Anna-Kaisa Newheiser

Social Psychological Orientations and Accent Strength

Past research has focused on demographic and skill-acquisition variables, such as age of arrival and length of residence in the host country, to predict accent strength in a nonnative language. The present research investigated the relationships between accent strength and social psychological orientations of nonnative English speakers in the United States. Employing causal modeling techniques, this research extended previous work by examining nonnative speakers’ identification with the United States along with age and length of residence as predictors of both other- and self-perceived accent strengths. The research further investigated how accent strength may predict speakers’ perceptions of communication challenges and lack of social belonging. The results supported the proposed over alternative models. The importance of taking into account sociopsychological factors as both predictors and consequences of accent strength is considered, along with implications for research on the stigma of nonnative accents.

Preference for High Status Predicts Implicit Outgroup Bias among Children from Low-Status Groups.

Whereas members of high-status racial groups show ingroup preference when attitudes are measured implicitly, members of low-status racial groups--both adults and children--typically show no bias, potentially reflecting awareness of the ingroups low status. We hypothesized that when status differences are especially pronounced, children from low-status groups would show an implicit outgroup bias, the strength of which might relate to attitudes toward status. We tested these predictions among 6- to 11-year-old Black and Coloured (i.e., multiracial) children from South Africa, a country marked by extreme status differentials among racial groups. As a measure of implicit intergroup bias, children (N = 78) completed an Implicit Association Test (IAT), a speeded categorization task that assesses the relative strength of association between 2 target groups (in the present study, either Whites vs. Blacks or Whites vs. Coloureds) and positive vs. negative evaluation. Children also completed explicit (i.e., self-report) measures of attitudes toward racial groups as well as toward rich and poor people (a measure of attitudes toward status). Both groups of children showed an implicit outgroup-favoring (i.e., pro-White) bias, suggesting that children were sensitive to the extent of status differences. The only instance in which implicit pro-White bias did not emerge involved Black childrens evaluations of Whites vs. Coloureds, both higher-status outgroups. Explicit preference for high status predicted implicit pro-White bias, particularly when the IAT contrasted 2 outgroups. The impact of status on the development of implicit and explicit intergroup bias is discussed.

Exposure to Racial Out-Groups and Implicit Race Bias in the United States

The industrialized world is becoming more ethnically diverse. Research in several disciplines has suggested that exposure to racial out-groups may be associated with more positive and more negative intergroup attitudes. Given that U.S. states are often at the center of debate regarding diversity-related public policy, we examined how exposure to out-groups is associated with state-level implicit and explicit race bias among White and Black Americans. We found that larger proportions of Black residents across U.S. states were associated with stronger implicit and explicit in-group bias among both White and Black respondents. State-level bias was predicted by proportions of Black residents even when controlling for (a) state-level demographic control variables (e.g., median income), (b) proportions of non-Black minorities, and (c) historical membership in the Confederacy. Our results convey the importance of investigating why diversity may not always have the positive impact on intergroup relations that one might hope it to have.

High outgroup entitativity can inhibit intergroup retribution.

Understanding the psychological processes that are involved in the perpetuation and escalation of intergroup conflict remains an important goal for intergroup relations research. In the present research, we examined perceived outgroup entitativity as a potential determinant of intergroup hostility. In intergroup conflict situations, high-entitative outgroups are perceived as particularly deserving of retribution; however, high-entitative outgroups are also perceived as efficacious and capable of retaliating successfully, suggesting that people may inhibit hostility against high-entitative (vs. low-entitative) outgroups that are in a position to retaliate. We tested this prediction in two studies. In Study 1, we manipulated intergroup provocation and outgroup entitativity, and found that higher negative mood predicted greater aggression against a low-entitative provoker outgroup, but failed to predict aggression against a high-entitative provoker outgroup that was plausibly in a position to retaliate. In Study 2, we held provocation constant while manipulating outgroup entitativity and the possibility of retaliation by the outgroup, and found that people acted in a retributive manner against a high-entitative provoker outgroup only when the outgroup was not in a position to retaliate. Implications for intergroup conflict are discussed.

The dynamics of intergroup helping: the case of subtle bias against Latinos.

Despite the traditional importance of Latinos in the U.S., the growing Latino population, and evidence of group-based disparities, psychological studies of discrimination against Latinos are surprisingly rare. The present research investigated the relationship between prejudice against Latinos and subtle bias, specifically the degree to which people offer autonomy-oriented relative to dependency-oriented assistance to a Latina in need. Participants read scenarios that described concrete social problems faced by particular Latinas, African Americans, or Whites and then indicated their support for forms of helping. Participants higher in prejudice against Latinos, assessed with an adaptation of the Modern Racism Scale, were less likely to offer autonomy-oriented help, and significantly more so after reading scenarios about a Latina than about an African American or a White woman. These findings extend previous work by identifying, experimentally, subtle bias against Latinas in helping and directly implicate the role of prejudice against Latinos in this process.

Is the inherence heuristic needed to understand system-justifying tendencies among children?

Evidence that childrens system-justifying preferences track the extent of group-based status differences is consistent with the inherence heuristic account. However, evidence that children are inferring inherence per se, or that such inferences are the cause of system-justifying preferences, is missing. We note that, until direct evidence of the inherence heuristic is available, alternative models should not be ignored.

Regulatory focus moderates the social performance of individuals who conceal a stigmatized identity

People often choose to hide a stigmatized identity to avoid bias. However, hiding stigma can disrupt social interactions. We considered whether regulatory focus qualifies the social effects of hiding stigma by examining interactions in which stigmatized participants concealed a devalued identity from non-stigmatized partners. In the Prevention Focus condition, stigmatized participants were instructed to prevent a negative impression by concealing the identity; in the Promotion Focus condition, they were instructed to promote a positive impression by concealing the identity; in the Control condition, they were simply asked to conceal the identity. Both non-stigmatized partners and independent raters rated the interactions more positively in the Promotion Focus condition. Thus, promotion focus is interpersonally beneficial for individuals who conceal a devalued identity.

To Confront or to Avoid: How Do People Respond to Violations of Moral Norms?

What do people want to do in response to witnessing someone violate a moral norm? Prior research posits that violations of distinct norms elicit specific emotions, specifically anger and disgust. We examined whether moral violations analogously elicit distinct behavioral responses, focusing on desires to confront and avoid moral violators. Participants read scenarios depicting harmful and impure actions (Study 1) or violations of all six content domains proposed by Moral Foundations Theory (Study 2). Bayesian inference revealed that participants expressed distinctively high levels of desire to avoid (vs. confront) violators of purity norms. Violations of other moral norms did not similarly elicit unique patterns of avoidance or confrontation. Thus, behavioral responses to moral violators depend in part on which norm was violated, with impure acts eliciting a uniquely strong avoidance response. Moral judgment can serve as a precursor to strategic action in the face of perceived immorality.

Coping With Group Members Who Insult the In-Group:

How do people cope with group members who insult the in-group? The 2016 U.S. Presidential election provided an opportunity to examine this question among group members experiencing unprecedented within-group strife. Participants read an essay written by an in-group or out-group member (Study 1, university affiliation; Study 2, U.S. political party affiliation, conducted at the height of the 2016 Presidential campaign), in which the author insulted his or her in-group. Participants reported the extent to which and reasons why they wanted to confront and avoid the target. Desire to rebuke the target, but not desire to protect oneself and the in-group, mediated the relationship between exposure to in-group (vs. out-group) deviance and confrontation. Desires to rebuke and protect jointly mediated the relationship with avoidance. Whereas people may differ on how they react to in-group deviance, they are primarily motivated by wanting to reprimand deviants, with implications for coping with intragroup conflict.

Who deserves basic rights? People condone violations of procedural and physical rights in the treatment of terrorist suspects.

Public discourse regarding the treatment of terrorist suspects typically emphasizes utilitarian “greater-good” justifications related to ensuring public safety. By contrast, we hypothesized that laypeople’s judgments of how suspected terrorists ought to be treated are more strongly informed by retributive concerns related to deservingness. Participants (N = 607, Mage = 34.25, recruited via Mechanical Turk) read about a terrorist suspect who was (vs. was not) presented as deserving of punishment and described as posing (vs. not posing) a continued threat to public safety. Participants rated the acceptability of procedural and physical rights violations occurring during the arrest and interrogation of the suspect and provided their perceptions of the suspect’s dangerousness and deservingness of lawful treatment. We found that participants were more willing to condone rights violations when the suspect was (vs. was not) deserving of punishment. This willingness was not affected by the continued threat manipulation. Moreover, the effect of the punishment deservingness manipulation was mediated by perceptions that suspected terrorists are less deserving of having their rights upheld, but not by perceived dangerousness. Retributive concerns related to deservingness can thus lead people to condone the denial of suspected terrorists’ basic rights, which may have consequences for the curtailment of all citizens’ civil liberties.