Search

To test whether the pride expression is an implicit, reliably developing signal of high social status in humans, the authors conducted a series of experiments that measured implicit and explicit cognitive associations between pride displays and high-status concepts in two culturally disparate populations--North American undergraduates and Fijian villagers living in a traditional, small-scale society. In both groups, pride displays produced strong implicit associations with high status, despite Fijian social norms discouraging overt displays of pride. Also in both groups, implicit and explicit associations between emotion expressions and status were dissociated; despite the cross-cultural implicit association between pride displays and high status, happy displays were, cross-culturally, the more powerful status indicator at an explicit level, and among Fijians, happy and pride displays were equally strongly implicitly associated with status. Finally, a cultural difference emerged: Fijians viewed happy displays as more deserving of high status than did North Americans, both implicitly and explicitly. Together, these findings suggest that the display and recognition of pride may be part of a suite of adaptations for negotiating status relationships, but that the high-status message of pride is largely communicated through implicit cognitive processes. (Contains 5 figures, 2 tables, and 6 footnotes.)

Four studies show that Democrats overestimate the explicit prejudice reported by the American electorate, leading them to perceive presidential candidates from disadvantaged groups as less electable. Study 1 (MTurk; n = 728) found that Democrats overestimated the percentage of Americans who say they would not vote for presidential candidates from disadvantaged groups. Study 2 (MTurk; n = 597) replicated this finding and demonstrated that Democrats who perceive high levels of explicit prejudice toward a group also believe presidential candidates from that group are less electable. Moreover, Democrats who more frequently interacted with Republicans were more accurate in estimating the amount of explicit prejudice reported by Republicans, Democrats, and Americans in general. Studies 3A (Prolific; n = 930) and 3B (YouGov; n = 747) found that presenting information about true levels of reported prejudice made Democrats believe generic presidential candidates from disadvantaged groups would be more electable. We did not find evidence that information about true levels of reported prejudice affected Democrats' beliefs about the electability of specific candidates in the 2020 Democratic Primary or their support for these candidates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Mutefekkir, Faculty of Islamic Sciences is the property of Aksaray University, Faculty of Islamic Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Religion is associated with both positive and negative outcomes, such as prosocial or discriminatory attitudes and behavior. Previous research has linked particular styles of religious belief, such as fundamentalism, to these kinds of outcomes; however, their explanatory power is necessarily limited by their content specificity. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between two types of religious complexity, the complexity of people's thought (Integrative Complexity) and the complexity of people's social identities (Social Identity Complexity), and intergroup bias. Two online studies investigate the relationship between religious complexity and attitudes towards religious outgroup members, finding that higher religious complexity predicts more positive attitudes and less anxiety towards outgroup members, as well as less ingroup preference. These findings suggest that Integrative Complexity and Social Identity Complexity may be useful constructs for understanding the relationship between religion and positive or negative outcomes, as well as the development of theory-based interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]