Ruth Gaunt

The Emotional Side of Prejudice: The Attribution of Secondary Emotions to Ingroups and Outgroups

If people favor their ingroup, are especially concerned with their own group, and attribute different essences to different groups, it follows that their essence must be superior to the essence of other groups. Intelligence, language, and certain emotions are all considered to be distinctive elements of human nature or essence. The role of inteligence and language in discrimination, prejudice, and racism has already been largely investigated, and this article focuses on attributed emotions. Specifically, we investigate the idea that secondary emotions are typically human characteristics, and as such, they should be especially associated with and attributed to the ingroup. Seondary emotions may even be denied to outgroups. These differential associations and attributions of specifically human emotions to ingroups versus outgroups should affect intergroup relations. Results from several initial experiments are summarized that support our reasoning. This emotional approach to prejudice and racism is contrasted with more classic, cognitive perspectives.

Differential Association of Uniquely and Non Uniquely Human Emotions with the Ingroup and the Outgroup

According to Leyens et al.’s (2000) theory, intergroup discrimination involves a differential appraisal of the ingroup’s and the outgroup’s uniquely human characteristics. Four experiments investigated how emotions that are considered uniquely (i.e. secondary emotions) and non uniquely (i.e. primary emotions) human (Demoulin et al., 2001a) are differentially associated with the ingroup and the outgroup. Using the Implicit Association Task (IAT) we found a stronger association of ingroup names with uniquely human emotions and of outgroup names with non uniquely human emotions, than the reverse. Whereas Study 2 used negative emotions, all other experiments used positive emotions. In Study 3, two IAT indices were collected: an emotional index and a standard evaluative one. While the outgroup was constituted by North African names in the first three studies, Study 4 staged French-speaking Belgians (i.e. the ingroup) versus Dutch-speaking Belgians (i.e. the outgroup). The results are discussed within the framework of psychological essentialism, according to which uniquely human characteristics form the essence of the ingroup.

Maternal Gatekeeping Antecedents and Consequences

This study examined maternal gatekeeping, its background and psychological antecedents, and its consequences for paternal and maternal involvement in child care. In sum, 209 couples with 6- to 36-month-old children completed extensive questionnaires. Analyses revealed that various dimensions of gatekeeping were differentially associated with the psychological antecedents and consequences of maternal gatekeeping. The standards and responsibilities dimension of gatekeeping was related to the mothers self-esteem, and it predicted the fathers involvement in child care. The maternal identity confirmation dimension of gatekeeping was related to the salience of the mothers maternal identity, and it predicted her own involvement in child care. The importance of examining sociopsychological characteristics that account for gatekeeping tendencies is discussed, and the need is stressed to further explore the implications of these tendencies for various forms of involvement in child care.

Emotional prejudice can lead to infra-humanisation

Groups are social constructions with differences. People spontaneously attempt to explain differences between groups. Stereotypes often play this explanatory role. Specifically, group members tend to attribute different essences to social categories. Given widespread ethnocentrism, it is not surprising that individuals reserve “the human essence” for their ingroup, while other groups are attributed a lesser humanity. This phenomenon is called infra‐humanisation and happens outside peoples awareness. Secondary emotions (e.g., love, hope, contempt, resentment) are considered uniquely human emotions in contrast to primary emotions (e.g., joy, surprise, fear, anger) that are shared with animals. The research programme summarised in this chapter demonstrates through various paradigms that members of groups not only attribute more secondary emotions to their ingroup than to outgroups, but are also reluctant to associate these emotions with outgroups. Moreover, people behave less cooperatively with an outgroup member who expresses himself with secondary emotions than with an ingroup member who uses the same terms. Interestingly, infra‐humanisation occurs for both high‐ and low‐status groups, even in the absence of conflict between groups.

Superordinate Categorization as a Moderator of Mutual Infrahumanization

This research applies the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) to explore the moderating role of superordinate categorization in infrahumanization. Two studies were conducted within the context of an inter-racial intergroup conflict. As hypothesized, perceived outgroup identification with the superordinate category (Study 1) or identification with the superordinate category (Study 2) was related to a weaker tendency to infrahumanize the outgroup by attributing it a lesser degree of secondary emotions. In addition, weak ingroup identification eliminated infrahumanization in Study 2. The implications of these findings for infrahumanization research are discussed.

JOB INSECURITY, STRESS AND GENDER

This study examined the complex relationships between gender, job insecurity and job-related stress. Previous findings have suggested that men experience greater job insecurity than women, and are more vulnerable to job-related stress. The current study tested the hypothesis that the gender ideology of employees moderates the effect of gender on job insecurity and stress. Data were obtained by questionnaires from a sample of 203 married employees. The results showed that traditional men experience greater job insecurity than traditional women. However, as hypothesized, egalitarian men and women exhibited similar degrees of job insecurity. Furthermore, job insecurity in traditional men and in egalitarian men and women was related to loss of control stress, financial stress and stress expressions at home, whereas traditional women were relatively protected from job-related stress. These findings illuminate the important moderating role played by gender ideology in the relationships between gender, job insecurity and stress.

Exploring the division of household labor outside the family context: utilizing resources for doing gender

This study tests alternative theoretical models of the division of household labor within a non-familial context of men and women operating homes for autistic children and adults. This context makes it possible to disentangle overlapping hypotheses that stem from competing models. A sample of 128 staff members completed extensive questionnaires. The analyses yielded considerably different patterns of results for men and women. The results for the men provided support for the relative resources model, showing that mens contributions to household labor decreased as their resources increased. The results for the women provided support for the human capital model, showing that womens contributions increased as their resources increased. The gender construction approach may account for these gender differences in the determinants of involvement, suggesting that men and women utilize their resources for ‘doing gender’.

Modeling and Compensatory Processes Underlying Involvement in Child Care Among Kibbutz-Reared Fathers:

This study examined modeling and compensatory processes underlying the effects of an early paternal model on father involvement in child care. Drawing on social learning theory, it was hypothesized that father–son relationships would moderate the association between a father’s involvement and his own father’s involvement. A sample of 136 kibbutz father–son dyads completed extensive questionnaires. Findings provided evidence for modeling effects on the socioemotional care dimension, whereas imitation of highly involved fathers occurred simultaneously with compensation for relatively uninvolved fathers on the physical care and responsibility dimensions. As predicted, imitation was more likely in close father–son relationships. These findings shed light on the role of paternal model and attest to the importance of differentiating various forms of involvement.