“Not One of Us”

Abstract

We investigated individual difference predictors of ascribing ingroup characteristics to negative and positive ambiguous targets. Studies 1 and 2 investigated events involving negative targets whose status as racial (Tsarnaev brothers) or national (Woolwich attackers) ingroup members remained ambiguous. Immediately following the attacks, we presented White Americans and British individuals with the suspects' images. Those higher in social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)-concerned with enforcing status boundaries and adherence to ingroup norms, respectively-perceived these low status and low conformity suspects as looking less White and less British, thus denying them ingroup characteristics. Perceiving suspects in more exclusionary terms increased support for treating them harshly, and for militaristic counter-terrorism policies prioritizing ingroup safety over outgroup harm. Studies 3 and 4 experimentally manipulated a racially ambiguous target's status and conformity. Results suggested that target status and conformity critically influence SDO's (status) and RWA's (conformity) effects on inclusionary versus exclusionary perceptions.

Which Group to Credit (and Blame)? Whites Make Attributions about White-Minority Biracials’ Successes and Failures Based on Their Own (Anti-)Egalitarianism and Ethnic Identification

“…We found that relatively anti-egalitarian Whites were more likely to claim that a target's minority background had been formative when he was disreputable (vs. reputable). This accords with previous work in different but related domains, which has shown that individuals with higher levels of SDO are more likely to distance low status targets from dominant groups, thus maintaining the social stratification between groups at the top and those at the bottom that antiegalitarians favor (Ho et al, 2013;Ho, Kteily, & Chen, 2017;Kteily et al, 2014;Krosch et al, 2013). In contrast, we found that egalitarian Whites-who desire more equality between racial groups, despite their membership in an advantaged group-were more likely to give a biracial's minority background credit when that target was reputable than when he was disreputable.…”

“…accentuated the tendency to see Black-White biracials as Black, consistent with the idea that they use hypodescent as a way of protecting the hierarchical racial order. Finally, Kteily, Cotterill, Sidanius, Sheehy-Skeffington, and Bergh (2014) directly manipulated the standing of an ambiguous target, and observed that higher SDO Whites perceived the same racially ambiguous target as looking less White upon learning he was low (vs. high) in status (Kteily et al, 2014, Study 3). By keeping low ranking targets out of advantaged groups, higher SDO individuals can maintain the status of groups at the top, consistent with their preferences for hierarchymaintenance.…”

A review of multiracial malleability: Identity, categorization, and shifting racial attitudes

“…Though some studies have focused on the outcomes of perceivers' categorization of multiracial targets in one particular way (i.e., in line with hypodescent-the tendency to categorize individuals with mixed racial ancestry into their socially subordinate group; Davis, 1991;Ho, Sidanius, Levin, & Banaji, 2011), much of this research has also revealed the flexibility and nuance of the racial categorization process more broadly. For example, studies have found that the same targets can be processed and categorized differently depending on perceivers' characteristics, such as their essentialist beliefs (e.g., Chao et al, 2013;Eberhardt, Dasgupta, & Banaszynski, 2003;Gaither et al, 2014), prejudice (e.g., Ho, Roberts, & Gelman, 2015;Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2004), hierarchy maintaining motives (Ho, Sidanius, Cuddy, & Banaji, 2013;Krosch, Berntsen, Amodio, Jost, & Van Bavel, 2013;Kteily, Cotterill, Sidanius, Sheehy-Skeffington, & Bergh, 2014), or racial identity (e.g., Gaither, Pauker, Slepian, & Sommers, 2016;Ho, Kteily, & Chen, 2017;Knowles & Peng, 2005). Studies reveal that target's characteristics, such as socioeconomic status (e.g., Young, Sanchez, & Wilton, 2015), racial identity of targets (e.g., multiple minority identities;…”

Simply insane? Attributing terrorism to mental illness (versus ideology) affects mental representations of race Word

“…For instance, White people are more likely to racially profile individuals whose appearance is stereotypical of racial out-groups as potential terrorists . Moreover, the less White terrorist suspects look, the harsher treatment people tend to support (Kteily, Cotterill, Sidanius, Sheehy-Skeffington, & Bergh, 2014). Crucially, analyses of actual criminal-sentencing decisions show that the more ATTRIBUTING TERRORISM TO MENTAL ILLNESS 6 defendants' racial appearance differs from the dominant racial group, the harsher sentencing they receive (Blair, Judd, & Chapleau, 2004;Eberhardt, Davies, Purdie-Vaughns, & Johnson, 2006).…”