Prejudice against sexual and gender minorities (e.g., LGBT people) is quite prevalent and is harmful. We examined an existing-and often-used-contact intervention in pre-existing groups in an... Show morePrejudice against sexual and gender minorities (e.g., LGBT people) is quite prevalent and is harmful. We examined an existing-and often-used-contact intervention in pre-existing groups in an educational setting and assessed its effectiveness in reducing different forms of LGBT negativity. We focused particularly on modern LGBT negativity: a relatively subtle form of prejudice, involving ambivalence, denial, and/or the belief that there is too much attention for LGBT prejudice. We used a mixed design in which condition (experimental vs. control group) was the between-participants factor, which was randomized at the group level, and time (pretest vs. posttest vs. follow-up) was the within-participants factor (N = 117). Interventions were video recorded and the behavior of LGBT educators and participants was coded. Participants responded positively to the intervention, especially to the LGBT educator's "coming-out story." Exploratory analysis of the video data indicated that the perceived effectiveness of the intervention was higher in groups where participants were more engaged, although caution is necessary in interpreting this finding. The most important measure indicated that modern LGBT negativity decreased in the intervention groups directly after the intervention, but returned to baseline levels one week later. However, in the control condition, modern LGBT negativity had increased over time. Taken together, this suggests that an actual reduction in modern LGBT negativity was short-lived (i.e., the intervention effect disappeared within 7 days). Show less
O'Donnell, M.; Nelson, L.D.; Ackermann, E.; Aczel, B.; Akhtar, A.; Aldrovandi, S.; ... ; Zrubka, M. 2018
Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (“professor”) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than... Show moreDijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (“professor”) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (“soccer hooligans”). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%–3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and −0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the “professor” category and those primed with the “hooligan” category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender. Show less
Cramwinckel, F.M.; Scheepers, D.T.; Toorn, J. van der 2018
Given its prevalence and impact, it is important that prejudice against sexual‐and gender identity minorities is reduced and that negative behaviors against these minorities are prevented. We... Show moreGiven its prevalence and impact, it is important that prejudice against sexual‐and gender identity minorities is reduced and that negative behaviors against these minorities are prevented. We introduce and provide a definition of the term Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Prejudice (SOGIP), and discuss its determinants and configurations as well as ways to measure it. Furthermore, we review the recent social psychological literature on SOGIP‐reducing interventions, identify scientific knowledge gaps regarding these interventions, and offer recommendations on how to apply the available knowledge to real‐life situations. We conclude that there are many interventions currently being employed to target SOGIP with some seeming more effective than others. Particularly promising interventions are those aimed at evoking empathy and perspective taking and those aimed at developing alliances between minority and majority members. However, there is still room for improvement. Overall, little empirical evidence speaks to the robustness of intervention effects, its underlying mechanisms, duration, and boundary conditions. Researchers should focus on all aspects of SOGIP (i.e., sexual orientation prejudice as well as gender identity prejudice); different expressions of prejudice (i.e., blatant and subtle), actual behavior towards minorities, and on both perpetrators and targets of prejudice. By joining forces, researchers and practitioners should aim to overcome practical and theoretical obstacles in evaluating the effectiveness of interventions. Policy makers should support initiatives that test, improve, implement and distribute intervention programs, and can help bring together researchers and practitioners. Show less
Cramwinckel, F.M.; Bos, K. van den; Dijk, E. van; Schut, M. 2016
How do people evaluate potentially good and desirable behavior by others? We investigate how participants (N = 154) evaluate a couple that wants to adopt an orphan that would otherwise die. We... Show moreHow do people evaluate potentially good and desirable behavior by others? We investigate how participants (N = 154) evaluate a couple that wants to adopt an orphan that would otherwise die. We collected data from heterosexual Christians in two cities in the Dutch Bible belt. We manipulated whether the adoptive-parents-to-be were a heterosexual couple or a lesbian couple and whether the couple self-identified as devout Christians or not. Using a subjective group dynamics account, we predicted and found that participants evaluated the lesbian couple in more negative terms than the heterosexual couple, especially when this couple was also Christian. These findings illustrate how positive behavior is derogated when displayed by in-group deviants. Show less
Cramwinckel, F.M.; Van den Bos, K.; Dijk, E. van 2015
