Muslims are consistently the target of dehumanization and hostile policies. Previous research shows that interventions that highlight the hypocrisy wherein people collectively blame entire groups for the heinous acts of individual members of outgroups but not ingroups are effective in reducing animosity towards Muslims. However, these interventions rely on aversive materials (e.g., terrorist acts), which can hinder the scalability of interventions due to individuals’ tendency to resist/avoid challenging and aversive stimuli. In three preregistered studies (combined N = 2,635), we developed and tested a nonaversive, hypocrisy-based intervention that highlights the hypocrisy involved in attributing ingroup members’ prosocial acts to the entire ingroup (i.e., Christians) but not doing the same for outgroup members (i.e., Muslims). Results indicated that this collective praise intervention reliably reduces dehumanization of Muslims, anti-Muslim policy support, and collective blame of Muslims. We argue that the intervention’s use of nonaversive stimuli allows for both practical and scalable applications.
AdelmanL.YogeeswaranK.LickelB. (2019). They’re all the same, sometimes: Prejudicial attitudes toward Muslims influence motivated judgments of entitativity and collective responsibility for an individual’s actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 80, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.10.002
3.
BadeaC.BrauerM.RubinM. (2012). The effects of winning and losing on perceived group variability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1094–1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.006
4.
Bar-TalD.HameiriB. (2020). Interventions to change well-anchored attitudes in the context of intergroup conflict. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14, Article e12534. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12534
5.
BastianB.DensonT. F.HaslamN. (2013). The roles of dehumanization and moral outrage in retributive justice. PLoS ONE, 8, Article e61842. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061842
6.
BrauerM.Er-RafiyA. (2011). Increasing perceived variability reduces prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 871–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.003
7.
BrehmJ. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
8.
BruneauE.HameiriB.Moore-BergS. L.KteilyN. (2020). Intergroup contact reduces dehumanization and meta-dehumanization: Cross-sectional, longitudinal and quasi-experimental evidence from 16 samples in 5 countries. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220949004
BruneauE.KteilyN.FalkE. (2018). Interventions highlighting hypocrisy reduce collective blame of Muslims for individual acts of violence and assuage anti-Muslim hostility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 430–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217744197
11.
BruneauE. G.KteilyN. S.UrbiolaA. (2020). A collective blame hypocrisy intervention enduringly reduces hostility towards Muslims. Nature Human Behaviour, 4, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0747-7
12.
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R.NewsomJ. T. (1995). Preference for consistency: The development of a valid measure and the discovery of surprising behavioral implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 318–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.318
DitlmannR. K.SamiiC.ZeitzoffT. (2017). Addressing violent intergroup conflict from the bottom up?Social Issues and Policy Review, 11, 38–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12027
15.
EssesV. M.MedianuS.LawsonA. S. (2013). Uncertainty, threat, and the role of the media in promoting the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 518–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12027
16.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
17.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267
18.
HalperinE.Schori-EyalN. (2020). Towards a new framework of personalized psychological interventions to improve intergroup relations and promote peace. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 14, 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12527
19.
HameiriB.NabetE.Bar-TalD.HalperinE. (2018). Paradoxical thinking as a conflict-resolution intervention: Comparison to alternative interventions and examination of psychological mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217736048
20.
HameiriB.PoratR.Bar-TalD.HalperinE. (2016). Moderating attitudes in times of violence through paradoxical thinking intervention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 113, 12105–12110. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1606182113
HaslamN.LoughnanS.KashimaY.BainP. (2008). Attributing and denying humanness to others. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 55–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280801981645
24.
HayA. C.SheppesG.GrossJ. J.GruberJ. (2015). Choosing how to feel: Emotion regulation choice in bipolar disorder. Emotion, 15, 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000024
25.
HayesA. F. (2018). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
26.
KearnsE. M.BetusA. E.LemieuxA. F. (2019). Why do some terrorist attacks receive more media attention than others?Justice Quarterly, 36, 985–1022. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1524507
27.
KteilyN.BruneauE. (2017a). Backlash: The politics and real-world consequences of minority group dehumanization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216675334
28.
KteilyN.BruneauE. (2017b). Darker demons of our nature: The need to (re)focus attention on blatant forms of dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417708230
29.
KteilyN.BruneauE.WaytzA.CotterillS. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 901–931. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000048
30.
KteilyN.HodsonG.BruneauE. (2016). They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 343–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000044
31.
LeeS. A.GibbonsJ. A.ThompsonJ. M.TimaniH. S. (2009). The Islamophobia Scale: Instrument development and initial validation. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 92–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610802711137
32.
LeippeM. R.EisenstadtD. (1994). Generalization of dissonance reduction: Decreasing prejudice through induced compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 395–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.395
Moore-BergS. L.HameiriB.FalkE.BruneauE. (2021). Reducing Islamophobia: An assessment of psychological mechanisms that underlie successful anti-Islamophobia videos. Manuscript submitted for publication.
OganC.WillnatL.PenningtonR.BashirM. (2014). The rise of anti-Muslim prejudice: Media and Islamophobia in Europe and the United States. International Communication Gazette, 76, 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048513504048
37.
PaluckE. L.CialdiniR. B. (2014). Field research methods. In ReisH.JuddC. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 81–98). Cambridge University Press.
38.
PaoliniS.McIntyreK. (2019). Bad is stronger than good for stigmatized, but not admired outgroups: Meta-analytical tests of intergroup valence asymmetry in individual-to-group generalization experiments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 23, 3–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317753504
39.
PliskinR.HalperinE.Bar-TalD.SheppesG. (2018). When ideology meets conflict-related content: Influences on emotion generation and regulation. Emotion, 18, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000317
SchildkrautD. J. (2009). The dynamics of public opinion on ethnic profiling after 9/11: Results from a survey experiment. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209338786
42.
SheppesG.LevinZ. (2013). Emotion regulation choice: Selecting between cognitive regulation strategies to control emotion. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 179. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00179
43.
ShermanD. K.KiniasZ.MajorB.KimH. S.PrenovostM. (2007). The group as a resource: Reducing biased attributions for group success and failure via group affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1100–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207303027
44.
ShulmanD.HalperinE.KesslerT.Schori-EyalN.Reifen TagarM. (2020). Exposure to analogous harmdoing increases acknowledgment of ingroup transgressions in intergroup conflicts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220908727
TajfelH.TurnerJ. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
48.
VaesJ.PaladinoM. P. (2010). The uniquely human content of stereotypes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347331
49.
WegenerD. T.PettyR. E. (1997). The flexible correction model: The role of naive theories of bias in bias correction. Advances in experimental social psychology, 29, 141–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60017-9
50.
WildeV. K.MartinK. D.GoffP. A. (2014). Dehumanization as a distinct form of prejudice. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21, 301–307. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM21.3.5
51.
WohlM. J.Cohen-ChenS.HalperinE.CaouetteJ.HayesN.HornseyM. J. (2015). Belief in the malleability of groups strengthens the tenuous link between a collective apology and intergroup forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 714–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215576721
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.
