This research was designed to examine whether perspective taking promotes improved intergroup attitudes regardless of the extent that stereotypic perceptions of outgroups are endorsed, as well as examining the mechanisms (attributional or empathy related) by which perspective taking motivates improved intergroup attitudes. Participants were presented with an interview segment where an African American interviewee discussed the difficulties experienced as a result of his membership in a negatively stereotyped group. Materials were presented in a 2 (perspective taking: other focused or objective focused) Â 2 (target stereotypicality: confirming or disconfirming) between participants design. Findings revealed that the manipulation of target stereotypicality influenced subsequent stereotype endorsement; those exposed to a stereotype confirming target later endorsed more stereotypic perceptions of African Americans than did those exposed to a stereotype disconfirming target. However, perspective taking promoted improved intergroup attitudes irrespective of stereotypicality; those encouraged to adopt the perspective of the target later reported more favourable intergroup attitudes than did those who remained detached and objective listeners. Whereas empathy partially mediated the relation between perspective taking and intergroup attitudes, situational attributions were a stronger and more reliable mediator.
This work tested the following hypothesis: When powerful men stereotype their female subordinates in masculine domains, they behave in patronizing ways that affect the performance of their subordinates. Experiment 1 examined the stereotyping tendencies and patronizing behaviors of the powerful. Findings revealed that powerful men who stereotyped their female subordinates (i.e., those who were weakness focused) gave female subordinates few valued resources but much praise. In Experiment 2, low-power participants received resources (valued or devalued positions) and praise (high or low) from a powerful man. Subordinates who were assigned to a devalued position but received high praise (i.e., the patronizing behavior mirrored from Experiment 1) were angry. However, men performed better in the anger-inspiring situation, whereas women performed worse.
A person × situation approach to the study of intergroup anxiety is offered in which anxiety in intergroup encounters is viewed as a transaction between the individual and the environment. An individual difference measure of intergroup anxiety toward African Americans is developed, and studies assessing the scale's reliability and validity are presented. The utility of a person × situation approach is shown in an experiment in which participants high or low in intergroup anxiety were told they would interact with either a European American or an African American. Participants high in intergroup anxiety who were supposed to interact with an African American evidenced the highest state anxiety, perceived the interaction as most difficult, and viewed their partners as most dissimilar from themselves. Issues surrounding sources of intergroup anxiety and the relationship between intergroup anxiety and prejudice are discussed.
Objectification theory suggests that the bodies of women are sometimes reduced to their sexual body parts. As well, an extensive literature in cognitive psychology suggests that global processing underlies person recognition, whereas local processing
underlies object recognition. Integrating these literatures, we introduced and tested the sexual body part recognition bias
hypothesis that women’s (versus men’s) bodies would be reduced to their sexual body parts in the minds of perceivers.
Specifically, we adopted the parts versus whole body recognition paradigm, which is a robust indicator of local versus global processing. The findings across two experiments showed that women’s bodies were reduced to their sexual body parts in
perceivers’ minds. We also found that local processing contributed to the sexual body part recognition bias, whereas global processing tempered it. Implications for sexual objectification and its underlying processes and motives are discussed
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.