Differential Evaluation of Straight and Gay Men for Nonverbal Effeminate Behavior.

The purpose of this study was to determine how violation of gender-based expectancies might influence straight men's attitudes toward men who differ by sexual orientation (i.e., straight or gay). This study was specifically designed to avoid methodological issues that may have been present in similar research. Hypotheses were informed by Expectancy-Violation Theory (EVT) and the Black Sheep Effect (BSE), which together suggest that an effeminate straight man should be evaluated by other straight men more negatively than an effeminate gay man because the former target negatively violated expectations. Additionally, EVT suggests that a masculine gay man should be evaluated more positively than a masculine straight man because the former positively violates expectations, while the BSE instead suggests the latter should be evaluated more positively than the former due to ingroup bias. Self-identified straight men evaluated a male target whose sexual orientation and gender conformity were manipulated through a photo and vignette. A moderated mediation analysis was performed to determine if perceived expectancy violation mediated the relationship between sexual orientation and evaluations for both effeminate and masculine men. Straight effeminate targets were evaluated more negatively than gay effeminate targets; however, straight masculine targets were evaluated more favorably than gay masculine targets, a finding more consistent with the BSE. In addition, perceived expectancy violation did not mediate the relationship between sexual orientation and evaluations regardless of gender expression. More research should be conducted to identify the mechanisms through which evaluations of straight and gay targets differ based on gender expression.

An investigation of emotional and evaluative implicit associations with police using four versions of the Implicit Association Test.

In two studies (total N = 829), we assessed civilian implicit associations with police using four modified Implicit Association Tests (IAT). Across studies and IATs, individuals harbored stronger negative implicit associations (associating police with fear/bad) than positive implicit associations (associating police with safety/good). The predictive validity of the implicit associations and magnitude of D scores varied across IAT. In Study 1, the IATs involving categorization of police-related (vs. everyday) symbols were most sensitive, but the versions involving categorization of police (vs. civilian) models provided more evidence for predictive validity. In Study 2, the IAT involving categorization of emotional words (safety/fear) was most sensitive, but the version involving categorization of evaluative words (good/bad) provided more evidence for predictive validity. In both studies, we also assessed individual differences (race, political affiliation) in implicit associations. The findings prompt the need to further examine the underlying cognitive components of civilian attitudes toward police and emphasize the importance of developing several IATs when assessing implicit attitudes.

Attitudes toward guns and mental illness stigma among college students in the United States.

In the United States, citizens opposed to stricter gun control laws as a response to mass shootings frequently reframe the problem of gun violence as a mental health issue. As a result, it has been suggested that pro-gun attitudes (i.e., pro-gun rights attitudes and favorable attitudes toward the National Rifle Association) might be associated with stigmatizing attitudes toward people with mental illness. In three studies (total N = 756), we assessed gun attitudes as predictors of mental illness stigma among college students in the United States (data collected in 2018 and 2019). While zero-order correlations revealed that pro-gun attitudes predict more negative attitudes toward people with mental illness, they were not unique predictors after adjusting for political affiliation. These findings replicate previous research on the relationship between conservatism and mental illness stigma and provide a starting point for future research assessing relationships between gun attitudes, political affiliation, and mental illness stigma. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Name Norms: A Guide to Casting Your Next Experiment.

Psychologists often test hypotheses by constructing vignettes depicting people engaging in behavior and displaying characteristics designed to operationalize specific variables. People described in these vignettes are typically given names, but names have a variety of connotations that could lead to unwanted variance between conditions of an experiment and in other ways have implications for the results of a study. An up-to-date source of information to help guide the selection of names would be useful for researchers. Participants from four different regions of the United States rated a large sample of names in terms of perceived age, warmth, and competence. The full set of names is presented, along with some simple demonstration studies concretely illustrating the implications of name choice.

Ignoring biased feedback: Membership in a stigmatized group as a moderator of mnemic neglect.

A personal history of being the target of biased negative evaluation may lead individuals to habitually divert attention from negative feedback when it is possible to do so. Two studies tested for the first time the hypothesis that people belonging to a stigmatized group (Black students on a predominantly White campus) will, relative to non-stigmatized people, be more likely to engage in mnemic neglect-that is, they will reveal a greater tendency to insulate themselves from the effects of negative self-relevant feedback by means of motivated forgetting. The results of Study 1 supported that hypothesis. In Study 2, priming the concept of egalitarianism reduced the tendency of Black participants to engage in higher levels of mnemic neglect, consistent with the idea that the higher observed levels of mnemic neglect among stigmatized individuals derives from expecting biased, discriminatory responses from other people.

The role of preferred beliefs in skepticism about psychology.

Not being taken seriously can be an occupational hazard for psychologists, but Lilienfeld's (February-March 2012) thought-provoking article (see record 2011-12007-001) provides a useful framework for thinking about (a) the forms that skepticism about psychological science can take, (b) the roots of such skepticism, and (c) how one might address or even undermine it. But as Lilienfeld (2012, p. 117) noted, "The sources of public skepticism toward psychology are multifarious," and his list "is surely not exhaustive." We agree and believe that another source deserves emphasis, one that psychologists ignore at their peril. Specifically, what psychologists have to say about human behavior can clash with people's beliefs and intuitions.

Shedding light on insight: Priming bright ideas.

Previous research has characterized insight as the product of internal processes, and has thus investigated the cognitive and motivational processes that immediately precede it. In this research, however, we investigate whether insight can be catalyzed by a cultural artifact, an external object imbued with learned meaning. Specifically, we exposed participants to an illuminating lightbulb - an iconic image of insight - prior to or during insight problem-solving. Across four studies, exposing participants to an illuminating lightbulb primed concepts associated with achieving an insight, and enhanced insight problem-solving in three different domains (spatial, verbal, and mathematical), but did not enhance general (non-insight) problem-solving.

Was Walter Lippmann interested in stereotyping?: Public Opinion and cognitive social psychology.

Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion is much cited but little read. A review of references to Public Opinion by social psychologists over the last 20 years reveals the widespread beliefs that (1) the book focuses primarily on group stereotypes and prejudice, and (2) the concept of stereotyping originated with Lippmann. However, stereotypes, as currently conceived--as opposed to schemata more generally--do not play a central role in the book, and Lippmann did not introduce the concept (although he may have broadened it). In addition, throughout his long and distinguished career, he showed little interest in stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. Nonetheless, Public Opinion is a seminal work in the area of cognitive social psychology and (like other little read citation classics) still deserves to be read-including, ironically, by students of stereotyping and prejudice.