People’s actions toward a competitive outgroup can be motivated not only by their perceptions of the outgroup, but also by how they think the outgroup perceives the ingroup (i.e., meta-perceptions). Here, we examine the prevalence, accuracy, and consequences of meta-perceptions among American political partisans. Using a representative sample (n= 1,056) and a longitudinal convenience sample (n= 2,707), we find that Democrats and Republicans equally dislike and dehumanize each other but think that the levels of prejudice and dehumanization held by the outgroup party are approximately twice as strong as actually reported by a representative sample of Democrats and Republicans. Overestimations of negative meta-perceptions were consistent across samples over time and between demographic subgroups but were modulated by political ideology: More strongly liberal Democrats and more strongly conservative Republicans were particularly prone to exaggerate meta-perceptions. Finally, we show that meta-prejudice and meta-dehumanization are independently associated with the desire for social distance from members of the outgroup party and support for policies that harm the country and flout democratic norms to favor the ingroup political party. This research demonstrates that partisan meta-perceptions are subject to a strong negativity bias with Democrats and Republicans agreeing that the shadow of partisanship is much larger than it actually is, which fosters mutual intergroup hostility.

In 16 independent samples from five countries involving ~7,700 participants, we employ a mixture of cross-sectional, longitudinal, and quasi-experimental methods to examine the effect of intergroup contact on (a) the blatant dehumanization of outgroups, and (b) the perception that outgroup members dehumanize the ingroup (meta-dehumanization). First, we conduct a meta-analysis across 12 survey samples collected from five countries regarding eight different target groups (total N = 5,388) and find a consistent effect of contact quality on dehumanization and meta-dehumanization. Second, we use a large longitudinal sample of American participants ( N = 1,103) to show that quality of contact with Muslims at Time 1 predicts dehumanization of Muslims and meta-dehumanization 6 months later. Finally, we show that sustained semester-long “virtual contact” between American and Muslim college students is associated with reduced American students’ ( N = 487) dehumanization of, and perceived dehumanization by, Muslims.

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence ("professor") subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence ("soccer hooligans"). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%-3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and -0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the "professor" category and those primed with the "hooligan" category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.

Objectives: Despite the high prevalence of non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), no research has systematically studied the occurrence and effects of stigmatization by others towards NSSI scarring. Method: The current study measured implicit and explicit attitudes among undergraduates towards NSSI scarring using the Implicit Association Test and questionnaires to compare implicit and explicit biases towards NSSI with biases towards tattoos, a culturally-sanctioned form of self-determined marking, as well as non-intentional disfigurement. Results: Our study demonstrated strong negative implicit and explicit biases towards NSSI when comparing NSSI to tattoos and non-intentional disfigurement. Conclusions: Results extend previous research describing stigma towards mental illness and suggest a large negative bias towards NSSI. The importance of studying how stigma affects those who bear scarring from NSSI is discussed.

No abstract

We examined the role of both suspect race and socioeconomic status (SES) on shooting decisions during a first‐person shooter task. Two studies revealed that both suspect race and SES influenced shooting decisions. Non‐Black participants shot armed high‐SES Black suspects faster than armed high‐SES White suspects and responded “don't shoot” faster for unarmed high‐SES White suspects than unarmed high‐SES Black suspects. No race differences appeared in the low‐SES conditions—responses resembled high‐SES Black suspect. Signal detection, misses, and false alarm analyses revealed participants erred toward not shooting high‐SES White suspects. The current studies draw attention to considering both race and SES during shooting decisions.

Much of the current psychological literature investigates single category dimensions (i.e., race or social class), with little focus on the intersection of multiple social category dimensions. Yet some evidence suggests that the intersection of race and social class information influences (a) stereotype expression, (b) categorization, (c) impressions, (d) prejudice, and (e) discrimination, revealing common links between Blackness and low social class and Whiteness and high social class in at least the United States. The present article reviews evidence for considering both target race and social class as intersecting social categories that simultaneously influence intergroup processes. This analysis suggests that a more comprehensive understanding of intergroup processes can be achieved when considering the intersection of race and social class information. This review also provides a series of future directions to advance intergroup processes research.

People’s actions towards a competitive outgroup can be motivated not only by their perceptions of the outgroup, but also by how they think the outgroup perceives the ingroup (i.e., meta-perceptions). Here we examine the prevalence, accuracy, and consequences of meta-perceptions among American political partisans. Using a representative sample (N = 1056) and a longitudinal convenience sample (N = 2707), we find that Democrats and Republicans equally dislike and dehumanize each other, but think that the levels of prejudice and dehumanization held by the outgroup party are approximately twice as strong as actually reported by a representative sample of Democrats and Republicans. Overestimations of negative meta-perceptions were consistent across samples, over time and between demographic subgroups, but were modulated by political ideology: more strongly liberal Democrats and more strongly conservative Republicans were particularly prone to exaggerate meta-perceptions. Finally, we show that meta-prejudice and meta-dehumanization are independently associated with desire for social distance from members of the outgroup party and support for policies that harm the country and flout democratic norms to favor the ingroup political party. This research demonstrates that partisan meta-perceptions are subject to a strong negativity bias, with Democrats and Republicans agreeing that the shadow of partisanship is much larger than it actually is, which fosters mutual intergroup hostility.