Development of an Offline-Friend Addiction Questionnaire (O-FAQ): Are most people really social addicts?

A growing number of self-report measures aim to define interactions with social media in a pathological behavior framework, often using terminology focused on identifying those who are 'addicted' to engaging with others online. Specifically, measures of 'social media addiction' focus on motivations for online social information seeking, which could relate to motivations for offline social information seeking. However, it could be the case that these same measures could reveal a pattern of friend addiction in general. This study develops the Offline-Friend Addiction Questionnaire (O-FAQ) by re-wording items from highly cited pathological social media use scales to reflect "spending time with friends". Our methodology for validation follows the current literature precedent in the development of social media 'addiction' scales. The O-FAQ had a three-factor solution in an exploratory sample of N = 807 and these factors were stable in a 4-week retest (r = .72 to .86) and was validated against personality traits, and risk-taking behavior, in conceptually plausible directions. Using the same polythetic classification techniques as pathological social media use studies, we were able to classify 69% of our sample as addicted to spending time with their friends. The discussion of our satirical research is a critical reflection on the role of measurement and human sociality in social media research. We question the extent to which connecting with others can be considered an 'addiction' and discuss issues concerning the validation of new 'addiction' measures without relevant medical constructs. Readers should approach our measure with a level of skepticism that should be afforded to current social media addiction measures.

Meta-humanization reduces prejudice, even under high intergroup threat.

Meta-dehumanization, the perception your group has been given less than human qualities, contributes to a vicious cycle of outgroup dehumanization and hostility, such as hate crimes and support for discriminatory policies. Minimal research has investigated potential benefits of meta-humanization, or perceiving your group has been given dignified qualities. Across 7 studies (N = 1,261) in Canada and the United Kingdom, we focus on Muslim-non-Muslim relations and provide the first empirical evidence to suggest that (a) there is an indirect effect of meta-humanization through outgroup humanization that reduces prejudice and (b) that perceived high intergroup threat moderates the indirect effect of meta-humanization. Studies 1a and 1b reveal that humanization mediates the indirect effect of meta-humanization on prejudice. Studies 2a and 2b replicate these results as well as demonstrate that perceived threat moderates the indirect effect, and Study 2c extends this by testing the perspective of Muslims. Studies 3a and 3b further demonstrate an interaction between high threat and meta-humanization on prejudice and interest in intergroup contact. We conclude by discussing the implications of our results for the growing literature on meta-dehumanization, meta-humanization, and intergroup relations more broadly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Intergroup fears and concerns among minority and majority groups: Implications for contact and attitudes.

AIMS: Driven by the literature on pluralistic ignorance, our research investigates fear of appearing racist, being rejected, discriminated, and disinterest in intergroup contact as antecedents of contact and outgroup attitudes, focusing on attributional differences between the majority and minority group perspectives. METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed in schools in Northern Italy. Participants were 400 Italian and 141 immigrant high-school students. RESULTS: The results showed that the lack of interest in contact was the strongest predictor of contact for the majority group. For the minority group, fear of rejection emerged as the strongest predictor. The majority group attributed the minority to avoid contact most strongly due to the fear that they would be rejected, and the minority group perceived it was due to the majority not being interested in contact. CONCLUSION: Our research contributes to understanding the divergent concerns the majority and minority groups have in relation to intergroup contact and discusses the importance of tackling these concerns.