Perceiving others as responsive lessens prejudice: The mediating roles of intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence
Abstract
Can perceived responsiveness, the extent to which an individual feels understood, validated, and cared for by
close others, reduce prejudiced attitudes? We hypothesized that perceived responsiveness by meaningful other
people would increase recipients’ intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and that these changes would
reduce prejudice. Five studies (total N = 3362), four of which were preregistered, manipulated perceived
responsiveness by a specific person (Studies 1–3, 5) or measured the effects of perceived responsiveness by the
closest social network of the recipient (Study 4). All studies supported the hypotheses. Specifically, Studies 1 and
2 found that perceived responsiveness increased intellectual humility and attitude ambivalence and reduced
prejudice toward a group from a pre-determined list. Study 3 replicated these findings when participants freely
chose the social group. In Study 4, perceived responsiveness from individuals’ closest social networks predicted
the dependent variables a few days afterward, controlling for positive and negative affect and social desirability.
Finally, in Study 5, we added a condition of positive social interaction to rule out the possibility that the prior
findings were due to recalling an affectively positive experience. The effect of perceived responsiveness on
prejudice reduction (i.e., increased attitude favorability toward the social group) was not moderated by attitude
certainty (Study 2), anxious or avoidant attachment style (Study 2), or attitude morality (Study 3). This work
suggests that fostering perceived responsiveness can serve as a strategy for mitigating prejudice and promoting
more open-minded attitudes.
Attitude strength as a novel predictor of willful ignorance
Guy Itzchakov, Geoff Haddock
Organizational Behavior and Social Psychology
Willful ignorance is a pervasive phenomenon with significant consequences for decision-making, belief maintenance, and social polarization. While past research has identified various motivational and contextual factors underlying this behavior, less attention has been paid to attitude characteristics that shape the likelihood of engaging in willful ignorance. Addressing this gap, this paper introduces attitude strength as a critical and heretofore unexplored psychological factor that should affect when and why individuals engage in willful ignorance. We argue that strong attitudes, such as those held with certainty, are highly accessible, or are perceived as morally relevant, are particularly likely to elicit willful ignorance. Drawing on cognitive dissonance theory and motivated reasoning, we synthesize findings across domains, from political partisanship to responses to misinformation and AI-mediated communication.
Keep reading
An updated meta-analysis of the primed goal-organizational behaviour relationship
Gary P. Latham, Xiao Chen, Ronald F. Piccolo and Guy Itzchakov
Goal Setting
Environmental cues (e.g. achievement-related words and pictures) can prime/activate, in the absence of awareness, a mental representation of importance stored in memory. Chen et al.'s 2021 Applied Psychology: An International Review70, 216–253. (doi:10.1111/apps.12239) meta-analysis revealed a moderate, significant overall effect for the goal priming-organizational behaviour relationship, with three moderators identified: context-specific versus a general prime, prime modality (i.e. visual versus linguistic) and experimental setting (field versus laboratory). An independent researcher found that their finding was negligibly affected by a publication bias. Shanks & Vadillo (2021), Royal Society Open Science8, 210544. (doi:10.1098/rsos.210544) (field: k = 13, N = 683, d = 0.64), questioned Chen et al.'s conclusion regarding the effect size found in field studies (field: k = 8, N = 357, d = 0.68). In this paper, we discussed Shanks & Vadillo's selection of additional field experiments that led to their conclusion of a publication bias. We updated Chen et al.'s meta-analysis to include relevant studies conducted since that study's publication. The present meta-analysis reproduced the original findings in Chen et al. (field: k = 11, N = 534, d = 0.67). The updated findings are consistent with: (i) laboratory findings, (ii) the findings obtained in field experiments on consciously set goals and (iii) goal setting theory (Latham & Locke, 2018 In Handbook of industrial, work & organizational Psychology, vol. 1 (eds D Ones, N Anderson, C Viswesvaran, H Sinangil), pp. 103–124).
Keep reading