1. CLASS 16 MOTIVES EMOTIONS AND INTERGROUP RELATIONS

2. Religion, the Forbidden, and Sublimation Cohen, Kim, & Hudson, 2014

3. Sublimation “Favors” Protestants Protestants, more than Catholics and Jews Regard taboo thoughts (not just deeds) as sinful Place moral weight on thoughts and feelings, rather than actions Judge people who think taboo thoughts to be sinful Believe bad thought  bad deeds Protestants more likely to suppress “bad” thoughts Salvation Through Action, and Only Through Action Salvation from sin through work Religion does not provide ritualized means for confession

4. SUBLIMATION: Past and Present Freud: Creativity allows forbidden to be expressed in disguised form. Moderns: Suppressed ideation merges with “System 1” pool, engages with other material, leads to creative output. Incubation in creativity: Mind works on unresolved issues unconsciously, as background process. Hey: Unresolved issues reminds us of what Lewinian construct? Zeigarnik Effect

5. Experiment Design Subjects : Protestants, Catholics, Jews – all males, who have sisters Procedure : Ss view photos, as if from family album Ss write brief caption, as if from personal past Boy in picture = self; girl in picture = Sister OR Girlfriend Photos of girl:moderately plain vs. swimsuit model Outcome Measures : Career choices; creative tasks (clay, poetry) SisterGirlfriend PlainNo threat SexyThreatNo threat

6. Results Threatened Protestants: 1. Rated creative jobs (architect, designer, author) more desirable 2. Created more creative sculptures 3. Created more creative poetry Basic pattern replicates for taboo thoughts related to hostility

7. “Chicago style” “The life” Sculptures: “Threatened” Protestants more creative than Catholics, Jews

8. Stereotype Threat Aronson & McGlone, 2009

9. Stereotype Threat Defined Psychological discomfort people experience when: a. Harsh stereotypes applied to their group (e.g., ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation) b. Stereotypes relate to task that person is attempted to master (e.g. math test, writing) c. Stereotypes made salient in context of task Stereotype Threats can be self-fulfilling a. Threat can disrupt performance, thus confirming stereotype b. Threat can make performance domain aversive, leading to dis-identification

10. Demonstrations of Stereotype Threat Steele & Aronson, 1995 Prediction: Stereotype loses potency if task is not stereotype-diagnostic Method: Black and White undergrads complete GRE-level verbal items [Stereotype: Blacks less verbally competent] Diagnostic condition: Test is IQ type test, truly diagnostic about verbal skills Non-diagnostic cond: Test is not diagnostic, unrelated to intelligence DiagnosticNon-Diagnostic WhiteNo threat BlackThreatNo threat

11. Performance as a Function of Subject Race and Test Diagnosticity Result is # items correctly solved

12. Demonstrations of Stereotype Threat Steele & Aronson, 1995 Prediction: Stereotype loses potency if task is not stereotype-diagnostic Method: Black and White undergrads complete GRE-level verbal items [Stereotype: Blacks less verbally competent] No threat prime: Subjects NOT asked to report their ethnicity before test Threat prime: Subjects Are asked to report their ethnicity before test No-Threat PrimeThreat Prime WhiteNo threat BlackNo threatThreat

13. Performance as a Function of Subject Race and Threat Prime Result is # items correctly solved

14. Stereotype Threat Applies to ANY Group Subject to Hostile Stereotypes Women in math and science Latinos Native Americans Low-income Whites Elderly (memory tasks)

15. Stereotype Threat of Being a Strereotyper: Whites’ Feedback to Minorities (Harber, 1998)

16. Individual Differences in Stereotype Threat Vulnerability Blacks who have high expectations of racial prejudice Internal LOC (as possible mediator). Why would this be?

17. Mediating Mechanisms in Stereotype Threat Vulnerability Anxiety: Self-reports– nada Psychophysio (Blood-Pressure)—Blacks in threat condition show heightened arousal Women under threat do BETTER, but only during EASY test. Why? Yerkes Dotson function: Performance increases for moderate arousal Expectations: Little to no evidence of this Effort: Little to no evidence to support reduced effort Priming effects: S-T may have some priming effects, but largely limited to Stereotype targets.

18. Terror Management Theory and Prejudice Greenberg et al., 2009

19. Human’s Existential Dilemma Humans are like other animals a. Mortalb. Compelled to flee from mortal danger Humans are unlike other animals a. Aware of mortalityb. Aware cannot flee mortal danger of mortality Animal compulsion to flee + awareness of inescapable mortality  Existential Terror

20. Terror Management Theory (TMT) To cope with mortality angst, humans seek death transcendence World view, supplied by culture, provides routes to death transcendence

21. People Who Challenge World Views Represent Existential Threats When mortality is made salient (MS), people need to hold on to beliefs Those who challenge beliefs undermine our existential shelter Those who challenge beliefs are therefore attacked, but mainly when mortality is salient

22. Terror Management Research Design Mortality Salience (MS) induction Write about what will happen to you as you physically die. Write about the emotions aroused in you by the thought of your own death. Control Condition Write about going to the dentist for painful dental work. Write about the emotions aroused in you by the thought of this dental exam. Outcome Measure Attitudes toward group that challenges own world-view, or other means of death transcendence (e.g., career).

23. Mortality Salience (MS) Induces Hostility Towards: Other religions: Jews, Moslems Those who evoke reminders of animal nature: Women (for men), elderly (for young) Other nationalities: Germans (for Italians), Americans (for Iranians), Middle Easterners (for USA) Own in-groups: For those whose ancestry deviates for majority-culture MS also induces attraction towards: Leaders, others who: a. Support world view b. Provide definite, clear, uncomplicated world view

24. Moderators of, Challenges to, TMT Individual Differences in susceptibility to MS 1. Intolerance for ambiguity / need for certainty 2. Depression 3. Low Self Esteem 4. Poorly attached Challenge to TMT 1. Mortality threat or self-esteem threat? 2. Loss of life or loss of self? Remedies to MS 1. Relativistic world view 2. Boost resources (YES!): Self-esteem, self worth, attachment