Gordon Hodson

Interpersonal Disgust, Ideological Orientations, and Dehumanization as Predictors of Intergroup Attitudes

Disgust is a basic emotion characterized by revulsion and rejection, yet it is relatively unexamined in the literature on prejudice. In the present investigation, interpersonal-disgust sensitivity (e.g., not wanting to wear clean used clothes or to sit on a warm seat vacated by a stranger) in particular predicted negative attitudes toward immigrants, foreigners, and socially deviant groups, even after controlling for concerns with contracting disease. The mechanisms underlying the link between interpersonal disgust and attitudes toward immigrants were explored using a path model. As predicted, the effect of interpersonal-disgust sensitivity on group attitudes was indirect, mediated by ideological orientations (social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism) and dehumanizing perceptions of the out-group. The effects of social dominance orientation on group attitudes were both direct and indirect, via dehumanization. These results establish a link between disgust sensitivity and prejudice that is not accounted for by fear of infection, but rather is mediated by ideological orientations and dehumanizing group representations. Implications for understanding and reducing prejudice are discussed.

Processes in Racial Discrimination: Differential Weighting of Conflicting Information

The present research explored how White college students may exhibit response patterns associated with a subtle and rationalizable contemporary bias, aversive racism. In the study, higher and lower prejudice-scoring participants evaluated applicants for admission to their university, for whom information about high school achievement and college board scores (aptitude and achievement test scores) was independently varied as strong or weak. As predicted, discrimination against Black applicants relative to White applicants did not occur when the credentials were consistently strong or weak; however, discrimination by relatively high prejudice-scoring participants did emerge when the credentials were mixed and hence ambiguous. Moreover, relatively high prejudice-scoring participants weighed the different, conflicting criteria in ways that could justify or rationalize discrimination against Black applicants. The implications of these data for understanding contemporary racism and their relation to the shifting standards model of bias are considered.

Bright Minds and Dark Attitudes Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

Despite their important implications for interpersonal behaviors and relations, cognitive abilities have been largely ignored as explanations of prejudice. We proposed and tested mediation models in which lower cognitive ability predicts greater prejudice, an effect mediated through the endorsement of right-wing ideologies (social conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism) and low levels of contact with out-groups. In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact. All analyses controlled for education and socioeconomic status. Our results suggest that cognitive abilities play a critical, albeit underappreciated, role in prejudice. Consequently, we recommend a heightened focus on cognitive ability in research on prejudice and a better integration of cognitive ability into prejudice models.

Do Ideologically Intolerant People Benefit From Intergroup Contact

The time-tested notion that increased contact improves intergroup attitudes, particularly under optimal conditions, is well established. Yet early theorists doubted whether contact could benefit intolerant, prejudice-prone persons. Without tackling the question directly, the contemporary contact field embraces an assumption opposed to that of its predecessors: that contact benefits intolerant individuals, given its general effectiveness. However, other prejudice interventions have failed or backfired among such people. Thus, established contact benefits among people generally may mask the failure of such interventions among intolerant people. I review contemporary evidence and conclude that the contact hypothesis retains its prominence among prejudice-reduction strategies: Intergroup contact and friendships work well (and often best) among intolerant and cognitively rigid persons—by reducing threat and anxiety and increasing empathy, trust, and outgroup closeness. Historically untested assumptions about contact have therefore tested favorably. Future imperatives involve directly addressing contemporary criticisms of contact research.

Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal-human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization

Little is known about the origins of dehumanization or the mechanisms through which dehumanization impacts outgroup prejudice. We address these issues by measuring and manipulating animal—human similarity perceptions in a human intergroup context. As predicted, beliefs that animals and humans are relatively similar were associated with greater immigrant humanization, which in turn predicted more favorable immigrant attitudes (Study 1). Those higher in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) or lower in Universal Orientation particularly rejected animal—human similarity beliefs, partially explaining their increased tendency to dehumanize and reject immigrants. In Study 2, perceptions of animal—human similarity were experimentally induced through editorials highlighting similarities between humans and other animals or emphasizing the human—animal divide. Emphasizing animals as similar to humans (versus humans as similar to animals, or the human—animal divide) resulted in greater immigrant humanization (even among highly prejudiced people). This humanization process facilitated more re-categorization (i.e., inclusive intergroup representations between immigrants and Canadians) and increased immigrant empathy, both of which predicted less prejudicial attitudes toward immigrants. Implications for research, theory, and interventions for dehumanization and prejudice are considered.

Interracial prison contact: The pros for (socially dominant) cons

Individuals high in social dominance orientation (SDO; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) endorse group hierarchies and social inequality. Surprisingly little research has addressed contextual factors associated with reduced intergroup biases among such individuals. The present investigation considers a Person x Situation approach to this question in two British prisons, exploring the contextual factors outlined in the Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954). White inmates scoring higher in SDO exhibited significantly less in-group bias when reporting increased contact with Black inmates (Studies 1 & 2), when perceiving that favourable contact conditions are institutionally supported (Study 1), or when experiencing more pleasant personal interactions with Black inmates (Study 2). These SDO x Contact Condition moderation effects were mediated in Study 2: among high-SDO individuals, increased empathy towards Black inmates mediated the relation between contact variables and lower in-group bias. Implications for considering individual differences and empathy in contact settings are considered.

The role of attitudinal ambivalence in susceptibility to consensus information

The role of attitudinal ambivalence and 9 other attitude properties in determining responsiveness to consensus information were examined in this experiment. We expected attitude ambivalence, but not the other attitude properties, to moderate the effects of consensus information on final attitudes expressed. After completing initial measures of attitudes toward social welfare, participants watched a videotaped debate between a prosocial and an antisocial welfare debater. Participants then provided an initial evaluation of the debate, were exposed to debate evaluations from alleged fellow participants supporting either the prosocial or antisocial welfare debater, and reported their subsequent attitudes toward the debate and toward social welfare. As predicted, individuals who initially held ambivalent attitudes toward social welfare reported postconsensus welfare attitudes that were consistent with those of their supposed peers. Participants low in ambivalence reported attitudes contrary to the consensus information from peers. Similar effects were found only for 1 other attitude property, attitude embeddedness, and were reduced to nonsignificance when the effects of ambivalence and embeddedness were examined simultaneously. The role of attitudinal ambivalence in moderating responsiveness to consensus information is discussed in the context of media publication of poll results.

The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup negativity

Person-based factors influence a range of meaningful life outcomes, including intergroup processes, and have long been implicated in explaining prejudice. In addition to demonstrating significant heritability, person-based factors are evident in expressions of generalised prejudice, a robust finding that some people (relative to others) consistently score higher in prejudice towards multiple outgroups. Our contemporary review includes personality factors, ideological orientations (e.g., authoritarianism), religiosity, anxiety, threat, disgust sensitivity, and cognitive abilities and styles. Meta-analytic syntheses demonstrate that such constructs consistently predict prejudice, often at the upper bounds of effect sizes observed in psychological research. We conclude that prejudice theories need to better integrate person- and situation-based factors, including their interaction, to capture the complexity of prejudice and inform intervention development.

Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals

Although biases against homosexuals (and bisexuals) are well established, potential biases against a largely unrecognized sexual minority group, asexuals, has remained uninvestigated. In two studies (university student and community samples) we examined the extent to which those not desiring sexual activity are viewed negatively by heterosexuals. We provide the first empirical evidence of intergroup bias against asexuals (the so-called “Group X”), a social target evaluated more negatively, viewed as less human, and less valued as contact partners, relative to heterosexuals and other sexual minorities. Heterosexuals were also willing to discriminate against asexuals (matching discrimination against homosexuals). Potential confounds (e.g., bias against singles or unfamiliar groups) were ruled out as explanations. We suggest that the boundaries of theorizing about sexual minority prejudice be broadened to incorporate this new target group at this critical period, when interest in and recognition of asexuality is scientifically and culturally expanding.

When Closing the Human-Animal Divide Expands Moral Concern: The Importance of Framing

Humans and animals share many similarities. Across three studies, the authors demonstrate that the framing of these similarities has significant consequences for people’s moral concern for others. Comparing animals to humans expands moral concern and reduces speciesism; however, comparing humans to animals does not appear to produce these same effects. The authors find these differences when focusing on natural tendencies to frame human–animal similarities (Study 1) and following experimental induction of framings (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 3, the authors extend their focus from other animals to marginalized human outgroups, demonstrating that human–animal similarity framing also has consequences for the extension of moral concern to other humans. The authors explain these findings by reference to previous work examining the effects of framing on judgments of similarity and self-other comparisons and discuss them in relation to the promotion of animal welfare and the expansion of moral concern.