The present research links a nonsocial, contextual influence (construal level) to the tendency to endorse genetic attributions for individual and social group differences. Studies 1 to 3 show that people thinking in an abstract (vs. concrete) mind-set score higher on a measure of genetic attributions for individual and racial group differences. Study 4 showed that abstract (vs. concrete) construal also increased genetic attributions for novel groups. Study 5 explored the potential downstream consequences of construal on intergroup attitudes, and found that abstract (vs. concrete) construal led people to endorse genetic attributions in general and this was associated with increased anti-Black prejudice.
BastianB.HaslamN. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 228-235.
2.
BrescollV. E.LaFranceM. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515-520.
3.
BrescollV. E.UhlmannE. L.NewmanG. E. (2013). The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 891-908.
4.
BrighamJ. C. (1993). College students’ racial attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1933-1967.
5.
BurgoonE. M.HendersonM. D.MarkmanA. B. (2013). There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: A tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 501-520.
6.
CimpianA.SalomonE. (2014). The inherence heuristic: An intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 461-480.
7.
ConditC. M.ParrottR. L.HarrisT. M.LynchJ.DubriwnyT. (2004). The role of “genetics” in popular understandings of race in the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 249-272.
Dar-NimrodI.HeineS. J. (2011). Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 800-818.
10.
DubowS. (1995). Scientific racism in modern South Africa. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
12.
FiskeS. T.StevensL. E. (1993). What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In OskampS.CostanzoM. (Eds.), Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology: Vol. 6. Gender issues in contemporary society (pp. 173-196). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
13.
FreitasA. L.GollwitzerP. M.TropeY. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others’ self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 739-752.
14.
FujitaK.TropeY.LibermanN.Levin-SagiM. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 351-367.
15.
GelmanS. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535-549.
17.
GouldS. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
18.
HarariY. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
19.
HaslamN.RothschildL.ErnstD. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113-127.
20.
HaslamN.RothschildL.ErnstD. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice?British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87-100.
21.
HaslamN.WhelanJ. (2008). Human natures: Psychological essentialism in thinking about differences between people. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 1297-1312.
22.
HegartyP.GoldenA. M. (2008). Attributional beliefs about the controllability of stigmatized traits: Antecedents or justifications of prejudice?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1023-1044.
23.
HendersonM. D. (2009). Psychological distance and group judgments: The effect of physical distance on beliefs about common goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1330-1341.
24.
JostJ. T.HamiltonD. L. (2005). Stereotypes in our culture. In DovidioJ.GlickP.RudmanL. (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice (pp. 208-224). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
25.
KellerJ. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686-702.
26.
KvaaleE. P.GottdienerW. H.HaslamN. (2013). Biogenetic explanations and stigma: A meta-analytic review of associations among laypeople. Social Science & Medicine, 96, 95-103.
27.
LanieA. D.JayaratneT. E.SheldonJ. P.KardiaS. L. R.AndersonE. S.FeldbaumM.PettyE. M. (2004). Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. Journal of Genetic Counseling, 13, 305-320.
28.
LuguriJ. B.NapierJ. L. (2013). Of two minds: The interactive effect of construal and identity on political polarization. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 972-977.
29.
LuguriJ. B.NapierJ. L.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Reconstruing intolerance: Abstract thinking reduces conservatives’ prejudice against nonnormative groups. Psychological Science, 23, 756-763.
30.
MaasA. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 79-121.
31.
MartellR. F.LaneD. M.EmrichC. E. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157-158.
32.
MartinC. L.ParkerS. (1995). Folk theories about sex and race differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 45-57.
33.
McCreaS. M.WieberF.MyersA. L. (2012). Construal level mind-sets moderate self- and social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 51-68.
34.
MilkmanK. L.AkinolaM.ChughD. (2012). Temporal distance and discrimination: An audit study in academia. Psychological Science, 23, 710-717.
35.
MortonT. A.PostmesT. (2009). When differences become essential: Minority essentialism in response to majority treatment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 656-668.
36.
MortonT. A.PostmesT.HaslamS. A.HornseyM. J. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653-664.
37.
NapierJ. L.LuguriJ. B. (2013). Moral mind-sets: Abstract thinking increases a preference for “individualizing” over “binding” moral foundations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 754-759.
38.
NapierJ. L.LuguriJ. B. (2016). From silos to synergies. In ValdesoloP.GrahamJ. (Eds.), Social psychology of political polarization (pp. 153-172). New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
NewmanG. E.De FreitasJ.KnobeJ. (2015). Beliefs about the true self explain asymmetries based on moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 39, 96-125.
40.
NewmanG. E.KeilF. C. (2008). Where is the essence? Developmental shifts in children’s beliefs about internal features. Child Development, 79, 1344-1356.
41.
NoS.HongY.LiaoH.LeeK.WoodD.ChaoM. M. (2008). Lay theory of race affects and moderates Asian Americans’ responses toward American culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 991-1004.
42.
NorenzayanA.HeineS. J. (2005). Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know?Psychological Bulletin, 131, 763-784.
43.
NussbaumS.LibermanN.TropeY. (2006). Predicting the near and distant future. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 152-161.
44.
OreyB. D. A. (2004). White racial attitudes and support for the Mississippi state flag. American Politics Research, 32, 102-116.
45.
PrenticeD. A.MillerD. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160-164.
46.
PrenticeD. A.MillerD. T. (2006). Essentializing differences between women and men. Psychological Science, 17, 129-135.
47.
PrenticeD. A.MillerD. T. (2007). Psychological essentialism of human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 202-206.
48.
RangelU.KellerJ. (2011). Essentialism goes social: Belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1056-1078.
49.
RatliffK. A.NosekB. A. (2010). Creating distinct implicit and explicit attitudes with an illusory correlation paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 721-728.
50.
RimS.HansenJ.TropeY. (2013). What happens why? Psychological distance and focusing on causes versus consequences of events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 457-472.
51.
RoetsA.van HielA. (2011). The role of need for closure in essentialist entitativity beliefs and prejudice: An epistemic needs approach to racial categorization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 52-73.
52.
ShostakS.FreeseJ.LinkB. G.PhelanJ. C. (2009). The politics of the gene: Social status and beliefs about genetics for individual outcomes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 77-93.
53.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845-851.
54.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440-463.
55.
VallacherR. R.WegnerD. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660-671.
56.
WilliamsM. J.EberhardtJ. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1033-1047.
57.
YangD. Y. J.PrestonJ. L.HernandezI. (2013). Polarized attitudes toward the Ground Zero mosque are reduced by high-level construal. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 244-250.
58.
YzerbytV.CorneilleO.EstradaC. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 141-155.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
