A growing trend, reflected in the target article, effectively shifts control of prejudice operationalization to align with right-leaning priorities (and away from disadvantaged groups' voices and social justice). The article would only be compelling if experiments misaligned with real-world findings, if experimenters ignored nuances and moderators, and if the call to consider the social context included the macro-level societal context.

Hibbing and colleagues argue convincingly that liberals and conservatives differ in reactivity to (negative) stimuli. Yet their analysis sidesteps evidence that cognitive ability differs as a function of ideology. Cognitive abilities, like cognitive preferences (e.g., structure needs), shape whether stimuli are psychologically threatening (prompting avoidance) or offer opportunity (prompting approach). Incorporation of these findings is critical despite any socially “delicate” implications.

Dixon et al. overlook the fact that contact predicts not only favorable out-group attitudes/evaluations, but also cognitions, affect, and behavior. The weight of evidence supporting the benefits of intergroup contact cautions against throwing the (contact) baby out with the bathwater. The goal to “ignite struggles” in pursuit of social equality, we argue, incautiously risks hurling us down the proverbial rabbit hole.