Primes and Consequences: A Systematic Review of Meritocracy in Intergroup Relations.

Psychological interest in Meritocracy as an important social norm regulating most of the western democratic societies has significantly increased over the years. However, the way Meritocracy has been conceptualized and operationalized in experimental studies has advanced in significant ways. As a result, a variety of paradigms arose to understand the social consequences of Meritocracy for intergroup relations; in particular, to understand the adverse consequences of Meritocracy for disadvantaged group members. The present research seeks to understand whether there is strong support for the idea that (manipulated) Meritocracy disproportionally affects members of low status groups, and also to understand which specific components of this norm have been successfully manipulated and to what consequences. And this is particularly important given the recent call for greater transparency in how the success of experimental manipulations is reported. Thus, we carried out a systematic review examining the content of different prime tasks, summarizing prime manipulation checks' effectiveness, and analyzing whether priming Meritocracy leads to less favorable orientations toward low status groups. Results across 33 studies revealed that despite the existing differences in the components highlighted, the salience of any of the Meritocracy dimensions facilitates the use of internal causal attributions, negative evaluations and stereotyping toward low status groups, affecting negatively decisions involving low-status group members, particularly in specific domains, as organizational contexts. These results carry both practical and theoretical implications for future research on the role of Meritocracy in intergroup settings.

Conflicting Motivations: Understanding How Low-Status Group Members Respond to Ingroup Discrimination Claimants.

Previous research has found that among low-status individuals, both group identification (GID) and status-legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) motivate varying responses to ingroup discrimination claimants. SLBs are traditionally thought to motivate decreased support for low-status claimants, while GID is thought to motivate increased liking and support of ingroup members. The current research examines these conflicting influences on ingroup claimants among women (Studies 1a and 1b) and Latino/as (Studies 2 and 3). We find that when SLBs are strongly endorsed (Studies 1a, 1b, and 2) or primed (Study 3), GID does not predict liking or support for a claimant. Only when SLB endorsement is low and identity safety cues are absent does GID predict liking and support for a claimant. Our results suggest that when motivations conflict, SLBs seem to more strongly predict reactions to ingroup claimants.

Is Contact with Children Related to Legitimizing Beliefs Toward Sex with Children Among Men with Pedophilia?

Among pedophilic men, social contact with children has been discussed as creating a risk situation for sexual abuse. Also, pedophilic men searching for such contact are seen as harboring more beliefs legitimizing sexual contact with children. However, social contact may also decrease false beliefs. We tested these competing views in an anonymous Internet survey with a non-forensic, non-clinical sample of 104 self-classified pedophilic men. Results showed that both increased social and physical contact were significantly linked to fewer legitimizing beliefs toward sex with children, even when controlling for past psychotherapy, educational level, social desirability, and age. Controlling for previous conviction for child sexual offenses reduced the effect for physical contact, but not for social contact. Exploratory analyses showed that either type of contact had no significant effect on total self-perceived risk of offending. However, pedophilic men with physical contact with children perceived a higher risk of more direct (i.e., child abuse) than indirect offenses (i.e., child pornography offenses) compared to pedophilic men without physical contact. Despite limitations of the correlational design and the only small to moderate effects, the results challenge the assumption that complete avoidance of contact with children is necessary for persons with pedophilia to reduce the risk of abusive behavior.

Priming status-legitimizing beliefs: Examining the impact on perceived anti-White bias, zero-sum beliefs, and support for Affirmative Action among White people.

The current research examines how status-legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) influence White people's perceptions of anti-White bias, endorsement of zero-sum beliefs, and support for Affirmative Action. We suggest that SLBs perpetuate inequality by increasing White people's perceptions of zero-sum beliefs and anti-White bias, which in turn lead to decreased support for Affirmative Action. White individuals primed with SLBs perceived greater anti-White bias, endorsed greater zero-sum beliefs, and indicated less support for Affirmative Action than individuals primed with neutral content. Mediation analysis revealed that the SLB prime decreased support for Affirmative Action by increasing perceptions of anti-White bias. This research offers experimental evidence that SLBs contribute to White people's perceptions of anti-White bias and to decreased support for Affirmative Action.

Racial progress as threat to the status hierarchy: implications for perceptions of anti-White bias.

In three studies, we examined how racial progress affects Whites' perceptions of anti-White bias. When racial progress was chronically (Study 1) and experimentally (Study 2) salient, Whites who believed the current U.S. status hierarchy was legitimate were more likely to report that Whites were victims of racial discrimination. In contrast, Whites who perceived the current status system as illegitimate were unaffected by the salience of racial progress. The results of Study 3 point to the role of threat in explaining these divergent reactions to racial progress. When self-affirmed, Whites who perceived the status hierarchy as legitimate no longer showed increased perceptions of anti-White bias when confronted with evidence of racial progress. Implications for policies designed to remedy social inequality are discussed.

Creencias legitimadoras y deslegitimadoras difundidas por la prensa española sobre el asesinato político / Legitimizing and de-legitimizing beliefs disseminated by the Spanish press about political assassination

Este estudio busca identificar creencias legitimadoras y deslegitimadoras difundidas por la prensa española con el propósito de minimizar o maximizar el impacto emocional que genera el asesinato político. Para ello, los esfuerzos estratégicos se orientan a fortalecer la identificación grupal con el perpetrador o con la víctima según los intereses y afinidades políticas. En este trabajo se realizó un estudio descriptivo unidimensional y multidimensional con 375 noticias difundidas por tres periódicos españoles de circulación regional (País Vasco). Se encontró que el diario Egin recurre principalmente al uso de creencias deslegitimadoras que despersonalizan a la víctima, mientras que los diarios Deia y El Correo Español / El Pueblo Vasco recurren a la deslegitimación del perpetrador de la acción y personalización de la víctima.

This study seeks to identify legitimizing and de-legitimizing beliefs disseminated by the spanish press in order to minimize or maximize the emotional impact generated by political assasination. This is achieved by means of strategic efforts aimed at strengthening group identification with the perpetrator or the victim, according to interests and political affinities. This one-dimensional and multidimensional descriptive study was conducted with 375 news pieces presented by three regional Spanish press (País Vasco). Results suggest that the Egin newspaper draws mainly from the use of de-legitimizing beliefs that depersonalize the victim, while the Deia newspaper and El Correo Español / El Pueblo Vasco newspaper discrediting of the perpetrator of the action and personalization of the victim.