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.

There is substantial research on the nature of gender prescriptive and proscriptive stereotypes. However, there has been relatively little work on whether these normative stereotypes are equally attributed to men and women of different identities. Across two studies (total N = 928), we assessed the extent to which stereotypes are prescribed and proscribed for men and women of different sexual orientations (Study 1) and races (Study 2) in the United States. We asked participants to rate the desirability of possessing 70 traits based on an “average American.” Although results showed the persistence of gender normative stereotypes in society, the normative nature of these stereotypes was influenced by sexual orientation and race. There was strong evidence of a heterocentric bias, as normative stereotypes of generic men and women most closely aligned with those of straight men and women. There was weaker evidence of a Eurocentric bias. Furthermore, observed gender differences in normative stereotypes were significantly smaller for sexually- and racially-minoritized targets compared to straight and White targets. These findings combined suggest that the practices and policies that attempt to address gender inequality might not be as effective for people with multiply-marginalized identities that face distinctly different patterns of normative pressures. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ's website at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843231187851.

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.

Discrimination against members of nonmajority religious groups is widespread, often due to negative stereotypes and emotions toward them. To understand the impact of gender on religious stereotypes and emotions, across two studies, we analyzed stereotypes and emotions toward the men and women of three religious groups: Christians, Jews, and Muslims, to determine the presence of prototypicality biases using intersectional invisibility as the guiding framework. In Study 1 (preregistered, n = 893), participants rated religious groups on four stereotype dimensions: Competence, Warmth, Beliefs, and Americanness, with religion as a within-subject variable and gender as a between-subject variable. In Study 2 (preregistered, n = 915), participants rated religious groups on six emotional dimensions. There was evidence of androcentric biases, as (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) men were perceived as more similar to their respective broader religious groups than (Christian, Jewish, and Muslim) women. Additionally, Muslim women, in particular, experienced a double distancing from their identities: They were strongly differentiated from their broader religious category, that is, Muslim, and from their broader gender category, that is, women. While much is known regarding religious groups as a whole, there is relatively little work disaggregating religious groups by gender. This article highlights the importance of intersectionality and incorporating gender when assessing stereotypes and emotions toward religious groups, thereby advancing our theoretical and practical understanding of intergroup conflict and designing interventions applicable to both men and women within religious groups

Gay men and lesbian women face health inequities as well as disparate treatment from healthcare providers. Stereotypes surrounding sexual health might contribute to these disparities. In five studies (N = 1858), we explored sexual health stereotypes about gay men and lesbian women and their implications in prejudice/discrimination. In Studies 1, 2A and 2B, we found people explicitly associated gay men with promiscuity and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) more than lesbian women or straight men/women. In implicit association tests, both gay men and lesbian women were more associated with promiscuity and STIs than straight counterparts. Studies 3A and 3B showed that these associations have consequences: people expressed more prejudice and discrimination toward gay men and lesbian women with STIs versus those with non-STIs or straight counterparts with either disease type. Taken together, the current research identifies some psychological factors that may underpin health disparities and healthcare barriers for gay and lesbian people.

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.

In one large-scale experiment using U.S. respondents on Mechanical Turk (N = 2,899), we studied how subtle differences in framing and context impacted estimates of the Black–White wealth gap. Across our 10 different experimental manipulations of framing and context, respondents consistently overestimated Black family wealth relative to White wealth. There was also substantial variation in the magnitude of these wealth estimates, which ranged from a low of 35 to a high of over 60 percentage points across the conditions. Overestimates were largest when respondents were asked about the Black–White wealth gap at both past and present time points and closest to accuracy when respondents used images as pictorial comparisons for White and Black wealth. Overall, while framing and context certainly affect the magnitude of this misperception, the tendency to overestimate racial wealth equality is extremely robust.

Many organizations are working to address diversity, equity, and inclusion. Organizations frequently use implicit bias to explain disparities and marshal implicit bias training as a solution. Implicit bias is difficult to change and trainings do not yield more diversity in organizations, so organizations should move beyond implicit bias trainings in their diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Organizations should (a) use trainings to educate members of their organizations about bias and about organizational efforts to address diversity, equity, and inclusion; (b) prepare for, rather than accommodate, defensive responses from dominant group members; and (c) implement structures that foster organizational responsibility for diversity, equity, and inclusion goals; opportunities for high-quality intergroup contact; affinity groups for underrepresented people; welcoming and inclusive messaging; and processes that bypass interpersonal bias. Although no simple, one-size-fits-all solutions address organizational diversity, organizational leaders have many tools they can use to design more effective diversity strategies.

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.