Constructions of difference in lay talk about diversity: Ideological dilemmas, antiracism and implications for identity.

Dilemmas around differences among people may encapsulate ideological assumptions deep-rooted in modernity, according to work on ideological dilemmas. In this article, we suggest that ideological struggles such as the one between racism and antiracism may further ingrain ideological dilemmas around difference and put certain identities at stake. In a qualitative study addressing constructions of difference in lay talk about diversity, lay people in Greece argued about the meaningfulness, value, and public character of difference, deploying two lines of argumentation: an 'objectivist' line affirming categorical differences and hierarchies; and a 'subjectivist' argumentative line which deprived categorical differences of any importance and simultaneously celebrated differences assuming that differences only lie in individuals' minds. For this latter line of argumentation, constructions of difference appeared to perform a non-racist identity, making systematic comparisons to racists' alleged constructions of differences. Such comparisons were far less important for the objectivist argumentative line. These findings suggest that constructions of difference may be nested in ideological struggles, selectively reflecting the categorizations of the social world - and associated identities - advanced by ideological projects such as antiracism. The discussion points to theoretical implications for historical accounts of social categorization and social implications for current inclusive perspectives centred on diversity.

Occupational status differences in attributions of uniquely human emotions.

Infrahumanization theory has claimed that groups tend to infrahumanize, and thus denigrate, each other irrespective of group status. However, research on infrahumanization has mainly addressed status in the context of national, ethnic, and regional divisions. The present studies tested the effect of group status in infrahumanization by employing occupational groups of varied status, both in abstract (blue-collar vs. white-collar workers) and specific terms (lawyers vs. shopkeepers, and high school teachers vs. university faculty members and primary school teachers). The results showed that only relatively higher status groups always attributed uniquely human emotions more to their in-group than to lower status out-groups. In contrast, lower status groups showed no bias in attributions of uniquely human emotions, or were biased in favour of the higher status out-group. The discussion of these results points to the role of consensus in the distribution of social value amongst groups of asymmetric status.

Nations' income inequality predicts ambivalence in stereotype content: how societies mind the gap.

Income inequality undermines societies: The more inequality, the more health problems, social tensions, and the lower social mobility, trust, life expectancy. Given people's tendency to legitimate existing social arrangements, the stereotype content model (SCM) argues that ambivalence-perceiving many groups as either warm or competent, but not both-may help maintain socio-economic disparities. The association between stereotype ambivalence and income inequality in 37 cross-national samples from Europe, the Americas, Oceania, Asia, and Africa investigates how groups' overall warmth-competence, status-competence, and competition-warmth correlations vary across societies, and whether these variations associate with income inequality (Gini index). More unequal societies report more ambivalent stereotypes, whereas more equal ones dislike competitive groups and do not necessarily respect them as competent. Unequal societies may need ambivalence for system stability: Income inequality compensates groups with partially positive social images.