Objectives

Examine the group-specific connections between personality, ideology, and the moral emotions of empathy and schadenfreude.

Background

Empathy and schadenfreude are emotions that often lead to moral prosocial or spiteful harmful behaviors respectively. An outstanding question is what motivates feelings of empathy and schadenfreude towards people from different groups. Here we examine two prominent motivators of emotions: personality traits and ideology. Previous work has found that people's ideological orientations towards respecting traditionalism (RWA) and preferences about group-based hierarchy (SDO) can impact intergroup emotions. Further, personality traits of low agreeableness, low openness, and high conscientiousness uniquely engender SDO and RWA.

Method

In the research presented here (Study 1 n = 492; Study 2 n = 786), we examine the relationships between personality traits, ideology, and emotions for groups that are perceived to be dangerous and competitive. We hypothesize that SDO and RWA will relate to reduced empathy and increased schadenfreude but towards unique groups. SDO will relate to reduced empathy and increased schadenfreude towards competitive, low-status groups while RWA will relate to reduced empathy and increased schadenfreude towards threatening groups. We further extend past work by investigating left-wing authoritarianism as well.

Results

We find broad support for our expectation that the relationships between personality and emotions, as well as ideology and emotions, depend on the specific group in question.

Conclusions

These results help expand the dual process motivational model of prejudice and suggest the importance of specifying a target group when assessing relationships between personality, ideology, and emotions.

The capacity to empathize with others facilitates prosocial behavior. People's willingness and capacity to empathize, however, is often contingent upon the target's group membership – people are less empathic towards those they categorize as out-group members. In competitive or threatening intergroup contexts, people may even feel pleasure (counter-empathy) in response to out-group members' misfortunes. Social dominance orientation (SDO), or the extent to which people prefer and promote group-based inequalities, is an ideological variable that is associated with a competitive view of the world, increased prejudicial attitudes, and decreased empathy. Thus, higher levels of SDO should be associated with reduced empathy and increased counter-empathy in general, but especially towards those whose subjugation maintains group inequalities. Across three studies we show that among White individuals, higher SDO levels are associated with less empathy, and more counter-empathy in response to others' good and bad fortunes. More importantly, these reductions in empathy and increases in schadenfreude as a function of SDO were significantly stronger for Asian and Black targets than for in-group White targets when group boundaries were made salient prior to the empathy ratings. Finally, in a fourth study we show that this phenomenon is not dependent upon a history of status differences: higher SDO scores were associated with decreased empathy and increased counter-empathy for competitive out-group (relative to in-group) targets in a novel group setting. We discuss implications of these effects for hierarchy maintenance.

How can social psychologists ensure their scholarship does not maintain racial inequality—or better, is anti-racist? This article serves as a reference for scholars by briefly reviewing the state of racial inequality in psychological science before providing concise yet comprehensive recommendations. Challenges include (a) the field's historic role in inequality-maintenance (especially by reinforcing harmful stereotypes), (b) pervasive objectivity norms that reify Whiteness as the status quo, and (c) the inequitable allocation of resources to White scholars and White-centered scholarship. Recommendations center on (a) methodological practices during the research process (from idea generation to manuscript preparation), (b) empirical transparency from scholars during the publication process, and (c) institutional, resource-focused support from gatekeepers (e.g., editors, senior faculty) to incentivize the diversification of our science.

The present research investigates whether benevolent and hostile sexist attitudes are differentially directed toward Black and White women by Black and White people. Participants (N = 2,775) reported on their sexist attitudes while thinking about Black women, White women, or women in general. Although Black participants reported higher levels of benevolent and hostile sexism overall, participant race and target race interacted to produce unique patterns of sexist attitudes. More specifically, Black perceivers thinking of White women reported higher levels of hostile sexism than those thinking of Black women. White perceivers reported similar amounts of hostile sexism while thinking of White and Black women. Benevolent sexism showed a different pattern, with both Black and White participants reporting higher levels of benevolent sexism toward Black than White women. The results also revealed similar levels of sexism reported while thinking of White women and while thinking of women in general, suggesting that sexism research that does not specifically address target race may reflect an understanding of sexist attitudes about White women that may not generalize to other racial groups.

The incorporation of intersectionality within social psychology is becoming an increasingly common practice. From the hypotheses we generate to the methods we employ, as well as the analyses we run and the theories we use, researchers are moving away from studying social identities in isolation. By studying the interactional and emergent properties of multiple identities that go beyond the sum of identities, as well as understanding the complex nature of power and privilege, social psychologists can better understand processes such as stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. Yet it can be difficult for researchers to know exactly where to begin. This review serves as a primer for conducting intersectionally-informed research within social psychology, using the intersection of race and gender within the United States as a case study. We first describe the history of intersectional research in psychology, noting its barriers to implementation. Next, we review three classes of intersectionally-informed models — intersectional perception, experience, and treatment — and offer suggestions for future research as well as ways researchers can incorporate the model within their work.

Children psychologically exclude Black women from their representations of women, but the mechanisms underlying this marginalization remain unclear. Across two studies (N = 129; 49 boys, 78 girls, two gender unreported; 79 White, 27 Black, six Latinx, five Asian, and 12 unreported), the present work tests hair texture as one possible perceptual mechanism by which this might occur. In both studies, children gender-categorized Black, White, and Asian men and women using MouseTracker. Children were slower and had more complex patterns in categorizing Black women when they had textured hair (Study 1A), but not when they had straight hair (Study 1B). Implications for the development of gender as a social category are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Five studies examined implicit (IAT) attitudes toward the slurs n***er and n***a among Black and White Americans (total N = 3,226). Both groups showed strong implicit negativity toward n***er/a combined relative to socially acceptable contrast terms such as Black or African American. Controlling for baseline Black–White race attitudes, Black Americans who engaged in conscious reappropriation exhibited similar implicit negativity toward n***er/a as White Americans. When the rhotic and non-rhotic forms were directly contrasted, n***er was more implicitly negative than n***a, with Black Americans distinguishing the two more strongly than did White Americans. However, even Black American reappropriators showed implicit negativity toward n***a relative to Black. In sum, both n***er and n***a evoke automatic negative meaning in a broad sample of Americans today. At the same time, the relatively more positive meaning of n***a over n***er demonstrates the power of reappropriation to wrest control of word meaning.

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this article, we call on psychological scientists-focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations-to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss whom our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.