People frequently label harmful (but not helpful) side effects as intentional. One proposed explanation for this asymmetry is that moral considerations fundamentally affect how people think about and ...apply the concept of intentional action. We propose something else: People interpret the meaning of questions about intentionally harming versus helping in fundamentally different ways. Four experiments substantially support this hypothesis. When presented with helpful (but not harmful) side effects, people interpret questions concerning intentional helping as literally asking whether helping is the agents’ intentional action or believe questions are asking about why agents acted. Presented with harmful (but not helpful) side effects, people interpret the question as asking whether agents intentionally acted, knowing this would lead to harm. Differences in participants’ definitions consistently helped to explain intentionality responses. These findings cast doubt on whether side-effect intentionality asymmetries are informative regarding people’s core understanding and application of the concept of intentional action.
People typically apply the concept of intentionality to actions directed at achieving desired outcomes. For example, a businessperson might intentionally start a program aimed at increasing company ...profits. However, if starting the program leads to a foreknown and harmful side effect (e.g., to the environment), the side effect is frequently labeled as intentional even though it was not specifically intended or desired. In contrast, positive side effects (e.g., helping the environment) are rarely labeled as intentional. One explanation of this side-effect effect-that harmful (but not helpful) side effects are labeled as intentional-is that moral considerations influence whether people view actions as intentional or not, implying that bad outcomes are perceived as more intentional than good outcomes. The present research, however, shows that people redefine questions about intentionality to focus on agents' foreknowledge in harming cases and on their lack of desire or intention in helpful cases, suggesting that the same intentionality question is being interpreted differently as a function of side effect valence. Consistent with this, removing foreknowledge lowers the frequency of labeling harming as intentional without affecting whether people label helping as intentional. Likewise, increasing agents' desire to help or avoid harming increases rates of labeling helping as intentional without affecting rates of labeling harming as intentional. In summary, divergent decisions to label side effects as intentional or not appear to reflect differences in the criteria people use to evaluate each case, resulting in different interpretations of what questions about intentionality are asking.
We test a novel framework for how ingroup members are perceived during intergroup interaction. Across three experiments, we found that, above and beyond egalitarian attitudes and motivations, White ...observers’ automatic responses to Blacks (i.e., their implicit anti-Black bias) shaped their affiliation toward ingroup targets who appeared comfortable engaging in interracial versus same-race interaction. White observers’ implicit anti-Black bias negatively correlated with liking of White targets who were comfortable with Blacks (Experiments 1-3). The relationship between implicit bias and liking varied as a function of targets’ nonverbal comfort in interracial interactions (Experiment 1). Specifically, implicit bias negatively correlated with liking of targets when targets’ nonverbal behaviors revealed observers felt comfortable with interracial contact, irrespective of the nature of those behaviors (Experiment 2). Finally, the relationship between implicit bias and target liking was mediated by perceived similarity (Experiment 3). Theoretical implications for stigma-by-association, social network homogeneity, and extended contact are discussed.
Previous research has demonstrated that taking the perspective of an outgroup member reduces the likelihood of stereotyping that person and their group (e.g., Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Vescio, ...Sechrist, & Paolucci, 2003). In the present research, we hypothesized and found that the effect of perspective taking on stereotyping depends on the apparent stereotypicality of the target. In Experiment 1, participants who took the perspective of an elderly person who was ambiguously stereotypic were less likely to engage in stereotyping than non-perspective takers. But, participants who took the perspective of a clearly stereotype-consistent outgroup member were more apt to engage in stereotyping than non-perspective takers. Experiment 2 suggests that increased stereotyping occurs because people use stereotypes as a basis for perspective taking when they are highly salient. Negatively-valenced but stereotype-irrelevant information does not have a similar effect on subsequent judgments (Experiment 3). Experiment 4 extended the findings to a different stigmatized group, overweight individuals.
► We examine whether apparent stereotypicality of a target and perspective taking influence stereotyping. ► Perspective taking with a stereotype-consistent target increased stereotyping. ► Perspective taking with an ambiguous target decreased stereotyping. ► These effects occurred for elderly and overweight targets.
Despite numerous calls for more culturally diverse research on women and work, research continues to predominantly study Western and developed countries. In this article, we summarize 10 critical ...blindspots in existing research. These 10 blind spots are (1) a narrow conceptualization of what work means, (2) limited access to educational and training opportunities, (3) underexamined barriers to employment, (4) pay inequities and unpaid work, (5) disparate views of sexual harassment and its acceptability in the workplace, (6) gender‐based discrimination in the work environment, (7) an absence in addressing menstrual‐related issues that impede women's success, (8) unaddressed issues with a work‐life interface, (9) a lack of support for working parents, and (10) a lack of legal protection for working women. We define what these issues are, what research exists, and why these blind spots are necessary to address in order to understand women at work across global contexts. We discuss how the research published in this issue of the Journal of Social Issues addresses some of these topics, and suggest how research can continue to advance our knowledge.
Interpreting a failure to replicate is complicated by the fact that the failure could be due to the original finding being a false positive, unrecognized moderating influences between the original ...and replication procedures, or faulty implementation of the procedures in the replication. One strategy to maximize replication quality is involving the original authors in study design. We (N = 17 Labs and N = 1,550 participants, after exclusions) experimentally tested whether original author involvement improved replicability of a classic finding from Terror Management Theory (Greenberg et al., 1994). Our results were non-diagnostic of whether original author involvement improves replicability because we were unable to replicate the finding under any conditions. This suggests that the original finding was either a false positive or the conditions necessary to obtain it are not fully understood or no longer exist. Data, materials, analysis code, preregistration, and supplementary documents can be found on the OSF page: https://osf.io/8ccnw/
The purpose of the present research was to examine the perceptions of women who drink in social contexts through the lens of dehumanization (Haslam
2006
). Across three experiments, we manipulated ...the presence of alcohol by depicting a woman at a bar with a bottle of beer or a bottle of water and measured dehumanization. As hypothesized, women were dehumanized more in the alcohol condition than in the water condition by men (Experiments 1–3) and women (Experiments 2 and 3). Notably, the presence of alcohol compared to water had no impact on dehumanization of men (Experiment 2). Also, as hypothesized, perceived intoxication emerged as a significant mediator of the link between alcohol condition and dehumanization in Experiments 1 and 2, and alcohol quantity predicted greater dehumanization in Experiment 3. Extending the present work to prior work in this area, Experiment 3 also examined the links among alcohol, perceived sexual availability, and dehumanization, revealing that perceived sexual availability mediated the link between alcohol and dehumanization. Implications for theories of dehumanization, alcohol, and social perception as well as practical implications of these findings are discussed.
Investigating Variation in Replicability Klein, Richard A.; Ratliff, Kate A.; Vianello, Michelangelo ...
Social psychology (Göttingen, Germany),
01/2014, Letnik:
45, Številka:
3
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare
in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and
contemporary effects across 36 ...independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the
aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect - imagined contact reducing
prejudice - showed weak support for replicability. And two effects - flag priming
influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification - did not
replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus
international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of
this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself
than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.
PDF
