Gordon Hodson’s research while affiliated with Brock University and other places

Laboratory-grown (or "clean") meat is structurally similar to traditional meat yet comes with several environmental, health, and ethical benefits compared to regular meat. However, while some people are favorable towards clean meat, others are reluctant to engage with it. We tested whether these marked differences in clean meat acceptance are rooted in pre-test differences in fears of novel food technologies (i.e., food technology neophobia) and valuing the naturalness of food products (i.e., food naturalness importance). In three experiments (total N = 1,169), participants evaluated dishes labelled as either clean or regular meat (counter-balancing dish labels across participants). The findings (Experiments 1-3) consistently demonstrated that only omnivores higher (but not lower) in food technology neophobia evaluated clean meat dishes more negatively than regular meat dishes. We found no support for the moderating role of food naturalness importance in the evaluation of clean (vs. regular) meat dishes. Experiment 2 also included dishes labelled as plant-based meat, revealing that vegetarians and vegans evaluated clean meat dishes considerably more negatively than plant-based dishes, an effect exacerbated among those higher in food technology neophobia. Finally, Experiment 3 demonstrated that safety concerns, but not naturalness concerns, partly explained why those higher in food technology neophobia evaluated clean meat dishes as less favorable. Taken together, the findings highlight the role of general concerns about the use of new food technology as a psychological barrier to clean meat acceptance.

Echoing the 1960s, the 2020s opened with racial tensions boiling. The Black Lives Matter movement is energized, issuing pleas to listen to Black voices regarding day-to-day discrimination and expressing frustrations over the slow progress of social justice. However, psychological scientists have published only several opinion pieces on racial microaggressions, primarily objections, and strikingly little empirical data. Here I document three trends in psychology that coincide with the academic pushback against microaggressions: concept-creep concerns, especially those regarding expanded notions of harm; the expansion of right-leaning values in moral judgments (moral foundations theory); and an emphasis on prejudice symmetry, with the political left deemed equivalently biased against right-leaning targets (e.g., the rich, police) as the right is against left-leaning targets (e.g., Black people, women, LGBT+ people). Psychological scientists have ignored power dynamics and have strayed from their mission to understand and combat prejudice against disadvantaged populations, rendering researchers distracted and ill-equipped to tackle the microaggression concept. An apparent creep paradox, with calls to both reduce (e.g., harm) and expand (e.g., liberal prejudices, conservative moral foundations) concepts, poses a serious challenge to research on prejudice. I discuss the need for psychology to better capture Black experiences and to “tell it like it is” or risk becoming an irrelevant discipline of study.

Outgroup dehumanisation, the denial of full humanity to outgroups relative to ingroups, is pervasive in many contemporary societies. The aim of the present work is to review effective strategies aimed at fostering outgroup humanity attribution. After presenting the main models of humanity attribution, we differentiate two types of strategies. Outgroup-specific strategies are focused on a target outgroup, therefore their effectiveness is more dependent upon the specific intergroup relationship. These include intergroup contact, meta-humanisation, and social categorisation. Outgroup-independent strategies are not inherently linked to a target outgroup, implying that their effectiveness is less dependent on the specific intergroup dynamics under consideration. These involve human-animal similarity and secure relationship attachment. We provide evidence for the effectiveness of these strategies and their underlying processes, showcasing our research programme within the larger literature. In so doing, we take into account the distinction between blatant and subtle dehumanisation, and conclude with suggestions for future research.

Au carrefour de la race et du genre, les femmes noires peuvent connaître de multiples formes de marginalisation en tant que membres de deux groupes marginalisés. Une telle partialité au détriment des femmes noires est-elle attribuable aux différences particulières entre le racisme ou le sexisme, ou les deux sont-ils impliqués? Dans la présente étude, des étudiants non Noirs du premier cycle inscrits à une université canadienne (N = 231) ont évalué leur niveau d’approbation de stéréotypes concernant les Noires (« Mammy », « Jezebel », « Sapphire », « Ratchet ») et leur volonté à discriminer contre celles-ci (embauche, sous-location, vote). Le sexisme hostile prédisait uniquement une plus forte approbation des stéréotypes, tandis que le racisme moderne prédisait uniquement une plus grande volonté à l’égard de la discrimination. La généralisation de l’idéologie de droite (exploitant la relation partagée par l’autoritarisme de droite, l’orientation à la dominance sociale et le conservatisme politique) n’était pas uniquement reliée au critère. Sont discutées les répercussions au chapitre de l’activation ou de la suppression de la catégorie de groupe ainsi que la conception des interventions.

Most infectious diseases are zoonotic, “jumping” from animals to humans, with COVID-19 no exception. Although many zoonotic transmissions occur on industrial-scale factory farms, public discussions mainly blame wild animal (“wet”) markets or focus on reactionary solutions, posing a psychological obstacle to preventing future pandemics. In two pre-registered studies early in the 2020 pandemic, we examined whether British adults fail to recognize factory farming in causing pandemics, and whether such dismissal represents motivated cognition. Cross-sectional data (Study 1, N = 302) confirmed that people blame factory farms and global meat consumption less than wild animal trade and consumption or lack of government preparedness, especially among meat-committed persons. Experimental exposure (Study 2, N = 194) to information blaming factory farms (vs. wild animal markets) produced lower endorsement of preventive solutions than of reactionary solutions, which was exacerbated among meat-committed persons. These findings suggest that people, especially those highly committed to eating meat, willfully disregard solutions targeting animal agriculture and global meat consumption to prevent future pandemics precisely because such solutions implicate their dietary habits. Better understanding motivated beliefs about the causes of and solutions to pandemics is critical for developing interventions.

Recent theories of intergroup relations suggest that factors relevant to disease, disgust, and contagion predict prejudice towards ethnic outgroups. The current research explored the influence of contextual pathogen threat and individual differences in threat sensitivity on outgroup prejudice and avoidance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected from a sample of British adults in June 2020 (N = 524). A multi-level approach was employed to capture differences in confirmed COVID-19 cases across different regions in the UK. Results demonstrated that even in a “strong” pandemic context, individual differences in both disgust sensitivity (DS) and intergroup disgust sensitivity (ITG-DS) explained variability in outgroup distancing. Subjective perceptions of contextual pathogen prevalence, but not actual infection rates, also predicted greater outgroup avoidance. However, a significant cross-level interaction revealed that DS predicted outgroup distancing in regions with higher numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases, but not in areas of lower infection. Thus, individual differences in pathogen avoidance may be especially influential under high situational pathogen stress. There was also some evidence that pathogen threat also predicted greater ingroup attraction. Results provide important insights into factors that promote or inhibit positive intergroup relations during pandemics.

Under the superordinate umbrella of “veg*n”, vegans and vegetarians share a disavowal of meat consumption but differ regarding the use of animal products and by-products. Furthermore, within each subgroup there exist multiple motivations (or reasons) for diet choice, some with more moral overtones than others. Despite being on the same “team” relative to the meat-eating majority, there is tremendous potential for expressions of subgroup distinctiveness and tension. In an online sample of veg*ns, we asked participants to report on views of and experiences with veg*ns, including separately evaluating vegans and vegetarians for animal, environmental, health, or religious reasons (i.e., 8 groups). Overall vegan (vs. vegetarian) participants expressed more subgroup bias, with vegans consistently preferred over vegetarians. Both vegans and vegetarians preferred veg*ns with “ethical” motivations (animal or environmental), and reported negative experiences with their subgroup outgroups (i.e., vegetarians and vegans, respectively). Problematically, in terms of group cohesion, vegetarians reported elevated anxiety and vigilance in their interactions with animal vegans especially. Overall the results suggest that, despite sharing a superordinate category and goal, and despite recent calls for veg*nism to become a more inclusive and wider tent, substantial tensions exist that can disrupt group cohesion and productivity.

Until vaccines or treatments are widely available and used, behavioral change (e.g. social distancing) on an unparalleled collective scale is the chief way to curb the spread of COVID-19. Relying on ideology and collective action models as conceptual frameworks, in the present study the role of ideological and psychological factors in COVID-19-related opinions, health compliance behaviors, and collective action were examined in three countries. Results, examining country as a moderator, showed some politically conservative orientations, especially social dominance orientation, relate to less collective action, less support of measures to manage COVID-19, and lower compliance. Variables, including empathy for those affected by COVID-19 and group efficacy also predicted COVID-19-related attitudes and behavior. Belief in science and perceived risk also emerged as key factors to impact compliance-related attitudes and behaviors. Implications for motivating collective compliance are discussed.

Consistent with the intergroup contact literature, cross‐political relationships (e.g., friendships or romantic relationships between different partisans) may help reduce inter‐political group prejudice. Given that unfavorable attitudes based on the political group membership are particularly heightened at present in the United States, we explored whether having cross‐political friendships (Study 1) or romantic relationships (Study 2) predict more positive interpersonal or intergroup attitudes among American Democrats and Republicans. In Study 1, using a social network measure (N = 301), where participants reported on their closest friends, cross‐political (versus same‐political) friendship was associated with less positive interpersonal attitudes when this relationship was unsatisfying. Having any (versus no) or more (versus less) cross‐political group friendships was not associated with holding more positive intergroup attitudes. In Study 2, cross‐political romantic relationships were examined (N = 392). Having a cross‐ (versus same‐) political romantic relationship was associated with relatively less positive attitudes toward the political outgroup via lower empathy when relationship satisfaction was low. Study findings highlight the potential limitations of the beneficial effects of intergroup contact.