Three studies examined the association between narcissistic identification with one’s advantaged in‐group and engagement in solidarity‐based collective action. Drawing on theory and past research, a negative effect of collective narcissism on solidarity‐based collective action was expected. A two‐wave longitudinal study (N = 162) found that Polish participants’ narcissistic, but not secure, national identification decreased their willingness to engage in collective action in solidarity with refugees over time. A field study (N = 258) performed during a mass protest against a proposed abortion ban showed that men’s gender‐based collective narcissism was a negative predictor of solidarity‐based engagement (operationalized as protest behavior and collective action intentions) and this effect was mediated by lowered empathy for women. Finally, a web‐based survey (N = 1,992) revealed that heterosexual/cisgender individuals’ collective narcissism was negatively associated with collective action intentions in support of LGBT rights and that this effect was sequentially mediated by increased intergroup anxiety and decreased empathy for LGBT people. Theoretical implications of the present findings, research limitations, and future directions are discussed.

This research aimed to provide a more nuanced understanding of the relations between social norms, rightwing authoritarianism (RWA), outgroup-directed prejudice, and hostile behavioral intentions toward outgroups. Three correlational studies, conducted in two countries and three different intergroup contexts (n1 = 997; n2 = 1011; n3 = 1992), investigated the moderating role of social norms (both positive and negative) on the relation between RWA and expression of prejudice as well as behavioral intentions toward outgroups. We found that in the presence of positive (i.e., tolerant) social norms, the previously well-established positive relation between RWA and prejudice is reduced or even reversed, whereas in the presence of negative (i.e., intolerant) social norms, this relation is strengthened. Additionally, the lower (vs. higher) prejudice of high-RWA individuals in the presence of positive (vs. negative) social norms mediated the link between RWA and behavioral intentions toward outgroups. The present research constitutes the first comprehensive demonstration of authoritarians' potential to be less prejudiced in response to prevailing tolerant social norms.

No abstract

No abstract

Antirefugee hate speech is one of the largest obstacles to successful acculturation and well-being of people seeking asylum. Two empirical studies tested the hypothesis that empathy-inducing interventions can modify the way majority group members respond to hate speech against refugees. The first study used a prolonged and elaborated direct contact intervention, whereas the second study used a short-term, light-touch vicarious contact intervention. In both studies contact led to a significant increase in empathy. Additionally, the prolonged direct contact intervention resulted in an increase of sensitivity to antirefugee hate speech and support for hate-speech prohibition, and reduced intentions to use derogatory language in the future. The effects of the vicarious contact intervention led to an increase in sensitivity to antirefugee hate speech but did not affect intentions to prohibit or use hate speech. The analysis of indirect effects suggests that outgroup empathy plays a significant role in sensitizing people to hate speech.

To date, there has been no systematic examination of cross‐cultural differences in group‐based shame, guilt, and regret following wrongdoing. Using a community sample (N = 1358), we examined people's reported experiences of shame, guilt, and regret following transgressions by themselves and by different identity groups (i.e., family, community, country) in Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, the Netherlands, Poland, and the United States. We assessed whether any variation in this regard can be explained by the relative endorsement of individualistic or collectivistic values at the individual level and at the country level. Our findings suggest that people's reported experience of these emotions mostly depends on the transgression level. We also observe some variation across individuals and countries, which can be partially explained by the endorsement of collectivistic and individualistic values. The results highlight the importance of taking into account individual and cultural values when studying group‐based emotions, as well as the identity groups involved in the transgression.

Over the past 30 years, the Catholic Church has been rocked by a series of child sexual abuse scandals worldwide. Some of the religious officials suggested that the children are partly to blame for being sexually abused by priests. We assumed that such convictions (i.e., pedophilia myth acceptance) should be associated with a defensive commitment to one's religious group, captured by religious collective narcissism. In two studies conducted among Polish participants (Study 1, longitudinal, n = 719; Study 2, cross-sectional, n = 357), we found that pedophilia myth acceptance was positively predicted by Catholic narcissism but negatively by secure identification with Catholics.We additionally demonstrated that the effect of Catholic narcissism on pedophilia myth acceptance was mediated by a siege mentality with respect to the religious in-group. We discuss the role of different types of group commitment in predicting in-group criticism and prejudice against underaged victims of sexual abuse.

Three experiments investigated the influence of penile erection on ascriptions of mental capabilities to men. Drawing on sexual objectification literature and the distinction between agency and experience in mind perception, three competing predictions were formulated. The mind redistribution hypothesis assumed that penile erection would lower agency and heighten experience attributions, the animalistic dehumanization hypothesis predicted the decrease in agency, but not experience, and the literal objectification hypothesis implied the simultaneous decrease in both agency and experience. In Experiment 1 (N = 219; 128 females), erection salience lowered agency, but not experience capabilities ascribed to male targets. Experiment 2 (N = 201, 113 females) replicated the negative effect of erection salience on perceived agency (but not experience) and revealed that erection salience lowered intentions to hire a male target. This effect was explained with the loss of perceived agency. Experiment 3 (N = 203, 98 females) verified the causal relationship between penile erection, agency and hiring intentions. Taken together, these results supported the animalistic dehumanization hypothesis.