The decline of institutional trust in the United States is a concerning trend that will frustrate collective action if not reversed. In this study, the authors build on scholarship on political polarization, in-group identity, and third-order beliefs (i.e. beliefs about others’ beliefs) to propose that partisans will perceive that the general public will have less trust in the institutions they themselves trust. The authors test the authors’ argument by collecting a survey of Republicans and Democrats where the authors measure their trust in US institutions and their perceptions of the general public’s trust in those institutions. The authors then compare these measures to those in the 2021 General Social Survey (GSS). The authors find that Democrats have greater trust in Knowledge institutions than Republicans and perceive the general public to have lower trust than they do in these institutions, while Republicans have greater trust in Traditional institutions and perceive the general public to have lower trust than they do in these institutions. The authors find that both Democrats’ and Republicans’ perceptions of the general public’s trust in their own trusted institutions is lower than established levels in the GSS. The authors argue that perceptions of the beliefs and values of one’s in-group being out-of-step with wider society is an important aspect of in-group identity. The author measure both participants’ first-order institutional trust and their perceptions of the general public’s institutional trust in the same sample, permitting analyses that uncover differences between the two and between political partisans.
The goal of this chapter is to provide an updated account for group processes researchers of race and gender intersectional effects in social relations and their consequences for people of differing race and gender identities. The author takes Ridgeway and Kricheli-Katz’s initial theoretical framework for race and gender intersectional processes in social relations as a starting point. The author reviews and critically assesses subsequent empirical evidence and theoretical developments relevant to its arguments in order to create an updated account. Current evidence strengthens support for key arguments about implicit prototypes within stereotypes that are both raced and gendered, that are defined in relation to a male and white standard, and that have socio-cognitive effects on perceptions, judgments, and behaviors toward others. Current evidence and theorizing about the effects of prototypes on judgments and outcomes in social relations suggest further distinguishing the discriminatory effects of hypo- and hyper-prototypicality, compared to prototypicality rather than just prototypicality versus nonprototypicality. Recent research also strengths evidence for the framing importance of context for intersectional effects and raises new issues. These include whether backlash against gender status violations is strongest within race, the intersectional effects of sexuality, the extensive power of gender as an intersectional dimension, and the problem of complex, intersectional stereotypes of class, race, and gender. While intersectional effects vary by context, they are ubiquitous and must be taken into account to understand how race and gender shape relational inequality.
Past research on hazing relies on text-based stimuli and tasks. To improve our understanding of hazing intervention behaviors and how they are influenced by group-level and individual-level factors, the author introduces a more engaging image-based task. Using a student sample from a large, Midwestern university, the author administers a novel image-based task via online survey to examine whether fraternity group membership affects willingness to intervene in encounters involving hazing and other abusive behaviors compared to neutral behaviors. The author also administers questionnaires measuring dimensions of trait empathy, perceptions of the social expectedness of hazing, and previous exposure to hazing prevention education. Fraternity group members have lower levels of trait empathy compared to nonaffiliated men. Unexpectedly, though, fraternity men report being more likely to directly intervene in hazing events compared to nonaffiliated men. Also, participants who have witnessed hazing in the past are less likely to intervene across all intervention types. Finally, participants who have received anti-hazing education report more intent to directly monitor unfolding hazing events. This study uses cross-sectional data. Future research should use longitudinal data to confirm the causal influence of fraternity membership on the outcomes. Additionally, while the image-based task improves upon previous text-based research, questions about ecological validity linger. Furthermore, due to the passage of anti-hazing legislation during data collection, social desirability bias may influence the results. The author finds some evidence of the effectiveness of anti-hazing education and awareness in higher education settings.
The authors ask how people respond emotionally to acts of intergroup revenge and forgiveness. The authors focus on the kinds of everyday, identity-based conflicts people encounter in their own lives, in the news, or on social media, such as disputes between opposing political partisans or sports fans. Drawing on theories of emotions, status, and identity, the authors measure emotional responses to intergroup revenge and forgiveness. The authors then explore evidence for two theoretical mechanisms that might underlie these responses: intergroup and vicarious emotions. The authors use data from an original survey experiment, drawing on a national probability sample in the United States. The survey experimentally varies whether respondents read an account of intergroup forgiveness (a higher-status behavior in this context) or intergroup revenge (a lower-status behavior). The survey asks respondents to write about their emotions in response to the vignette. These responses were coded and analyzed. The survey also measures levels of in-group identification as a potential moderator. Respondents report pride, happiness, and other positive emotions significantly more often, and sadness, anger, shame, and other negative emotions significantly less often, when in-group members are forgiving versus vengeful. The authors find relatively few significant moderating effects of levels of in-group identification. Theoretically, the authors build on Kemper’s theory of emotions to examine how people respond to the actions of others, which potentially affect the status of the in-group. The authors consider evidence for two theoretical mechanisms linking in-group behaviors to emotions. The results have practical implications for reducing intergroup conflict, particularly revenge.
As workforce demographics shift to become more diverse, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs have evolved to address legal issues related to climate and inclusion. Common to most DEI efforts is bias reduction training, but this approach has faced substantial criticism. Multiple reviews indicate that diversity training is minimally effective and may even provoke backlash or decrease diversity. However, there has been limited exploration of why these approaches fail. This chapter investigates the central concepts, assumptions, and theoretical mechanisms behind bias reduction strategies and proposes a theoretical and methodological approach to addressing inequality at micro- and macro-levels. The authors conduct a cross-disciplinary review of the diversity training literature, with a specific focus on the psychological research examining the attitude–behavior relationship, models of behavior change, bias reduction interventions, and intergroup contact theories. The authors’ review highlights that diversity training predominantly focuses on individual-level cognitive efforts to raise awareness of bias and modify behavior by changing implicit and explicit attitudes. Most studies rely on self-reported attitudes, behavioral intentions, and the Implicit Association Test (IAT) as a measure of implicit bias, often lacking long-term assessment. Despite weak evidence, organizations continue to use bias reduction training. The authors provide recommendations grounded in theory, incorporating context and interaction. The authors identify the theoretical shortcomings of current diversity training and present a structural social psychological approach that leads to strategies for modifying and measuring behavioral inequalities. While many reviews report limited efficacy, this chapter offers a theoretical analysis of current diversity training approaches to explain their ineffectiveness.
