Alexandra Lux

Alexandra Lux
Center for Social and Cultural Psychology
Tiensestraat 102 - box 3727
3000 Leuven
Belgium

contact

Short bio 

Alexandra Lux is a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Social and Cultural Psychology. She is interested in how we can change beliefs and attitudes, be it beliefs about the self, others, or other entities such as science. Most of her work revolves around stereotypes and communication. In her research, she seeks to improve our understanding of how stereotypes impact our thinking and behavior and how this impact can be reduced. Within her current role as postdoctoral researcher in the Horizon 2020 project "RE-WIRING", she examines how gender stereotypes shape educational decisions and how interventions can reduce gendered choices in education across cultural contexts. She mainly uses experimental designs and applies explicit as well as implicit measures.

Alexandra holds a PhD in Psychology from KU Leuven, a MSc in Social Psychology from the Free University of Amsterdam, and a BSc in Social Sciences (major) and Social Psychology (minor) from the University of Cologne.

LinkedIn X  ResearchGate  Re-Wiring

Research interests

  • Stereotypes
  • Stereotype change
  • Gender
  • Educational choices
  • Social norms
  • Interpersonal communication
  • Science communication

Current project(s)

De-biasing Education: Reducing Gendered Educational Choices

Postdoctoral research project with Prof. Colette van Laar, Dr. Ruth van Veelen, and Dr. Jenny Veldman

This project is part of the Horizon Europe 2020 project REWIRING (Realising girls’ and women’s inclusion, representation, and empowerment) project that aims to identify the structural root causes of gendered power hierarchies and create sustainable change to prevent and reverse existing gender inequalities. Within this project, we examine to which extent the context of education serves as a source of as well as a potential tool to tackle gender inequality. More specifically, we take a closer look at gendered educational choices. Gendered educational choices are education-related choices that are in line with gender stereotypes and gender-based expectations. On the societal level, gendered educational choices result in an overrepresentation of girls/women and underrepresentation of boys/men in some fields such as HEED (healthcare, elementary education, domestic) as well as an overrepresentation of boys/men and an underrepresentation of girls/women in some fields such as STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). In the first phase of this project, we identified key leverages to change gendered norms and decisions in education and map existing tools and interventions. In the second phase, we develop tools and interventions to help reduce gendered educational choices and assess these in diverse cultural contexts. 

Read more 

Past projects

When you say „Men are good at science”, do I hear you say that women are not?
Consequences of comparative formats in messages about social groups

Dissertation project under supervision of Prof. Vera Hoorens and Prof. Susanne Bruckmüller

Stereotypes are our perceptions of social groups, including beliefs about how groups differ. These beliefs shape how we understand the world. While they can make complex situations such as social interactions easier, stereotypes also carry the risk of distorting self-perception, disadvantaging groups, and perpetuating prejudice. This project delves into the impact of how we express group differences and similarities, referred to as comparative formats. 
The first part of this dissertation project investigated whether people judge and interpret statements like "Men are brave" (implicit differences) in the same way as "Men are braver than women" (explicit differences). The findings revealed disparities in how readers judged implicit and explicit differences, indicating varied perceptions and interpretations influenced by cognitive and normative processes. For intuitive judgments of truth and social acceptability, the mechanism behind these effects varied with the groups compared. 
Examining interpretations of differences illuminated another noteworthy phenomenon: explicitly stating that two groups are different is construed as implying greater similarity between the groups.
The second part addressed the persuasiveness of statements like "Men are as emotional as women" (directional similarity) compared to "Men and women are equally emotional" (non-directional similarity). We demonstrated that non-directional similarity statements were more effective in reducing gender- stereotypical beliefs, while directional statements risked reinforcing implicit associations in line with stereotypes. 
In essence, this dissertation project highlighted the significance of comparative formats in verbal communication, shedding light on their role in perpetuating as well as challenging stereotypes. It thus contributes valuable insights to the social psychology of stereotyping.

Text complexity as a stumbling block: Can we increase trust and adherence with  health-related messages by decreasing their complexity?

Collaboration with Dr. Julia Schnepf, Zixi Jin, and Prof. Magdalena Formanowicz 

This project investigated linguistic factors that affect peoples’ trust in science and their commitment to follow evidence-based recommendations. Within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we examined whether complex (vs. simple) health-related messages can decrease trust in information and its sources, and hinder adherence to behavioral measures, such as mask wearing or vaccination. In line with former research on social exclusion through complex language, we also examined whether text complexity effects are mediated via feelings of social exclusion. Our findings indicate that negative effects of text complexity via feelings of social exclusion are present, but only for participants with a strong conspiracy mentality. These findings can help increase trust in science among individuals with a high conspiracy mentality, a population commonly known for its skepticism towards scientific evidence.

Multiculturally Diverse Study Environments for Domestic and International Students.

Collaboration with Prof. Colleen Ward

Normative multiculturalism (NMC) describes the extent to which one’s environment is characterized by culturally diverse groups in contact with one another, a diversity-receptive ideology, and policies and practices that support and accommodate diversity. Within this project, we conducted two studies to investigate how NMC influences well-being, feelings of social inclusion, and personal attitudes towards multiculturalism in domestic and international students. Study 1 (cross-sectional) is the first to investigate NMC within an educational institution and Study 2 (experimental) is the first to allow causal conclusions about perceptions of NMC. Amongst other findings, Study 2 indicated that perceiving stronger norms of multicultural ideology and multicultural contact decreased international student’s well-being but increased domestic students’ well-being. The results also revealed that inducing strong norms of multicultural policies and practices resulted in more positive attitudes towards multicultural contact and multicultural policies and practices.

Some Cultural and Historical Aspects of Nostalgia: Nostalgic Experience Differs Among Cultures but Appraisal of the Past Does Not

Collaboration with Dr. Oindrila Bhattacharya and Prof. Simon Kemp

Nostalgia as a concept historically underwent semantic transformations from a maladaptive disease to a possibly positive universal phenomenon. Concepts are often accompanied by cultural and historical connotations. Within this project (dissertation project of Dr. Oindrila Bhattacharya), we conducted two studies that examined cultural differences in nostalgic experience (Study 1) and differences in understanding nostalgia and attitudes towards one’s personal past and the historical past of one’s culture (Study 2). The nostalgic experience was found to differ between New Zealanders and Indians, where the latter had more negative, intense and longer experiences. These differences were not a result of differences in life satisfaction or appraisal of the past; however, they might have been due to differences in conceptualisation of nostalgia and type of nostalgic events recalled. The findings suggest that cultural understanding and conceptualisation of nostalgia, independent of wellbeing metrics that apply to the individual, contribute to differences in nostalgic experiences.

Honors, awards, prizes

  • Full Scholarship awarded by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung
  • Award for the Best Thesis of the Year 2017 (Gesellschaft für wirtschafts- und sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung, Universität zu Köln)

Funding

  • EASP Seedcorn Grant (2021): Text Complexity as a Stumbling Block: Can We Increase Trust and Compliance with Health-related Messages by Decreasing their Complexity? (Lux, A., Schnepf, J., Jin, Z., & Formanowicz, M.)
  • EASP Summer School Seedcorn Grant (2020): Can science communication be too complex? The influence of text complexity on trust and compliance following health related messages. (Lux, A., Schnepf, J., Jin, Z., & Formanowicz, M.)

Teaching

  • Erasmus+ Guest Lecturer at the University of Gdańsk in May 2025
  • Werkcolleges (tutorials) for Sociale Psychologie, deel 1 (Introduction to Social Psychology)
  • Collective Master Thesis Session on How to Write an Introduction given by the Center for Social and Cultural Psychology (CSCP)
  • Moderating a reflection seminar on the role of theory in psychological science

(Co)Supervision

Master's thesis students

  • 2024-2025: Jara Cabes, Gavin Shanahan, Ilke Goris, Dina Devlamynck, Lidan Liang, Sita van Kerkhoven
  • 2023-2024: Maaike Claes
  • 2021-2023: Yasmina Peeters
  • 2020-2022: Elisa van den Brant, Ulrike van Asten, Chloë Boghe
  • 2019-2021: Robin Leysen

Research interns

  • 2022-2023: Marta Małgorzata Stryjniak 
  • 2019-2020: Yujing Liang 

Student researchers

  • 2021-2022: Thibaut Leclere 
  • 2019-2021: Ekaterina Gorianskaia
  • 2019-2020: Iske Zandbergen 

Job students

  • 2024-2025: Anisha de Vries
  • 2023-2024: Julia Stekla
  • 2023: Felipe Fontana Vieira, Sarah Grootjans
  • 2022: Vincent Casterman

Summer interns

  • 2023: Zeynep Şulenur Kaya, Mertcan Mutlu
  • 2021: Navdeep Kaur

 

 

query=user:U0133695 year:[2015 TO 2025] &institution=lirias&from=1&step=20&sort=scdate
showing 1 to 20 of 22
Items per page 10 |20 |50
Sort newest first |author |title |popularity
Type all | articles | presentations | conferences | chapters | other | reports | phd theses | book reviews | books | outreach | edited books | invited lectures
1/2
  • journal-article
    Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmueller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2025. Interpretations of generic versus comparative statements about groups: Similarities and differences. Journal Of Language And Social Psychology; 2025; Vol. 44; iss. 2; pp. 189 - 203
    LIRIAS4194450
    description
    We compare interpretations of two kinds of statements that are important for stereotype transmission: generics (e.g., “women are helpful”) and comparatives (e.g., “women are more helpful than men”). Participants (N = 338) read and interpreted generic or comparative statements about positive and negative features of gender (Experiment A) and age groups (Experiment B). We found similarities and differences. Participants interpreted both generics and comparatives as conveying information not only about the target (women in the example) but also about the referent (men in the example), whether the statement explicitly mentioned the referent (in comparatives) or not (in generics). When statements said something positive (negative) about the target, they also communicated a rather negative (positive) view of the referent. Remarkably, although comparatives explicitly contrast groups while generics do not, generics implied bigger differences between the groups and provoked more extreme assumptions about the groups. We discuss implications for stereotype transmission.
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Published
  • journal-article
    Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmüller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2024. Are women brave or braver than men? Judgments of implicit and explicit intergroup comparisons. Journal Of Language And Social Psychology; 2024; Vol. 43; iss. 2; pp. 137 - 163
    LIRIAS4115832
    description
    People learn about social groups by reading and hearing verbal statements. We investigated if the perceived truth and acceptability of such statements depend on whether they are implicitly vs. explicitly comparative (e.g., “Women are brave” vs. “Women are braver than men”). Participants (Study 1: Ns = 259; Study 2: N = 246) rated the truth, acceptability, familiarity, and positivity of implicitly vs. explicitly comparative, stereotypical vs. counter-stereotypical statements about positive vs. negative features. Consistent with an Etiquette Hypothesis, implicitly (vs. explicitly) comparative statements about positive features were judged as truer and more acceptable, presumably because they adhered better to a positivity norm. Consistent with a Fluency Hypothesis, stereotypical explicitly (vs. implicitly) comparative statements about age groups were judged as truer, presumably because of higher ease-of-processing. Thus, mechanisms affecting judgments vary somewhat with the groups compared. We discuss the role of metacognitive and normative processes in stereotype maintenance and stereotype change.
    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Published
  • thesis-dissertation
    Lux, Alexandra; 2024. When you say „Men are good at science”, do I hear you say that women are not? Consequences of comparative formats in messages about social groups.
    LIRIAS4140644
    description
    Stereotypes are beliefs about social groups and their differences from other groups, such as the belief that old people are wiser than young people or that women are more emotional than men. While stereotypes can help us make sense of a complex world, understand others better, and often make it easier to interact with strangers, they can also distort perceptions of oneself and others, disadvantage groups, and enhance prejudice and inequality. They mostly spread through verbal communication, including expressions of group differences. Accordingly, efforts to change stereotypes often include expressions of group similarities. This dissertation examined the potential consequences of how group differences and similarities can be expressed. We call these differences in expression comparative formats. The first part of this dissertation focused on the question "Will people judge and interpret the statement 'Men are brave' (implicit differences) in the same way as the statement 'Men are braver than women' (explicit differences)?" Chapters 2 and 3 showed that this is not the case. Readers did not find implicit and explicit differences equally true or acceptable, they tended to interpret the statements differently, and perceived communicators differently. Both metacognitive processes (such as processing fluency) and normative processes (such as adherence to a positivity norm) seemed responsible for these comparative format effects. In the case of intuitive judgments of truth and social acceptability, the mechanism causing comparative format effects tended to vary with the groups compared. In the case of interpretations of differences, Chapter 3 demonstrates how explicitly saying that two groups are different is interpreted as implying greater similarity between the groups than implicit differences that do not mention a second group. The second part of this dissertation tried to answer the question "Will statements like 'Men are as emotional as women' (directional similarities) be as convincing as statements like 'Men and women are equally emotional' (non-directional similarities)?" This was not the case. Chapter 4 shows how non-directional similarity statements reduced gender stereotypical beliefs more than directional similarity statements. Moreover, directional statements enhanced implicit associations in line with the stereotype, which shows that they can backfire. This dissertation showed that comparative formats matter. It helps clarify the role of verbal communication in stereotype maintenance and stereotype change and thus contributes to the social psychology of stereotyping.

    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmueller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2023. Are women as brave as men or are women and men equally brave? The former claim will feel more true, but the latter one will get you more likes.
    LIRIAS4131979
    description


    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Stryjniak, Marta Małgorzata;Bruckmüller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2023. Men are as emotional as women vs. men and women are equally emotional - Stereotype change following a directional vs. non-directional similarity claim.
    LIRIAS4088480
    description
    There are diverse ways to express that social groups are similar. One way is to use a directional similarity claim that expresses how a target group resembles a referent group, as in “Men are as emotional as women”. An alternative way is to use a non-directional similarity claim that expresses how two groups resemble each other, without assigning roles, as in “Men and women are equally emotional”. Although these similarities are logically equivalent, earlier research suggests that they are not psychologically equivalent (e.g., Chestnut & Markman, 2016). In our earlier research, participants found directional claims truer than non-directional claims but found claimants of directional claims less likable and more prejudiced than claimants of non-directional claims. This raises the question which role directionality plays in claims aiming to change stereotypes. To answer this question, we asked people to read a brief article expressing that “Men are as emotional as women” (directional) versus “Men and women are equally emotional” (non-directional) and examined changes in their beliefs and implicit associations regarding the emotionality of men and women. In addition, we measured those potential changes on two occasions (two-wave structure) to allow us to assess the stability and durability of potential effects. We discuss if and why directionality may impact changes in beliefs and implicit associations, and how these insights can be applied to successfully change harmful stereotypes.

    Published
  • presentation
    Stryjniak, Marta;Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmueller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2023. The role of belief in science in stereotype change following a scientific message using directional vs. non-directional claims.
    LIRIAS4208431
    description


    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmüller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2022. "Men are as emotional as women" vs. "Men and women are equally emotional" - Consequences of Comparative Formats for Stereotype Change.
    LIRIAS4004718
    description
    Invited lecture for the Louvain Social Psychology Lab at UCLouvain

    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmüller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2022. "Men are as emotional as women" vs. "Men and women are equally emotional" - Consequences of Comparative Formats for Stereotype Change.
    LIRIAS4004723
    description
    Invited lecture for the Lab of Colette van Laar at KU Leuven

    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmüller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2022. Positivity norms cause ascribed communication goals to appear more or less desirable depending on the explicitness and feature valence of group comparisons.
    LIRIAS4004704
    description
    To describe a difference between two social groups, people may explicitly compare the groups (e.g., “Men are taller than women”) or merely ascribe a feature to one of the groups (e.g., “Men are tall”), leaving the comparison implicit. We examined if comparative format (explicit vs. implicit) and feature valence (positive vs. negative) influenced the desirability of the communication goals ascribed to a claimant. In an online experiment (N = 338), participants read 40 ostensible Twitter claims that expressed stereotypical or counter-stereotypical differences between gender and age groups. For each claim, participants were presented with 12 possible communication goals (e.g., to transfer knowledge, to provoke people, or to come across as politically correct) and asked to indicate whether they believed the claimant had pursued these goals. When claims referred to positive features (e.g., being brave), participants ascribed more desirable communication goals to claimants of implicit (vs. explicit) differences. When claims referred to negative features (e.g., being jealous), however, participants ascribed more desirable communication goals to claimants of explicit (vs. implicit) differences. We assume that this pattern occurred because participants were influenced by a communication-specific positivity norm, namely the norm not to speak negatively of others (Bergsieker et al., 2012; Kervyn et al., 2012). In line with this, participants ascribed less desirable communication goals to claimants of explicit claims about positive features (e.g. “Men are braver than women”) because – contrary to implicit claims about positive features – these suggest a negative view of the referent group (here: women) and thus violate the positivity norm. Then again, participants ascribed more desirable communication goals to claimants of explicit claims about negative features (e.g., “Women are more jealous than men”) because these – contrary to implicit claims about negative features – at least say something positive about the referent group (here: men) and are, therefore, more positive overall. This pattern is also consistent with our previous finding that people perceive implicit positive (versus explicit positive) differences to be more true and socially acceptable. Moreover, it illustrates that the norm not to speak negatively of others influences not only people’s verbal communication about others but also social judgments of communicators. These findings imply that the chosen comparative format (implicit vs. explicit) can impact the image of a communicator. If communicators intend to compare social groups and wish to be perceived as benevolent, it is wise to make group comparisons explicit when features are negative, but to keep comparisons implicit when features are positive.

    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Hoorens, Vera; 2022. The impact of comparative formats of group comparisons on the perception of claims and claimants.
    LIRIAS3999650
    description


    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Hoorens, vera;Bruckmüller, Susanne; 2022. Tell me lies: Counter-stereotypical claims might appear less true, but people voicing them are still liked more than people voicing stereotypical claims.
    LIRIAS4135039
    description
    The in-person ASPO 2021 meeting that was supposed to take place in December 2021 had to be cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. We exchanged our contributions online in December 2021 but then came together in person in June 2022 to present them properly.

    Published online
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Leclere, Thibaut;Bruckmüller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2022. Even similarities are not created equal: Expressing group equality may make you seem prejudiced - or not..
    LIRIAS3774456
    description
    There are several different ways to express that social groups are equal. One option is to use a directional comparison that expresses how a target group resembles a referent group, as in “Men are as helpful as women”. An alternative option is to use a non-directional comparison that expresses how two groups resemble each other, without assigning roles, as in “Women and men are equally helpful”. Despite their identical content, readers interpret similarity claims with different comparative formats in divergent manners. For instance, they feel that non-directional claims imply greater equality than directional claims (Chestnut & Markman, 2018). Building upon this comparative format effect on the perception of claims, we investigated how comparative formats might affect the perception of claimants. Participants (N = 305) judged claimants who tweeted either directional or non-directional similarity claims. They judged claimants more negatively if these used directional (versus non-directional) formats. More specifically, claimants who used directional (versus non-directional) formats were seen as less likable, interesting, deserving of admiration and attention as well as more offensive and more sexist. In sum, saying “Men are as helpful as women” rather than “Women and men are equally helpful” seems to have immediate negative consequences for a claimant’s image.

    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmüller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2021. Tell me lies: Counter-stereotypical claims might appear less true, but people voicing them are still liked more than people voicing stereotypical claims.
    LIRIAS3664118
    description
    People tend to believe stereotypes such as that men are braver than women or that young people are impatient. We conducted two studies to investigate how the stereotype consistency of claims about social groups affects the perceptions of claims (Study 1; N = 259) and the perceptions of speakers voicing these claims (Study 2; N = 339). Both studies used 40 claims about gender and age groups. Claims were either stereotypical or counter-stereotypical and compared groups on positive and negative features by using either implicit (“men are brave”) or explicit comparisons (“men are braver than women”). In Study 1, participants rated counter-stereotypical claims as less true than stereotypical claims but still described counter-stereotypical speakers as more sympathetic, admirable, and respectable, and less sexist than stereotypical speakers in Study 2. Stereotypical speakers, in contrast, were not rated to be more unpleasant or troublesome than counter-stereotypical speakers. Moreover, counter-stereotypical speakers were only perceived more positively than stereotypical speakers among female participants, and only impacted how sexist, but not how ageist the speakers were perceived. This suggests that the impact of counter-stereotypical communication on a speaker’s image depends on the groups we communicate with and the groups we communicate about.

    Published
  • presentation
    Schnepf, Julia;Lux, Alexandra;Jin, Zixi;Formanowicz, Magdalena; 2021. Linguistic complexity as a stumbling block: Testing the effects of complex health information on people’s trust in science and prevention intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    LIRIAS3666217
    description
    In a series of studies, we have examined the effect of text complexity on message trust and preventive intentions in the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that simpler compared to complex information on prevention behavior is more convincing and that people, especially conspiracy theorists, feel more strongly addressed by it. Overall, the results indicate that plain language is an important tool for making science communication more socially inclusive.

    Published
  • journal-article
    Schnepf, Julia;Lux, Alexandra;Jin, Zixi;Formanowicz, Magdalena; 2021. Left Out-Feelings of Social Exclusion Incite Individuals with High Conspiracy Mentality to Reject Complex Scientific Messages. Journal Of Language And Social Psychology; 2021; Vol. 40; iss. 5-6; pp. 627 - 652
    LIRIAS3626890
    description

    Publisher: SAGE Publications
    Published
  • internet-publication
    Braun, Maike;Lux, Alexandra; 2021. Wie können wir über Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten sprechen ohne Vorurteile zu verstärken?.
    LIRIAS3666215
    description
    In unserem Alltag leben und arbeiten wir regelmäßig zusammen mit Personen, die anderen Gruppen angehören als wir. Wir begegnen Personen aus unterschiedlichen Herkunftsländern, mit unterschiedlichen Berufen und Religionen. Wie wir mit und über diese Personen sprechen, drückt nicht nur aus, wie wir selbst über sie denken, es kann auch beeinflussen, wie andere über sie denken und zu Vorurteilen beitragen. Insbesondere bei Gruppen, mit denen viele Personen keinen direkten Kontakt haben, wie beispielsweise Geflüchteten, ist es wichtig uns zu überlegen: Wie können wir über Unterschiede sprechen, ohne dabei Stereotype und Vorurteile zu verstärken?

    Published online
  • presentation
    Liang, Yujing;Lux, Alexandra;Hoorens, Vera; 2021. It is different when it’s about us: Truth judgments of claims about social groups depend on group membership..
    LIRIAS3468952
    description


    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmüller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2021. Comparison is the thief of truth? Explicitly comparative claims about social groups seem less true and socially acceptable than superficially non-comparative claims..
    LIRIAS3468948
    description


    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmüller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2021. Equally good vs. equally bad: Prejudice and valence moderate the endorsement of intergroup similarity claims.
    LIRIAS3468973
    description
    Similarity claims like “Men are as good with babies as women” or “Old people are as adventurous as young people” are often used to counteract stereotypes and prejudice. We examined how the perceived truth of such claims might vary with the claims’ directionality (directional: “Women are as brave as men” vs. non-directional: “Men and women are equally brave”), group order (common: “Women are as brave as men” vs. uncommon: “Men are as brave as women”), groups described (gender groups/age groups) and valence of compared features (positive/negative). Participants from the Flemish general population (N = 227; 49.3% male, 50.2% female; Mage= 48.92, SDage=21.37, 16-92 years) judged 20 similarity claims about men and women and 20 similarity claims about older and younger people in an online experiment. Half of the claims were about positive features and the other half about negative ones. Valence and groups described thus varied within subjects. Commonness and directionality varied between subjects. Participants found directional claims (e.g., “Women are as brave as men”) more true than non-directional claims (e.g., “Men and women are equally brave”). Moreover, they perceived similarity claims about gender groups (e.g., “Women and men are equally ambitious”) to be more true than similarity claims about age groups (e.g., “Old and young people are equally ambitious”), consistent with our finding in an earlier study that Flemish citizens are more prejudiced towards age groups than towards gender groups. This group effect was independent of directionality and group order but did interact with valence. When claims expressed similarities between men and women, truth ratings were higher for positive (vs. negative) similarities (e.g., “Women and men are equally brave” > “Women and men are equally egoistic”). When claims expressed similarities between older and younger people, truth ratings were higher for negative (vs. positive) similarities (e.g., “Old and young people are equally weak” vs. “Old and young people are equally wise”). Thus, people seem less hesitant to agree with similarity claims on positive features if their prejudice is weaker, but are more ready to agree with similarity claims on negative features if their prejudice is stronger. This finding may serve as the basis for the development of easily applicable implicit measures of prejudice and shows us that we might need to focus on different features of similarity if we want to impact people’s beliefs about social groups.

    Published
  • presentation
    Lux, Alexandra;Bruckmüller, Susanne;Hoorens, Vera; 2021. Men are brave, but not braver than women - Etiquette concerns cause explicit comparisons to appear less true and acceptable..
    LIRIAS3395023
    description
    To describe a difference between two social groups, people may explicitly compare the groups or merely ascribe a feature to one of the groups, leaving the comparison implicit. We examined if comparative format (explicit-implicit) influenced the perceived truth and social acceptability of claims about 20 social groups. In two online experiments (N = 328; N = 247) participants judged claims that compared groups (e.g., “Men are braver than women”) or described one group (e.g., “Men are brave”). Participants found explicit (vs. implicit) claims less true and socially acceptable. This comparative format effect occurred for stereotypical and counter-stereotypical claims, but was restricted to claims that ascribed positive (vs. negative) features to target groups. Moreover, it was mediated by the perceived positivity of the claims. This supports the explanation that people dislike explicitly comparative claims about positive features because these suggest a negative view of the referent and thus violate the norm not to speak evil (Kervyn et al., 2012). To teach people that a social group has positive features, it is wise to avoid explicit comparisons with other groups.

    Published

1/2