Here, we examine how two factors—perceivers' group-level identification motives and their system-level beliefs about the desirability of hierarchy (i.e., social dominance orientation)—predict the degree to which they attribute a biracial target's successes or failures to that target's White versus minority background. Across three studies examining different contexts, more anti-egalitarian White participants and more highly identified White participants rated a half-White, half-minority target as being shaped more by his minority (vs. White) background when he was disreputable (vs. reputable)—patterns broadly consistent with prior theorizing on the motivations to maintain social stratification and protect ingroup standing, respectively. In direct contrast, however, egalitarian White participants and White participants low on ethnic identification credited a target's outgroup minority background when he was reputable (vs. disreputable), consistent with a desire to promote social equality and forgoing the opportunity to "bask in reflected glory" on behalf of the ingroup. Our results extend extant theorizing by underlining the benefits of jointly considering both group- and system-level motives when analyzing perceptions and attributions of individuals and groups, and by shedding new light on the understudied psychology of social egalitarians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We investigated Asian Americans' perceptions of Asian-White biracials. Because the Asian/White boundary may be more permeable than other minority/White boundaries, we reasoned that Asian Americans are more likely than Black Americans to be skeptical of biracials, perceiving that biracials would prefer to identify as White and would be disloyal to Asians, consequently categorizing them as more outgroup. We further reasoned that Asian Americans' concerns about and exclusion of biracials would be predicted by greater perceived discrimination against Asian Americans, which increases the incentive for biracials to pass into the higher status racial group. Studies 1 and 2 provided correlational support for these theorized relationships among Asian Americans. Study 2 showed that perceived discrimination did not increase Black Americans' concerns about biracials' identity preferences and loyalty. Studies 3 and 4 provided causal evidence for the roles of perceived discrimination and biracial identity preferences, respectively, in Asian Americans' exclusion of biracials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research demonstrates that intergroup contact effectively reduces prejudice even among prejudice-prone persons. But some assert that evidence regarding the benefits of contact among prejudice-prone individuals is "mixed," particularly for those higher in social dominance orientation (SDO), one of the field's most important individual differences. Problematically, person variables are typically considered in isolation despite being intercorrelated, leaving the question of which unique psychological aspects of prejudice proneness (e.g., authoritarianism, antiegalitarianism, cognitive style) are responsive to intergroup contact unresolved. To address this shortcoming, in a large sample of White Americans (N = 465) we simultaneously examined the contact–attitude association at varying levels of ideological (SDO, right-wing authoritarianism), cognitive style (need for closure), and identity-based (group identification) indicators of prejudice proneness. Examining a broad range of intergroup criterion measures (e.g., racism, support for racial profiling) we reveal that greater contact quality is associated with lower levels of intergroup hostility for those both lower and higher on a variety of indicators of prejudice proneness, simultaneously considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]