Atheists are some of the least liked people in the world. Previous research has demonstrated that in most stigmatized groups, increased prevalence of the group increases prejudice towards the group. However, the opposite has been found with atheists- increased perceived prevalence decreases prejudice towards atheists. One post-hoc explanation provided for this difference is that since atheists are easily concealable and unorganized as a group, their greater prevalence may not be perceived as a threat. In the present thesis, I 1) attempted to replicate the existing finding that perceived increased prevalence would increase trust towards atheists and 2) directly tested the hypothesis that if atheist groups are presented as collectively powerful and coherent, increased prevalence will no longer decrease anti-atheist prejudice. I did not find support for the hypothesis that prevalence increases atheist trust, nor did I find support for my hypotheses that power and cohesion would manipulate distrust. Atheist prejudice is still pervasive, however, prejudice against atheists may be changing.

Thesis (M.A.) in Communication--University of Maine, 2005. / Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 121-130).

This project is a study of how various Protestant Christian subcultures construct their identity and perceptions of LGBT couples in the 21st century United States sociopolitical context. Through an extensive content analysis of 105 sermon transcripts from www.sermoncentral.com, this project allows for a more accurate interpretation of Protestant Christian subgroups’ (via individual perceptions of pastors through their sermon rhetoric) stances on the issues of gay rights in the modern United States. Additionally, I use 2012 GSS survey data as background findings to frame and illustrate the relevance of the results from the content analysis. The content analysis findings show that various pastors from the sample construct their views of gay men and lesbians by 1) alienating LGBT couples, 2) enhancing in-group Protestant identities, and 3) calling for political action to maintain group norms.

<p>This study examined if social distance, i.e. in- vs. out-group membership, had an effect on moral judgments of acts vs. omissions. 164 participants judged the morality of acts vs. omissions of lethal harm, that affected an in- vs. out-group member of the participant, in order to save five other people. The results showed that acts of lethal, but utilitarian, harm were judged more immoral than omissions of equivalent harm. It was also shown that if the victim was an in- group member of the participant the behavior was judged more immoral than if the victim was an out-group member of the participant. However, the acts and omissions of harm were not judged differently when the victim was an in.- vs. out-group member of the participant, indicating that this kind of social distance might not influence the moral judgment of acts and omissions.</p><p> </p>

This study examined if social distance, i.e. in- vs. out-group membership, had an effect on moral judgments of acts vs. omissions. 164 participants judged the morality of acts vs. omissions of lethal harm, that affected an in- vs. out-group member of the participant, in order to save five other people. The results showed that acts of lethal, but utilitarian, harm were judged more immoral than omissions of equivalent harm. It was also shown that if the victim was an in- group member of the participant the behavior was judged more immoral than if the victim was an out-group member of the participant. However, the acts and omissions of harm were not judged differently when the victim was an in.- vs. out-group member of the participant, indicating that this kind of social distance might not influence the moral judgment of acts and omissions.

Based on the Stereotype Content Model, the current study uses dimensions of competence and warmth along with out-group specific stereotypical traits predicted by SDO, RWA and In-group ID to predict prejudice towards Jews and the elderly. Two groups of 101 non-Jewish, non-elderly American undergraduates and 199 Amazon Mturk workers completed a questionnaire. The study found that out-group specific stereotypes positively predicted envious prejudice towards Jews and paternalistic prejudice towards the elderly across both samples. Additionally, it was found that dimensions of competence and warmth were not consistent in predicting prejudice towards Jews and the elderly, however we still believe these stereotypes as relevant predictors of ambivalent styles of prejudice. Perceived status positively predicted stereotypes of competence across all samples and target groups. Perceived competition was significant in predicting stereotypes of warmth only with our Mturk sample, but not with our undergraduate sample. As a whole, it was determined that individual level predictors SDO, RWA and In-group ID were not relevant in predicting perceived competence, perceived warmth, and out-group specific stereotypes.

The purpose of this study is to examine how body language, specifically handgestures, correlate to in-group and out-group notions. To approach the issue thehand gestures of two politicians are compared with a focus on how theirgestures relate to in-group and out-group notions in their speech. Interactionanalysis is applied, and the gestures of each politician are categorised andsummarised to be analysed. The analysis reveals that there is a distinctdifference between the two politicians in what gestures they use over all, andconsequently also differences in their gestures when discussing in-groups versusout-groups. However, the main takeaway from the discussion is that one of thepoliticians is directing their gestures towards the camera, whereas the otherpolitician mostly directs their gestures at the live audience.

Nous examinons si l'augmentation de la variabilité perçue dans un groupe peut réduire les préjugés et la discrimination à l'égard de ses membres. Dans une série de 16 expériences en laboratoire et sur le terrain, nous avons d'abord attiré l'attention des participants soit sur l'homogénéité soit sur l'hétérogénéité des membres de ce groupe, et ensuite nous avons mesuré les attitudes ou les comportements. La variabilité perçue a été manipulée de différentes manières (en mentionnant ou non l'existence de plusieurs sous-groupes à l'intérieur du groupe cible, ou en montrant que les membres de l'exogroupe ont des opinions variées ou des caractéristiques différentes, ou en demandant aux participants de penser aux différences au sein des membres du groupe en question). Les préjugés et la discrimination ont été mesurés à l'aide d'échelles d’auto-évaluation, par la distribution de ressources, par le comportement d'aide d'un membre de l'exogroupe, ou encore par l'évaluation d'un candidat de l'exogroupe dans une situation de simulation de recrutement. Dans toutes les expériences, la variabilité perçue a réduit les préjugés et la discrimination. Cet effet pourrait être dû au fait que la variabilité perçue réduirait le rôle du groupe d'appartenance de la cible dans la production des attitudes et des comportements à l'égard des individus / We examined whether increasing individuals' perceived variability of an out-group reduces prejudice and discrimination toward its members. In a series of 16 laboratory and field experiments, we attracted participants' attention to either the homogeneity or the heterogeneity of members of an out-group, and then measured their attitudes or behaviors. Perceived variability was manipulated by making subgroups salient, by portraying the out-group members as having diverse opinions, by making salient that out-group members have different characteristics, or by asking participants to think about differences among out-group members. Prejudice and discrimination were measured in terms of self-reported attitudes, distribution of rewards, helping an out-group confederate, and evaluation of an out-group candidate in a simulated hiring decision. In all experiments, perceived variability decreased prejudice and discrimination. This effect may be due to the fact that perceived variability decreases the role of group membership in the production of attitudes and behaviors toward other individuals

Holding the same negative, as compared to positive, attitudes about a third party has been shown to predict increased liking for a future interaction partner (Bosson, Johnson, Niederhoffer, & Swann, 2006). The current work extended past research by examining two possible mediators of this effect: perceptions of "knowing" the future interaction party, and state self-esteem. Participants learned that they held the same positive or negative attitude of a professor with a future interaction partner, and then rated their feelings of "knowing" their partner, their own state self-esteem, and the closeness they felt to their future interaction partner. It was predicted that holding the same negative attitude about a third party, as compared to a positive attitude, would facilitate closeness to a future partner more effectively because it would (a) provide greater perceived insight into the partner's disposition, and (b) boost state self-esteem. Findings revealed an interaction in which a shared negative attitude toward a third party produced more closeness to a future partner than a shared positive attitude, but only when the attitude was strongly held. When the attitude was weakly held, attitude valence did not influence closeness to the future partner. Participants did not feel like they knew more about their partners if they shared a negative over a positive attitude, but they did feel like they knew their partners to a greater extent if they shared an attitude that was strongly held. In addition, the manipulations had no effect on state self-esteem. Therefore, predictions regarding the possible mediators were not supported. The results are discussed in the context of past findings, and the discussion focuses on the ecological validity of the current study. In addition, the discussion considers the implications of this work for understanding social relationship formation, and offers suggestions for future research.

Today, sponsorship is an integrated communication tool used for the achievement of commercial objectives. As the marketing environment changes sport sponsorship has evolved into one of the fastest growing marketing sectors. Yet, research up to now has been somewhat limited to one dimension of the sponsor relationship, without further consideration of the other. Therefore, this study has assessed both sides of sponsorship arrangements. Relevant literature has been reviewed and a survey was carried out in order to answer the purpose within this thesis. Our findings show that identification and commitment to a sport team was positively related to attitudes and purchase intentions toward favorite team sponsors. Moreover, mean scores suggested that negative associations from rival teams could “rub-off” on sponsored brands. This was evident in forms of attitudes but not in avoiding sponsors products. The study showed potentials with sponsorship while at the same time described sponsorship as a complex business which one should treat with caution in order for it to not become a double-edged sword.   Key words: sport sponsorship, social identity, in-group, out-group, identification and commitment to a sport team