This study investigated the effects of an intensive weekend human relations training workshop between black and white adults 20 to 53 years of age. The results were compared to a no-treatment control group. The total sample was 27. These consisted of 13 females and 14 males, including 2 black females and 3 black males. It was hypothesised: (1) that the treatment group would show significantly greater increase than the untreated group on self-acceptance; (2) that there would be a significantly greater reduction than the untreated group in prejudice (indirect and direct measure); (3) that communication style scores for the treated group would be significantly more constructive than for the untreated group at post-test; and (4) that significant differences would remain significant at delayed post-test. (This did not apply to communication style which was measured at post-test only).

Recent polls (e.g., Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann, 2006) have consistently found that atheists are the least liked group in America today, a type of prejudice that has barely been researched. This anti-atheist prejudice is surprising because atheists do not constitute a cohesive, recognizable, or powerful group. To the degree that people feel that religion provides a unique and necessary source of morality, they may dislike atheists primarily because of moral distrust towards them. This suggests a distinct origin for anti-atheist prejudice that sets it apart from ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice. We explored this broad hypothesis in a series of three experiments. First, we find that on an implicit level anti-atheist prejudice is driven by distrust rather than a feeling of generalized unpleasantness towards atheists. Second, we find that discrimination against atheists is limited to contexts requiring a high degree of trust. Finally, we find that anti-atheist prejudice is malleable. These findings are discussed in terms of prominent evolutionary theories of religion. / Arts, Faculty of / Psychology, Department of / Graduate

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / This study explored lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals’ strength of identification with their subgroup (lesbian/gay or bisexual) and superordinate group (LGBTQ+) and whether the discrepancy between these identity dimensions relates to binegativity (the stigmatization of bisexuality). Our hypothesis that there would be a significant main effect of self-categorization level (superordinate vs. subgroup) on identity centrality was not supported. Our hypothesis that the difference between strength of subgroup and superordinate group identity centrality would be related to expressed binegativity among LG participants was partially supported. There was a significant negative correlation suggesting that as participants felt that their subgroup was relatively more important than the superordinate group, the less they acknowledged the existence of prejudice against bisexuals. Additionally, bisexuality threat, stigma-based solidarity, linked fate, and ingroup representations were significantly correlated with binegativity. Our results provide a first foundational step in a series of studies that will investigate the causes of binegativity among LG people and potential interventions.

archives@tulane.edu / Although human smell functions, in part, to detect disease and mate quality and is the sensory modality most strongly tied to disgust, its role in social cognition and behavior remains largely understudied. The current study investigated the relationship between olfactory acuity, disgust sensitivity, and prejudice toward outgroups heuristically linked to disease (i.e., overweight, gay male, older targets) using the Sniffin’ Sticks extended test among a non-clinical sample (N = 170). Based on pilot data, higher acuity was predicted to be associated with higher sexual disgust sensitivity. Both higher acuity and sexual disgust sensitivity were also predicted to be related to greater outgroup prejudice. Results found smell acuity to be positively, though not significantly related to sexual disgust. Contrary to original predictions, smell was negatively (though non-significantly) associated with outgroup prejudice for all measures except for ageism—higher acuity significantly correlated with less ageist beliefs. Furthermore, sexual disgust was not significantly related to any explicit prejudice measures, but exploratory analyses revealed a potential relationship with some less explicit measures. Current study limitations and future considerations for research investigating the role of smell and disgust in intergroup prejudice are discussed. / 1 / Zachary Airington

No description available.

This research will assess religious prejudice among several religious groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Non-Believers) toward one another in addition to assessing underlying attitudes such as openness to contact with diverse others, self- acceptance, empathy, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation. It is hypothesized that attitudes such as openness to contact, self-acceptance, and empathy will correlate and have a lower correlation with religious prejudice; while right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation will correlate and have a higher correlation with religious prejudice. In addition, prejudice among all groups is to be expected. The aim of this descriptive study is to reveal a general prejudice level of religious groups, prejudicial attitudes of one's group toward an out-group, and the extent to which a group feels they have experienced prejudice.

The issue of religious prejudice rarely has been examined when compared to other forms of prejudice. In addition, the bulk of research has been focused on the Christian religion and neglects other religions. This research will assess religious prejudice among several religious groups (Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Non-Believers) toward one another. In addition, it will assess underlying attitudes such as openness to contact with diverse others, self-acceptance, empathy, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation. Because the preponderance of participants in this study (over 800 in total) were mostly Christians, followed by Non-Believers (Agnostics and Atheists), my analyses focused on these two groups exclusively. It was found that Christians and Non- Believers were significantly more positive about their own respective group compared to the other group. Also, Non-Believers reported perceiving themselves to be victims of discriminations significantly more than Christians. Christians, on average, expressed significantly higher interest in insulating themselves from dissimilar others, relative to Non-Believers. Increased exposure to the other group ( e.g., to Non-Believers by Christians, and vice versa) was linked significantly with more favorable attitudes towards the individuals in the other group. However, among Christians, more exposure to Non- Believers was inversely linked to less positive views of Non-Believers in general (this latter finding was not observed among Non-Believers). Finally, as expected, using data from all participants combined, increased levels of openness to diversity and empathy were associated significantly with less religious bigotry, whereas increases in authoritarianism and social dominance orientation correlated significantly and positively with religious bigotry. Self-acceptance did not correlate significantly with religious bigotry.

This study examined the relationship among implicit and explicit measures of prejudice (against African-Americans, homosexuals, and Muslims), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Religious Fundamentalism (RF), and Christian Orthodoxy (CO). The implicit measure of prejudice was Facial EMG, which is the measurement of the activity of key facial muscles when participants were exposed to pictures of members of the minority groups, as well as to pictures of the corresponding group. The explicit measure of prejudice was the Social Distance Scale, which measures how willing people are to have someone in a variety of close relationships. The primary hypothesis was that one’s score on the implicit (and some of the explicit) measures of prejudice can be predicted using RF, CO, and RWA. The analyses revealed that RWA was predictive of prejudice against homosexuals and Muslims, but not against African-Americans.

Ninety-six Ss, forty-eight white males and forty-eight white females, from introductory psychology classes at North Texas State University participated in a study of interracial attitudes and social expectations.

This dissertation examined whether factors specific to the perceiver influence whom he/she labels as “fat.” Building upon research examining the role that one‟s level of identification with a group (Castano, Yzerbyt, Bourguignon, & Seron, 2002; Leyens & Yzerbyt, 1992) and one‟s prejudice level (Allport, 1954; Allport & Kramer, 1946) play in the process of categorizing others, this dissertation examined whether one‟s body weight centrality and prejudice against fat people influence whom he/she labels as “fat.” Further, to understand the mechanism explaining the link between these factors and the labeling process, this dissertation also explored whether motivational factors underlie whom a perceiver labels as “fat.” Undergraduate females who self-identified as “not fat” were recruited for two studies that addressed these goals. Study one examined whether perceivers‟ prejudice levels and body weight centrality levels influenced how they categorized others based upon body weight and whether this categorization process represented a threat to the self. Study two examined further examined the role of prejudice and body weight centrality in body weight-based categorization as well as whether the desire to protect the in-group from contamination motivates the categorization process. Hypotheses were tested through a series of multiple regression analyses. Findings suggest that both prejudice towards fat people and the importance that one places upon body weight in one‟s feelings of self-worth predicted the fat threshold. Further, evidence did not support the hypothesized impact of motivational factors on the link between prejudice or body weight centrality and the fat threshold. Implications and limitations are discussed.