Despite the weight of scientific evidence presented in recent assessment reports of the IPCC, there remains some skepticism among the public that the climate is changing and whether such change is caused by human activity. We modeled climate change belief profiles using Latent Class Analysis in a New Zealand national probability sample (N = 6,072). Roughly 50% of New Zealanders believed that climate change was real and caused by humans, with 30% undecided. The majority of New Zealanders believe that climate change is real and likely caused by humans, with one in six remaining skeptical. We identified two types of climate skeptics, those who did not believe in climate change (7%), and those who believed climate change was real but not caused by humans (10%). Beliefs about the reality of climate change were more predictive than beliefs about human cause of support for carbon emissions policy and self-reported proenvironmental behavior. Our model indicates that persuading people about the reality of climate change will predict greater incremental variance in behavior and policy attitudes than persuading people of its human cause; although persuading people of both will be still more effective due to the synergistic interaction of these dual beliefs.

A prison sentence is often geared toward punishment of offenders, reduction of crime, and/or protection of the public. However, in many jurisdictions, those in prison may suffer from collateral or “invisible” consequences such as denial of their voting rights. Despite the growing global social and legal debates on prisoner disenfranchisement policy, there have been few empirical studies of this issue. We explored and compared a sample of the prisoners’ and the public's views of prisoner disenfranchisement policy in the United Kingdom. Although the public were more likely than prisoners to consider voting as important, they were less aware of prisoner disenfranchisement. A high proportion of prisoners said they would vote in prison, however, only a third had voted in the past (outside prison). Prisoners and the public held different attitudes toward prisoner disenfranchisement, and the public were more likely to view this policy as fair. Prisoners were more likely to believe that their vote could influence elections, and this best predicted their intentions to vote. These findings are further considered in relation to political party affiliation, prisoner populations, and offense types. We identify future directions for research on prisoner disenfranchisement.

In this commentary, I put forward some recommendations for a triangulating approach to the documentation of stigma marking consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships. I also suggest what information policymakers need next: answers to the interrelated questions of where it comes from and what to do about it. Given the context-specific manifestations of social stigma, policy recommendations should be driven by both an account of the origins of this stigma and a consideration of the current atmosphere of intense social change relating to sexuality in the United States.

Comment on Conley, Moors, Matsick, and Ziegler (2012). Grounded in prior research, a framework is proposed that builds upon the authors’ findings and outlines a perspective to organize future research directions. In particular, the violation of committed relationship ideology is suggested to help explain, in part, negative perceptions of consensual nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships, as well as less favorable views of singles, and other non-normative relationships. This broader conceptual view of the authors’ findings encourages both future research on CNM relationships as well as further understanding of related phenomena stemming from relationship ideology.

Amidst concern about the implications of an aging U.S. population, recent evidence suggests that there is a unique aging trend among the homeless population. Building on this, we use data from New York City and from the last three decennial Census enumerations to assess how the age composition of the homeless population—both single adults and adults in families—has changed over time. Findings show diverging trends in aging patterns for single adults and adults in families over the past 20 years. Among single adults, the bulk of the sheltered population is comprised of persons born during the latter part of the baby boom era whose high risk for homelessness has continued as they have aged. Specifically, the age group in this population facing the highest risk for homelessness was 34–36 (born 1954–1956) in 1990; 37–42 (born 1958–1963) in 2000; and 49–51 (born 1959–1961) in 2010. In contrast, among adults in sheltered families, there is no indication of any progressive aging of the family household heads. The modal age across the study period remains at 21–23 years of age. We consider implications for the health care and social welfare systems, and policy responses to homelessness.

Across the board in Conley et al.'s studies, consensually nonmonogamous couples were judged to have relationships that were less rewarding and less desirable than those enjoyed by monogamous couples. Arguably, this occurred in part because the research participants confused nonmonogamy with boredom, exploitation, and jealousy—aversive states that can accompany, but that are not necessarily a component of, consensual nonmonogamy. Despite the ingenuity of Conley et al., they may not have examined respondents’ perceptions of loving, satisfying, genuinely consensual nonmonogamy.

Public policy based on a pro-work philosophy has encouraged the employment of people with disabilities.  Using a national sample of 170 care recipient–caregiver cohabiting dyads, we investigated a model linking the care recipient's weekly work hours (0–45) to the psychological outcomes experienced by the care recipient and his or her caregiver.  For care recipients in poor health, longer work hours were associated with a lower sense of accomplishment. Further, the negative psychological outcomes experienced by the care recipient were associated with greater caregiver stress. These results suggest that public policy concerning the employment of people with disabilities should be evaluated within the context of the caregiving relationship.  Efforts to engage people with disabilities in employment should be accompanied by strategies to remove workplace stressors that negatively impact care recipients in poor health.

Conley and colleagues’ recent article identifying consensual nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships as stigmatized in American society made a significant contribution to the domain of relationships research. However, definitions and operationalizations of monogamous and consensual nonmonogamous relationships in their research left us with questions about the generalizability of the conclusions and with ambiguity about the specific policies they view as in need of modification in order to accommodate CNM relationships. While “The Fewer the Merrier” does shed some light on an understudied population, in order for significant advances to be made in understanding the public policy needs of the CNM group it is important to be specific about which groups are being discussed.

The 2008 presidential election presented a unique opportunity to examine children's attention to racial issues in politics. We conducted interviews with 6- to 11-year-old children (70 boys, 60 girls; 29 African Americans, 58 European Americans, 43 Latinos) within 3 weeks prior to and after the election. Interview questions concerned knowledge, preferences, and perceptions of others’ attitudes concerning the election, views of the implications of the election for race relations, and personal aspirations to become president. Results indicated that children were highly knowledgeable about Obama's status as the first African American president. Most children felt positively about the presence of an African American candidate for president, although a few children showed clear racial prejudice. Overall, children expected others to show racial ingroup preferences but simultaneously endorsed the optimistic view that Obama's race was a slight asset in his bid for the presidency. Older children were somewhat more likely to view Obama's race as negatively impacting his chances of being elected than younger children. African American and Latino children were more interested in becoming president than European American children; aspiration rates did not change from pre- to post-election.

An extensive body of research has documented the relation between social class, as indexed by socioeconomic status (SES) and subjective social status (SSS), and a host of outcomes, including physical and mental health, academic achievement, and educational attainment. Yet, there remains ambiguity regarding how best to conceptualize and measure social class. This article clarifies definitional and measurement issues related to the assessment of SES and SSS, addresses their importance and relevance for psychological research, and reviews best practices with regard to measurement and assessment. We conclude by discussing the integration of social class with other markers of social position to promote the advancement of psychological science.

Twenty-first century America has been characterized by a proliferation of choices about such fundamental aspects of life as marital status, parental status, and living arrangements. The option to pursue consensual nonmonogamy may be another such choice. When nonnormative ways of living first enter our cultural conversations, resistance and hostility often ensue. Not all stigmatized groups organize to pursue social change. Suggestions for more just laws and policies are offered.

This commentary on The Fewer The Merrier (TFTM) adopts a lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) lens. Although LGB people commonly construct successful consensual nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships, the focus on opposite-sex relationships obscured some aspects of U.S. society that are actively resisting the stigmatization of CNM relationships. I call attention to the historic ways that “adultery” has been legally defined in gendered terms, and argue for an analysis of social stigma that engages substantively with qualitative research about how CNM is lived among people of diverse sexualities.

Consumer discrimination occurs when sales clerks and other store employees, including security personnel, treat customers differently because of their race or ethnicity. The goal of the present research was to examine how participants perceived a case of consumer discrimination and what actions they felt the victim should take. Based on Robinson's theory of perceptual segregation, we examined whether the perceptions and responses of white participants differed from those of people of color. We also drew on the liberation psychology tenets of conscientization and de-ideologization with particular emphasis on taking the perspective of the oppressed, by measuring participants’ level of perceived societal discrimination. These two individual difference variables (participant race and perceived societal discrimination) significantly predicted participants’ perceptions of the situation and their emotional responses, which, in turn, mediated how they thought the customer should respond.

This article explores the theoretical and practical considerations of developing cooperative communities to reduce the stigma of mental disorders and achieve meaningful structural and systemic change. A cooperative community is conceptualized as an alliance of people from differing backgrounds who work together to achieve a positive social change desired by all members of the community but not necessarily for the material benefit of all. In defining the social psychological processes involved in the development of a cooperative community—comprising (1) people with mental disorders, (2) members of the broader public, and (3) health professionals—we reconcile the evidence of disparate psychological theories of stigma and prejudice reduction, intergroup relations, identity formation and social change to show that techniques drawn from each of those theories are required to create positive change and effectively address the stigma of mental disorders. We then explore practical considerations for developing cooperative communities in the mental health sector and consider future directions for health and public policy in this area.

In the context of recent debates about same-sex marriage, consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships have recently begun making their way into media discussions. In the current research, we investigated whether stigma is attached to these nonnormative romantic relationships and, conversely, whether halo effects surround monogamous relationships. In Study 1 we analyzed open-ended responses to the question “what are the benefits of monogamy?”. The most commonly mentioned benefits included the promotion of commitment and health (especially the prevention of sexually transmitted infections [STIs]). In Study 2, descriptions of CNM relationships were strongly stigmatized and a substantial halo effect surrounded monogamous relationships. Specifically, monogamous relationships were rated more positively than CNM relationships on every dimension (both relationship-relevant and arbitrary relationship-irrelevant factors) that we examined and across diverse social groups, including CNM individuals themselves. In Study 3, we conducted a person perception study in which participants provided their impressions of a monogamous or a CNM relationship. The monogamous couple was rated overwhelmingly more favorably than the CNM relationship. Finally, in Study 4, we replicated the findings with a set of traits that were generated with regard to relationships in general (rather than monogamous relationships, specifically) and with a broader set of arbitrary traits. Across all studies, the results consistently demonstrated stigma surrounding CNM and a halo effect surrounding monogamy. Implications for future research examining similarities and differences between monogamous and CNM relationships are discussed.

This provides a brief introduction to the articles and commentary that constitute the ASAP collection on “The Social Psychology of Contemporary Immigration Policy.” The collection includes four themes: challenges for law enforcement, group relations and social justice, effects of policy on individuals and communities, and media effects.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 requires law-enforcement officers to verify the citizenship of individuals they stop when they have a “reasonable suspicion” that someone may be unlawfully present in the United States. Critics of the law fear it will encourage racial profiling. Defenders of the law point out that the statute explicitly forbids most forms of racial profiling. By drawing on the lessons learned in the domain of antidiscrimination law, we discuss how social psychological research can inform this debate and illuminate challenges associated with fair enforcement of the statute. We conclude that the Arizona law, paired with a lack of comprehensive training and ineffective testing procedures for detecting discrimination, will likely result in many Latinos being illegally targeted on the basis of their race. While certain actions, such as effective training and oversight, may help mitigate discrimination, these safeguards are not likely to completely eliminate biased outcomes.

Does support for tough policies against undocumented immigration reflect anti-immigrant sentiments or a neutral concern about upholding laws? This study addresses the question by examining the relationship between different expressions of national identification and ethnocentric enforcement bias—that is, support for punishment of law-breaking immigrants but not law-breaking American employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. Results revealed an association of this enforcement bias with nationalism (an ethnocentric engagement with national identity) but not with patriotism (a more critical engagement with national identity). A moderation analysis indicated that the relationship between nationalism and ethnocentric enforcement bias was most evident among participants who endorsed a “culture”-based construction of American identity in terms of American citizenship and ability to speak English. Discussion focuses on policy developments that reflect a symbolic threat to culture-based constructions of American identity and on the implications for fair and just enforcement of immigration policy.

In this article, I argue that the psychological basis of many of the problems associated with immigration can be traced to tangible threats, cultural threats, fears of change, and the negative attitudes and misperceptions that flow from these threats and fears. Concrete suggestions are made for policies at the societal and individual levels that can counteract these problems. In addition, specific programs are suggested to improve relations between residents and immigrants. The article ends with a discussion of some of the psychological processes that underlie improvements in intergroup relations.

In this paper, I will first discuss the historical development of the Mexican migrant as “illegal.” Second, I will discuss current border control and legalization policies and their effects on the undocumented population in the United States. Finally, reflecting on the effects of previous policies, I will discuss Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's proposed “three-legged stool” and its likely effects on the undocumented population in the United States. I will argue that the current immigration system, and any future proposals that include border enforcement as the primary mechanism to stop undocumented migrants from entering the United States will likely result in the continual perpetuation of an undocumented population of Mexican migrants in the United States. This paper is informed by the ethnographic data collected from July 2009 to August 2010 in the border city of Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico. During this time at the border, I talked to migrants deported from the United States.

Immigration reform has come to the forefront of the political arena again, most recently sparked by the controversy surrounding Arizona Senate Bill (ASB) 1070. Mostly missing from these discussions is a focus on the impact upon lived human conditions that may result from such legislative reform. This article examines the literature regarding the stress and potential psychosocial trauma that may be associated with immigration and the acculturation process, with an emphasis on the effects of the ASB 1070. The article concludes by identifying relevant implications for research.

In the climate of increased anti-immigrant sentiment, deportations of immigrants from the United States are on the upsurge. This article begins with a review of current immigration laws enabling detentions and deportations of undocumented immigrants, as well as permanent legal residents with a prior criminal conviction. It then explores how immigrants and refugees interact with this national climate in Lowell, Massachusetts, a traditional immigrant city in the Northeast of the United States. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions have clearly had an impact on Lowell. Our findings indicate that fear and mistrust of local authorities is driving behavior of immigrants, who are reluctant to seek medical services or to report violence to the police, whom they suspect of collaborating with ICE.

The media plays an important role in how the American public understands controversial social and political issues, such as immigration. The purpose of this article is to examine how key features of the media, such as location (Arizona vs. National) and political ideology (Liberal vs. Conservative), affect the framing of arguments supporting and opposing the anti-immigration bill (Arizona SB 1070). A content analysis was conducted using 3 weeks of newspaper articles from two Arizona newspapers (one Conservative, one Liberal) and five national newspapers (three Conservative, two Liberal). Analyses revealed that both location and political ideology influenced the framing. Specifically, the national newspapers were more likely than Arizona newspapers to frame arguments supporting the bill in terms of threats (e.g., threats to economic and public safety) and to frame arguments against the bill in terms of civil rights issues (e.g., racial profiling). In terms of political ideology, Conservative newspapers were more likely than Liberal newspapers to frame the bill in terms of economic and public safety threats, but did not differ in mentions of civil rights issues. The implications for attitudes toward immigrants and legal ethnic minorities and for defining the boundaries of the American national identity are discussed.

Can a soap opera influence political attitudes and engagement among U.S. Latinos, particularly those perceiving a threat from immigration legislation? The extended contact hypothesis predicts that ingroup fictional characters can encourage positive affect and attitudes toward real-world groups and issues with which they are associated. We tested the impact of a Telemundo soap opera, Más Sabe El Diablo, which portrayed a Latino character's involvement with the 2010 Census. During the census-collection period and directly following the passage of Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 immigration act, we randomly assigned Latino participants in Arizona, Texas, and New Jersey to view (1) pro-census scenes or (2) control scenes featuring the character but not the census. Compared to control viewers, census viewers expressed more positive attitudes and less negative affect toward the U.S. government and more behavioral support for the census (wearing pro-census stickers and taking informational flyers). Affinity for the character was associated with stronger effects. The soap opera did not positively influence Arizona participants who were directly affected by SB 1070.

Perceptions of economic costs and benefits play an important role in determining attitudes toward immigrants and immigration. The Unified Instrumental Model of Group Conflict, and the correlational and experimental research supporting it, indicate that when immigrants are seen as competing with members of the host society for economic resources, negative attitudes toward immigrants and immigration result. Yet measures taken to reduce this perceived competition and threat can have unforeseen consequences. Recent bills intended to reduce illegal immigration in U.S. states, such as Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 and Georgia's House Bill 87, have been framed by supporters as intended to reduce the economic costs of illegal immigration. Their consequences, however, have been increased economic hardship in the form of economic boycotts and lost farm production. We suggest that recognizing the mutual dependency between immigrants and members of host societies may be a first step in reducing support for harsh measures against illegal immigration, to the benefit of all.

Undocumented immigration is a contested topic in the United States and elsewhere. Currently, it is estimated that close to 12 million people reside in the United States without legal authorization (Pew Hispanic Center, 2009). Few issues are as polemic and contentious as the issue of undocumented immigration. Although much can be said and written about this issue, I will limit my discussion of this topic to aspects of this debate that I consider to be neglected. Specifically, when people advocate for the rights of undocumented immigrants to reside in the United States in the name of social justice, whose social justice do they have in mind?

In this commentary, we discuss the articles included in ASAP's special issue on Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 and explore the means by which intergroup bias related to the support and implementation of this law may be reduced. Specifically, we briefly discuss the overall conclusions that can be drawn from the articles included in this volume and address questions that still remain regarding the potential effects of this law. Next, we explore potential strategies for reducing bias between Whites and Latinos, and we discuss the limitations Arizona's House Bill 2281 will impose on our ability to successfully improve intergroup relations in Arizona.

The articles in this collection broadly address the social psychology of immigration and explore ways to improve relationships between natives and nonnatives in the United States. In this comment, we propose the Deliberative Poll as an additional tool for the study of opinion on immigration and for improving relationships among the groups.

This collection raises concerns over whether restrictive U.S. immigration policies are necessary and just. In addition to such concerns, I argue that more studies of a target perspective are needed in order to reveal undocumented immigrants’ experiences and voices. By adopting a target perspective in undocumented immigrants research, the implicit assumption of restrictive U.S. immigration policies may be questioned, and divergent ways of dealing with illegal immigration and assisting undocumented immigrants may be proposed.

Immigration became a political concern after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Since then, states are implementing legislation that targets immigrant groups. In response, researchers have begun to investigate the consequences of immigration policies in the United States. For this special issue of Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, the editors compiled a series of articles that highlight how the new political dynamics are influencing the lives of immigrants, often in reaction to Arizona SB 1070. This commentary summarizes the key topics discussed in the series of articles and provides suggestions for new research. It is proposed that prejudice towards immigrants is now “allowed” by the new social norms and that such prejudice produces new questions rarely addressed in the literature. The realities that some immigrants bring to the country (like reduced homicide rates) contrast the political rhetoric, and those distinctions provide great opportunities for research. In addition, the change brought about by large immigrant populations can influence self-perceptions of what many Americans consider the national identity, which is also rarely studied. This special issue provides a great step in this research endeavor, and it is proposed that there are multiple possible paths to productive research regarding prejudice towards immigrants.

Relatively little public opinion research has explored beliefs about consumption. This lack of research is surprising given the increasing attention paid by many commentators to the relationship between consumption and ecological sustainability. Reporting on data collected from a series of five statewide surveys of Oregonians conducted between 2008 and 2009, we find that a strong majority (74–88%) of the Oregon public supports reducing consumption and believes doing so would improve societal and individual well-being. These findings appear to challenge conventional wisdom about our collective and never-ending need for consumption of material goods. Our results reveal broad agreement on the consumption issue across traditional ideological divides. We also conducted in-depth qualitative interviews, which allowed us to explore what “consumption” means to Oregonians and why people think our country would be better off if we reduced consumption. Our findings suggest that populist attitudes toward reducing consumption may fill a role that policymakers avoid for a variety of reasons. We discuss the relevance of consumption beliefs to public policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as well as directions for future research.

The failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Summit to produce a greenhouse gas emissions accord highlights the fact that consensus and expertise regarding the physical science of climate change exceeds the political science of changing human factors. We examined whether national differences in economic factors shape the extent to which perceptions of global warming are linked to self-reported intentions to make self-sacrifices to help protect the environment (N = 6,651 university students) in developing and developed nations (N = 34 nations). Perceptions of the importance of global warming predicted self-reported willingness to make sacrifices to help protect the environment, and this association was more pronounced in nations with a higher Human Development Index (HDI). There may be hope for the future, to the extent that young people in developed countries are prepared to match their convictions and intentions to sacrifice for the environment with action.

Markowitz and Bowerman's (2011) observation that a large majority of Oregon citizens support reduced consumption is heartening, and is a good basis for their suggestion that public policy be directed at the issue of consumption. However, evidence of weak correlations between self-reported intentions and observed behaviors indicates that reducing actual consumption will be effortful, despite favorable attitudes. Two particular barriers to the transition from attitude to action, habits, and psychological needs are discussed, and it is suggested that evidence of association between well-being and reduced consumption could provide more specific direction for public actions.

In a sample of university students from 34 countries, Liu and Sibley (2011) observed that the association between concern about climate change and willingness to pay for protection of the natural environment was moderated by countries’ human development index (HDI). Two concerns with this research are outlined, the use of a single, biased question to measure environmental action intentions and the authors’ framing of the results using a disconfirmed version of Maslow's hierarchy of needs model. When considered outside the framework of Maslow's hierarchy, HDI seems to influence concern about climate change but not willingness to pay for environmental protection.

Markowitz and Bowerman (2011) show that Oregonians overwhelmingly support the goal of consuming less. They argue that consumer-oriented public policies could provide a big tent approach for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On the basis of sociological research examining the link between attitudes and action, I argue that the authors are not yet in a position to advocate for policies on the basis of respondents desire to “consume less.” Nevertheless, more research into this issue is clearly warranted. If the authors are correct that consumption provides a means for overcoming ideological divides about greenhouse gas emissions, the potential environmental benefits would be significant.

The articles by Markowitz and Bowerman (2011) and by Liu and Sibley (2011) highlight the importance of individual behavior and attitudes in addressing climate change, and suggest reasons for optimism about the possibility of individual change. In this comment, I reflect on the role of identity in both studies. Appeals based on personal and group identities have an important role in behavior change.

We comment on Liu and Sibley's examination of cross-national differences in the relationship between perceptions of global warming and intentions to make personal sacrifices for the environment. First, although self-sacrifice is not necessary for pro-environmental action, the authors’ outcome measure conflates intentions to act and self-sacrifice. In addition to being problematic at the individual level, this framing may result in cross-national differences in meaning. Second, for developed nations, the authors seem to downplay the importance of external factors that can affect behavior. We expand by discussing barriers to action that cannot be surmounted by individuals’ intentions alone.

In our target article (Markowitz & Bowerman 2011), we reported findings from a series of surveys suggesting that a large majority of Americans possess positive attitudes towards reducing consumption, with implications for individual and policy actions. Commentators Katherine Arbuthnott, Keith Brown, and Susan Clayton draw attention to both strengths and weaknesses in our target manuscript and raise important points about the role of consumption-related attitudes and norms in shaping behavior and policy. As readers following this prior discussion are aware, our initial research centered around a consistent finding regarding Oregonians’ attitudes towards consumption: across a series of state-wide surveys and in-depth interviews, we found that the vast majority of Oregonians agreed that “Our country would be better off if we all consumed less.” At the same time, we found decidedly mixed support regarding the translation of such “de-consumption” beliefs into actual behavior and policy preferences. All three of the commentators appear to share our own guarded optimism regarding the potential implications of these findings for confronting issues related to over-consumption (e.g., climate change). We are largely in agreement with the various points and critiques each raises and herein aim to offer an actionable response.

Two sets of concerns were expressed in commentary about Liu & Sibley's (2012) article on self-sacrifice in the face of global warming. Statistical issues can be addressed with a better understanding of Multilevel Random Coefficient Models. We hold that in accord with the theory of planned behavior, it is more likely that beliefs about the importance of global warming predict intentions for willingness to make sacrifices rather than the reverse, and that given this presumed causal direction, the strength of this effect is moderated by cross-national differences on the human development index. Conceptually, we agree that measuring pro-environmental action in accord with self-interest and/or requiring greater effort but not self-sacrifice would provide a more complete picture.

This investigation examined whether trait variables (empathy, global social responsibility) and perceived human responsibility predict and interact to predict people's helping of natural-disaster victims. In Study 1, participants completed a questionnaire and read one of two bogus earthquake reports which portrayed victims as either prepared or unprepared for a foreseeable earthquake. In Study 2, participants completed a questionnaire about the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Across studies, helping was best elicited from high-empathy individuals who attributed responsibility for disasters to human actions (e.g., government), not natural phenomena (e.g., hurricane). Trait variables correlated with helping when assessed individually, but accounted for little unique variance in helping in multiple regression analyses. Judgment of human responsibility predicted helping when participants were familiar with the target disaster (Study 2) but did not predict helping when the disaster was unfamiliar (Study 1). Theoretical implications for researchers and practical implications for aid agencies are discussed.

Some social science research pays more attention to affective than cognitive empathy and much of the practitioner literature advises fundraisers to privilege emotion over reason when appealing to donors. “Who Helps Natural-Disaster Victims” (Marjanovic, Struthers, & Greenglass, 2011. Who helps natural-disaster victims? Assessment of trait and situational predictors. Analyses of Social and Public Policy, on-line access.) challenges the assumption that emotions are most important and finds that cognitive empathy or perspective taking is more important than affective empathy in predicting actual helping behaviors after natural disasters. This comment argues that cognitive empathy is important because it helps potential donors avoid blaming the victim in human-caused disasters. It suggests that nonprofits can use cognitive empathy to construct fundraising appeals using arguments based on reason and justice, which may be more effective with educated donors than emotion-based appeals.

Natural disasters have devastating consequences, creating the need for local and international help. This commentary is a response to “Who Helps Natural Disaster Victims” (Marjanovic, Struthers, and Greenglass, 2011) and provides further evidence to better understand how intergroup attitudes may affect decisions to help victims of natural disasters. We argue that potential helpers’ attitudes toward the victims may impact their perceptions of the helping situation and the decision to provide help. Hurricane Katrina and the earthquake in Haiti are used as examples of natural disasters where intergroup attitudes may have influenced the helping response. Examining intergroup perceptions in helping situations is imperative to alleviating the immediate and long term needs of those affected by natural disasters.

Comment on Marjanovic, Struthers, and Greenglass (2012). We build on the authors’ ideas, data, and interpretations to suggest future avenues for research, focusing on situations that hold potential for empathic concern to shape helping responses. Specifically, we suggest investigating the time course of reactions to natural disasters and the group membership of the victims as moderators. Additionally, we suggest that considering different forms of helping responses and their predictors can shed theoretical light on variables that promote helping following natural disasters.

Intentional harms are perceived as more painful and more deserving of compensation than unintentional harms. In conjunction with research demonstrating that people are poor judges of intent, this observation may explain why people are more willing to help victims whose suffering appears to be caused by others. This account further explains the authors’ finding that people high in cognitive empathy are especially sensitive to other-caused harm, and aligns well with existing attributional accounts of why perceived victim responsibility reduces helping behavior. Finally, this account suggests a number of novel predictions about the determinants of donor behavior.

A contribution of Marjanovic and colleagues’ work (2011) is its investigation of helping in the context of natural disasters—a distinctive context in which to study judgments of responsibility and helping. Unlike many other contexts, it is atypical to regard victims of natural disasters as the ultimate cause of their own plight. Furthermore, when thinking about responsibility for a disaster's fallout, people may be likely to focus on groups rather than individuals. In other words, when making judgments of responsibility for natural disasters, people's judgments are likely shaped by what they are assigning blame for (i.e., onset or offset responsibility) and what kind of targets are to blame (individuals or collectives). This commentary discusses how these contextual features may impact attributional reasoning.

In this article we address the three general themes that emerged from the commentary articles regarding our target article. These were: (1) victim culpability; (2) the nature of the empathy-helping relation, and; (3) victim characteristics that influence helping rates. For each topic, we review overarching concerns made in the commentaries, any ideas that these authors proposed, and our response or perspective on each topic. As the commentaries were rich in content and broad in scope, we could not address each and every concern individually. This article addresses only what we considered to be the big-picture issues.

Four national polls of Muslim Americans conducted between 2001 and 2007 were reviewed to find items tapping possible sources of sympathy and justification for jihadist violence: anti-Muslim discrimination, radical Islam, and economic and political grievance. These items were correlated with items representing three elements of the global-jihad frame: seeing the war on terrorism as a war on Islam or “insincere,” justifying suicide attacks in defense of Islam, and favorable views of Al Qaeda. The three elements of the global-jihad frame were no more than weakly related to one another and had different predictors. Discussion suggests that the U.S. “war of ideas” may need to target separately the different elements of the global-jihad frame.

McCauley's research adds to what we know about sympathy for elements of the “global jihad frame” among the wider U.S. Muslim population and establishes the need for a targeted and differentiated approach to persuasive communication aimed at undermining sympathy for terrorism. This commentary aims to supplement McCauley's paper with a brief discussion of the distinction between radical thought and action, and what this means for the “war on ideas.”

McCauley (this issue) develops an analysis of the predictors of sympathetic, incipient support for terrorism. While we endorse the conceptual focus on terrorism as a process, our concern is that the data reported by McCauley do not address predictors of sympathy for terrorism. Rather, aspects of that contribution conflate opposition to the War on Terror with incipient support for terrorism. This is intensely problematic not least because the data reported actually suggest that opposition to the War on Terror and sympathy for terrorism are distinct.

McCauley (this issue) has presented a thought-provoking analysis of recent surveys of Muslim Americans as a means of testing the effectiveness of theories of Islamic radicalization. In this commentary we argue that by taking Muslim Americans’ perspective, researchers and policy makers can gain insight into the phenomenon of radicalization while avoiding contributing to the stigmatization of Muslims. We also offer words of caution concerning “the ‘war of ideas’ against terrorism” and the potential for heavy handed persuasion campaigns to backfire when perceived by targets as disrespectful or threatening to their human dignity or sacred values.

This article describes an integration of the stereotype content model with social identity theory in which we theorize links between the legitimacy and stability of status relations between groups on the one hand, and stereotypes of warmth and competence on the other hand. Warmth stereotypes associate with the perceived morality of inequalities, so we reason that high and low status groups are more differentiated in warmth in illegitimate status systems. Also, stereotypes of competence explain status differences so that differences in stereotypical competence may be more pronounced when status is stable rather than unstable. Across two experiments, high and low status groups were more sharply differentiated in warmth in illegitimate than legitimate status systems, as predicted. The effect of stability on competence was less clear, as groups were clearly differentiated in competence in all status systems. Implications for the roles of warmth and competence stereotypes in social change are discussed.

This study assessed the role of expert testimony and just world beliefs (JWB) in decisions made in a sexually violent predator (SVP) trial. Three participant samples (student, juror, and community; total N = 534) completed items measuring JWB and watched a 1-hour videotaped trial simulation that featured a psychologist offering different types of expert testimony in a SVP hearing. After the opening statements and at the end of the trial presentation, participants made commitment decisions and rated their confidence in their decision. They also rated the expert testimony on influence, credibility, scientificness, and confidence. Results indicated that favorable attitudes toward the expert mediated the relationship between JWB and commitment decisions. This relationship did not differ depending on type of expert testimony (clinical vs. actuarial) proffered. The legal and policy implications of the findings are discussed.

Despite an abundance of evidence to the contrary, a substantial number of Americans believed that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States, even almost two years into his administration (CNN, 2010, July). Both anecdotal and polling evidence at the time suggested that Republicans and political conservatives were more likely to hold these inaccurate beliefs. This study demonstrated that across a variety of operationalizations of political orientation, both explicit and implicit beliefs that President Obama was foreign were related to political conservatism. Potential sources of these beliefs are considered.

The present research examines the implications of psychological essentialism for attitudes toward same-sex marriage (SSM), a hotly contested policy issue. Based on the literature on psychological essentialism, we tested the novel proposition that negative SSM attitudes are the result of essentialist thinking about the institution of marriage itself, the idea that marriage is universal, unique as a human union, invariant, and not the result of human agency. Two studies (n = 351 and n = 117) confirm these predictions, but also demonstrate the essentialist conceptions of marriage are more potent predictors of SSM attitudes than essentialist conceptions of homosexuality. Additional analyses indicated that essentialist conceptions of homosexuality and marriage did mediate the effects of religiosity and political orientation on SSM attitudes. The discussion focuses on the implications for the ongoing policy debate.