Nour Kteily

My research focuses broadly on the causes and consequences of power on intergroup relations. I am particularly interested in intergroup contexts characterized by unequal power between groups (i.e., dominance hierarchies), and on the factors favoring the perpetuation vs. attenuation of those hierarchies.

Moreover, while I am interested in the attitudes of both high and low power group members, I am especially interested in the factors predicting the opposition and resistance of low power group members to their subordination. 

To this end, I have been pursuing several related research projects:

1) Exploring factors influencing the willingness of high and low power groups in conflict to negotiate (and, sometimes, avoid negotiating) with one another.

Associated manuscript:
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/105/6/978/

2) Investigating factors influencing accuracy in metaperceptions amongst members of groups in conflict. Thus, we have investigated how individuals' accuracy in "reading the opponent's mind" is influenced by changes in power. This work has shown that accuracy in metaperceptions is predicted not only by stable power differences, but also by dynamic shifts in the power hierarchy. Accuracy in reading the outgroup's mind seems to be predicted by the perception that one's group is losing - as opposed to gaining- power. Our work further suggests that this effect is driven by a strategic desire to stem the losses to one's group, as opposed to an empathic orientation towards the outgroup. 

Associated manuscript: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/06/20/0956797611412388.abstract

3) Another project investigates the predictors of low power group members'  desire for collective protest targeted against, and negativity towards, a dominant group seen as responsible for their disadvantage. In particular, much of this research has investigated Arab attitudes towards the U.S.

Associated manuscripts:
http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/16/2/139.short

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fpa.12023/abstract;jsessionid=9EFFED3E5BAA3C6750800FFAE12C7486.f01t03?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

https://www.academia.edu/4451749/Individual_differences_in_relational_motives_interact_with_the_political_context_to_produce_terrorism_and_terrorism-support

A related line of research has focused more on individual differences in the generalized preference for the maintenance of hierarchical relationships between groups in society, indexed by social dominance orientation (SDO). In this line of work, I have focused on exploring some of the outstanding debates on the nature of this variable:

1) One particular debate has centered on the question of whether social dominance orientation is a cause or "mere effect" of prejudice and discrimination. Our work thus far has suggested that far from being a mere reflection of pre-existing prejudice, SDO in fact causes increases in prejudice and discrimination towards outgroups over time.

Moreover, a second project suggests that not only does SDO affect downstream variables such as prejudice, but that it also affects what are typically considered quite upstream, non-political, personality variables such as empathy. This work powerfully argues against the notion that SDO is a "mere effect", and further suggests that SDO may appear even earlier in the 'causal chain' than previously thought. This work also challenges the Dual Process Model's (Duckitt, 2001) contention that SDO is solely an outcome (and not a predictor) of personality.

Associated manuscripts:

a)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110002155

b)

http://harvard.academia.edu/NourKteily/Papers/1854202/_Youre_inferior_and_not_worth_our_concern_The_interface_between_Empathy_and_Social_Dominance_Orientation


2) A second debate has centered on whether or not social dominance orientation can be considered a generalized orientation toward hierarchy. Whereas some have argued that SDO is merely a reflection of attitudes towards specific groups, others have maintained that it in fact indexes a generalized preference for unequal relationships across a variety of group contexts. In our work, we show (a) the SDO indeed reflects a quite general preference towards hierarchy in society, and (b) that it maintains this characteristic regardless of whether its instructions are modified to tell participants to "think of groups in general".

Associated manuscript: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103111002691


Recently, I have also become interested in dehumanization and infra-humanization, and have been conducting research re-assessing some of the ways in which it has been traditionally measured.