Space-focused stereotypes of immigrant neighbourhoods.

Recent research suggests that stereotypes are not only applied to social groups but also to the physical spaces that social groups inhabit. We present three experiments investigating space-focused stereotype content and valence regarding immigrant and non-immigrant neighbourhoods. In Study 1a (N = 198), a pre-registered online experiment, we observed that participants associate more negative characteristics with immigrant neighbourhoods than with middle-class neighbourhoods. Whereas they imagined immigrant neighbourhoods as crime-ridden, dirty and dangerous, they imagined middle-class neighbourhoods to be quiet, clean and safe. Furthermore, whereas stereotype valence regarding immigrant neighbourhoods was negative, stereotype valence regarding middle-class neighbourhoods was positive, suggesting large effects. These results were replicated in Study 1b (N = 274), examining stereotypes of immigrant versus majority-German neighbourhoods. In Study 2 (N = 209), a pre-registered online experiment, we observed that space-focused stereotypes were more negative when cultural stereotypes rather than personal beliefs were assessed. Exploratory analyses revealed that, compared with majority-German neighbourhoods, participants imagined immigrant neighbourhoods to be lower in socioeconomic status and also reported feeling less psychologically connected to these neighbourhoods, regardless of whether space-focused stereotypes were personally endorsed or not. Lastly, a mega-analysis across studies suggested that effects of stereotypes of immigrant in comparison to non-immigrant places were very large (ds = 1.70). Together, the present findings indicate that mere differences in descriptions of places with reference to their demographic composition are sufficient to elicit large differences in associated stereotype content and valence.

Shooter biases and stereotypes among police and civilians.

The present research assesses potential correlates of discriminatory police behavior, comparing police and civilian participants in a first person shooter task (FPST) as well as on various self-report measures of intergroup contact, intergroup attitudes, and ideological beliefs in three preregistered studies. Study 1 (N = 330), using a FPST with a short response window (630 ms), did not observe shooter biases in reaction times, error rates and signal detection parameters in neither police nor civilian participants. Study 2a (N = 290), using a longer response window (850 ms), observed a shooter bias in reaction times, error rates, and response criterion in both civilian and police participants. These shooter biases were largely driven by faster reactions, fewer errors, and more liberal shoot decisions for armed Arab (vs. White) targets. Study 2b (N = 191; 850 ms response window) closely replicated shooter biases in reaction times, error rates, and response criterion in a sample of civilian online participants. Across studies, we observed similar results in the shooter task for police and civilian samples. Furthermore, both police and civilian participants expressed anti-Muslim and anti-Arab attitudes across a variety of self-report measures. However, compared to civilians, police participants reported higher levels of anti-Muslim attitudes on some measures as well as higher levels of social dominance orientation, which might pose additional risk factors for discriminatory behavior. Lastly, while we observed reliable individual differences in self-reported intergroup attitudes, ideologies, and intergroup contact, none of these characteristics correlated with shooter biases.

Beyond stereotypes: Prejudice as an important missing force explaining group disparities.

We comment on Cesario's assertion that social psychological intergroup research focuses solely on stereotypes, neglecting actual differences between groups to explain group disparities. This reasoning, however, misses yet another explaining force: In addition to stereotypes, ample laboratory and field research documents relationships between group disparities, discrimination, and prejudice, which cannot be explained by people's accurate judgments of real-world group differences.

Racial Bias in Police Traffic Stops: White Residents' County-Level Prejudice and Stereotypes Are Related to Disproportionate Stopping of Black Drivers.

Racial disparities in policing are well documented, but the reasons for such disparities are often debated. In the current research, we weighed in on this debate using a regional-level bias framework: We investigated the link between racial disparities in police traffic stops and regional-level racial bias, employing data from more than 130 million police traffic stops in 1,413 U.S. counties and county-level measures of racial bias from more than 2 million online respondents. Compared with their population share in county demographics, Black drivers were stopped at disproportionate rates in the majority of counties. Crucially, disproportionate stopping of Black drivers was higher in counties with higher levels of racial prejudice by White residents (rs = .07-.36). Furthermore, county-level aggregates of White people's threat-related stereotypes were less consistent in predicting disproportionate stopping (rs = .00-.19). These observed relationships between regional-level bias and racial disparities in policing highlight the importance of the context in which police operate.

Do Members of Disadvantaged Groups Explain Group Status With Group Stereotypes?

Recent research on group attitudes in members of disadvantaged groups has provided evidence that group evaluations closely align with societal stigma, reflecting outgroup favoritism in members of those groups that are most strongly stigmatized. While outgroup favoritism is clearly evident among some groups, there is still debate about the psychological mechanisms underlying outgroup favoritism. The current research focuses on a less intensively examined aspect of outgroup favoritism, namely the use of status-legitimizing group stereotypes. We present data from members of four disadvantaged groups (i.e., persons who self-categorize as gay or lesbian, n = 205; Black or African American, n = 209; overweight n = 200, or are aged 60-75 years n = 205), who reported the perceived status of their ingroup and a comparison majority outgroup and provided explanations for their status perceptions. Contrary to assumptions from System Justification Theory, participants rarely explained perceived group status differences with group stereotypes, whereas they frequently explained ingroup disadvantage with perceived stigmatization and/or systemic reasons. Further exploratory analyses indicated that participants' status explanations were related to measures of intergroup attitudes, ideological beliefs, stigma consciousness, and experienced discrimination. Our results highlight the need to develop a better understanding whether, under what circumstances, and with which consequences members of disadvantaged groups use group stereotypes as attributions of ingroup status and status differences.

Moderators of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups: A comprehensive test of predictions from system justification theory.

We examined hypotheses proposed by System Justification Theory (SJT; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004) regarding intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups, using large samples of online participants (total N = 715,721), spanning 8 intergroup domains and 14 nations. Using a meta-analytic approach, we tested these hypotheses at the individual level (as SJT is generally articulated), as well as at the social group level. Consistent with SJT, individual-level analyses revealed that disadvantaged groups demonstrated outgroup favoritism on Implicit Association Tests (IATs; i.e., implicit measures), but demonstrated ingroup favoritism or no intergroup preference on self-report (i.e., explicit) measures. Additionally, these average effects were characterized by high heterogeneity, and follow-up exploratory analyses revealed that intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups was moderated by the intergroup domain: Whereas some disadvantaged groups consistently displayed outgroup favoritism (e.g., age, weight), others consistently displayed ingroup favoritism (e.g., sexual orientation, religion), and yet others displayed diverging patterns on implicit and explicit measures (e.g., race, ethnicity). Consistent with SJT, intergroup evaluation on all measures was moderated by self-reported conservatism. Furthermore, the magnitude of these relationships depended on the level of analysis, with small effects emerging at the individual level and medium-sized effects emerging at the social group level. Social group-level analyses also indicated that intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups was moderated by stigma. Overall, these findings support and extend the predictions of SJT, but the relatively complex patterns of intergroup evaluation in disadvantaged groups identified here illustrate a need for further theory development and more theory-driven research in this domain. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Subjective status and perceived legitimacy across countries.

The relationships between subjective status and perceived legitimacy are important for understanding the extent to which people with low status are complicit in their oppression. We use novel data from 66 samples and 30 countries (N = 12,788) and find that people with higher status see the social system as more legitimate than those with lower status, but there is variation across people and countries. The association between subjective status and perceived legitimacy was never negative at any levels of eight moderator variables, although the positive association was sometimes reduced. Although not always consistent with hypotheses, group identification, self-esteem, and beliefs in social mobility were all associated with perceived legitimacy among people who have low subjective status. These findings enrich our understanding of the relationship between social status and legitimacy.

Proficiency testing for HIV, tuberculosis and malaria diagnosis in clinical laboratories in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Proficiency testing (PT) is a means of verifying the reliability of laboratory results, but such programmes are not readily available to laboratories in developing countries. This project provided PT to laboratories in Nigeria. OBJECTIVES: To assess the proficiency of laboratories in the diagnosis of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria. METHODS: This was a prospective study carried out between 2009 and 2011. A structured questionnaire was administered to 106 randomly-selected laboratories. Forty-four indicated their interest in participation and were enrolled. Four rounds of pre-characterised plasma panels for HIV, sputum films for tuberculosis and blood films for malaria were distributed quarterly by courier over the course of one year. The results were returned within two weeks and scores of ≥ 80% were reported as satisfactory. Mentoring was offered after the first and second PT rounds. RESULTS: Average HIV PT scores increased from 74% to 95% from the first round to the third round, but decreased in the fourth round. For diagnosis of tuberculosis, average scores increased from 42% in the first round to 78% in the second round; but a decrease to 34% was observed in the fourth round. Malaria PT performance was 2% at first, but average scores increased between the second and fourth rounds, culminating in a fourth-round score of 39%. Many participants requested training and mentoring. CONCLUSIONS: There were gross deficiencies in the quality of laboratory services rendered across Nigeria. In-country PT programmes, implemented in conjunction with mentoring, will improve coverage and diagnosis of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria.