真的是“冤有头债有主”吗?基于群体冲突的替代性报复

群际替代性报复是指群体内成员受到外群体成员的伤害后,内群体的其他成员对外群体的其他成员进行报复的现象。这种基于群体水平上的替代性报复很大程度上已经超越了原本的侵犯者和受害者,而涉及到群体双方更大范围的其他人。替代性报复是一个复杂的心理过程,其产生和程度受到伤害感知、群体认同、外群体实体性、群体情绪以及内群观众效应的影响。内群体在实施替代性报复后也往往存在较为一致的"正面"认知评价和情感体验。未来还需要继续在学术层面上整合和完善替代性报复的心理机制,探讨不同文化观念下替代性报复的特点,最重要的是结合社会现实提出减少替代性报复的策略。     

Perceiving one's nation: entitativity, agency and security in the international arena

The perception of groups as real entities rather than mere aggregates of individuals has important consequences on intergroup relations. Social psychological research, in fact, shows that it affects stereotyping, identification process, and intergroup bias. Previous research has also shown that group entitativity is not a positive or negative group attribute per se; rather, it depends on the context and the relationship between the perceiver and the group. While enhancing entitativity leads to worse expectations about the out‐group actions, high entitativity is a valued characteristic when associated with an ally or with the in‐group. Indeed, enhancing in‐group entitativity leads to stronger in‐group identification. The specific reasons for why this is the case, however, remain to be ascertained. What is good about in‐group entitativity? In the present contribution we propose that in‐group entitativity may lead to perceive the group as a real entity provided with intentions and capacity for planned actions, notably ensuring the safety of its members by protecting them against external threats. We report two correlational studies conducted with American citizens (Study 1) and Italian citizens (Study 2), showing that in‐group entitativity is associated with a higher level of identification, attribution of intentionality, and perceived security provided by the in‐group. These findings were replicated in a third study—conducted with a role‐play method on a fictitious scenario—in which entitativity was manipulated rather than measured. Study 3 also shows that artificially increasing the perception of in‐group entitativity enhances perceived safety in an international context and reduces the perception of threat from an out‐group. Findings are discussed in terms of possible implications for intergroup and international relations.     

Vicarious intergroup contact and the role of authorities in prejudice reduction

The present study focuses on the effect of vicarious intergroup contact and the support of an authority figure on the improvement of outgroup and meta-stereotype evaluations. Meta-stereotype refers to the shared beliefs of ingroup members about how they consider outgroup members to perceive their group. Three preliminary studies were carried out to determine desirable and undesirable characteristics for a good basketball performance, the task that best demonstrates the application of these characteristics, and the two groups (basketball teams) that should be involved in the vicarious intergroup contact. Fans of one of the basketball teams participated in the current study. Vicarious intergroup contact improved outgroup and meta-stereotype evaluations as compared with a no contact condition. In addition, the positive effects of vicarious intergroup contact significantly increased when it was supported by an authority figure. More importantly, our study also shows that the improvement of outgroup evaluation was partially mediated by changes on meta-stereotypes.     

Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: an interconnection of self and others

Campbell's (1958) concept of ingroup entitativity is reformulated as a perceived interconnection of self and others. A 2 (intergroup relations: competitive, neutral)×3 (intragroup interaction: low, medium, high) between-subjects design was used to examine (1) the effects of intergroup and intragroup relations on perceived ingroup entitativity and (2) the relation between ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias. Regardless of the relations between groups, members who experienced intragroup interaction had stronger perceptions of ingroup entitativity and stronger representations of the aggregate of ingroup and outgroup members as two separate groups than members who lacked intragroup interaction. Furthermore, perceptions of ingroup entitativity mediated the effect of the salience of the intergroup boundary on behavioral intergroup bias. These results call into question the ‘intergroup’ nature of group based phenomena. An ingroup entitativity framework is presented that locates the source of group-based phenomena (e.g. intergroup bias) in intragroup processes. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Intergroup retaliation and intra‐group praise gain: The effect of expected cooperation from the in‐group on intergroup vicarious retribution

Intergroup vicarious retribution is the phenomenon whereby, after an out‐group member attacks an in‐group member, a member of the victim's group retaliates against a member of the perpetrator's group. This study examined the effect of expected cooperation from the in‐group on intergroup vicarious retribution through intra‐group reputation based on praise gain and exclusion avoidance. In the experiment, we conducted a one‐on‐one match in which, after participants learned that an out‐group member (as the winner) had imposed a fine on an in‐group member (as the loser) in a previous round, winning participants were allowed to impose an arbitrary fine on the other losing out‐group member. As a result, participants imposed a larger fine on their out‐group member opponent in retaliation when they were expected by in‐group members to cooperate than when such cooperation was not expected. Furthermore, participants regarded a fine as intra‐group cooperation. Since a path analysis revealed a mediating effect of praise gain, but no mediating effect of exclusion avoidance, expected cooperation from in‐group members facilitated vicarious retribution because those involved in retribution sought praise from other in‐group members. These findings suggest that the intra‐group reputation dynamics of expected cooperation and praise gain escalate intergroup conflict.     

Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution

According to intergroup emotion theory, the impact of many intergroup events on intergroup outcomes is mediated by group-directed emotions. We demonstrate that the ability of apology to reduce retribution against and increase forgiveness of a transgressing outgroup is contributed to by discrete intergroup emotions. We examined both negative (anger and fear) and positive (respect and satisfaction) emotions directed toward the transgressing outgroup. Apology reduced the desire for retribution whereas lack of apology increased it, and outgroup-directed anger uniquely mediated this effect. In contrast, apology increased and lack of apology decreased forgiveness, particularly when the ingroup responded to the transgression, and only outgroup-directed respect mediated this effect. These results provide the first evidence that intergroup emotions can mediate the impact of apology on intergroup relations outcomes.     

Entitativity and prejudice: Examining their relationship and the moderating effect of attitude certainty

Previous research suggests that perceived entitativity, which represents the degree to which groups are perceived to possess unity, coherence, and organization, predicts intergroup stereotyping and bias. The present research yielded complementary evidence that prejudice (toward Muslims in Study 1 and toward South Asians in Study 2) can also predict groups’ perceived entitativity. In particular, Study 1 found that the relationships of two predictors, intergroup contact and social dominance orientation, with perceived entitativity were mediated by prejudice. Study 2 demonstrated, as predicted, that this set of relationships occurred primarily for intergroup attitudes of relatively high certainty. Neither study found support for models in which entitativity mediated the relationships of the predictors with prejudice. Conceptual and analytical factors that may account for evidence of the potential bi-directionality of the bias-entitativity relationship are considered.     

From uncertain boundaries to uncertain identity: Effects of entitativity threat on identity–uncertainty and emigration

When people feel uncertain about their national identity, they may want to emigrate from their nation. This uncertainty can arise when people are exposed to an alternative historical narrative about their own national (ingroup) origins promoted by a neighboring nation (outgroup). Drawing on uncertainty–identity theory we propose that the conditions that promote this process would include when: (a) a revised history threatens the entitativity of national identity, (b) people identify strongly with their nation, (c) a neighboring nation is numerically large enough to transform its own view into a new shared reality, and (d) a new interpretation of history is considered credible. We conducted an experiment in the context of historical disputes between China (outgroup) and Korea (ingroup) (N = 160). We measured Korean identification and manipulated a type of identity threat (valence threat vs. entitativity threat), relative group size (not salient vs. salient), and source credibility (low vs. high). Then, we measured identity–uncertainty and emigration as dependent variables. As predicted, hierarchical regression analyses yielded a significant four‐way interaction on identity–uncertainty. Simple slopes analyses revealed that entitativity (vs. valence) threat significantly increased identity–uncertainty among high identifiers when the outgroup's relative size was salient and its view was credible. Further, the elevated identity–uncertainty strengthened intentions to emigrate from the ingroup. Implications for intergroup communications and identity validation are discussed.     

Positive intergroup contact decreases the likelihood that prejudicial attitudes become avoidant behavioral tendencies

We investigated whether existing intergroup contact experiences moderated the associations between prejudicial attitudes and behavioral tendencies towards outgroups across five studies in Turkey (total N = 1,281). Findings showed that among Turks who reported higher levels of cross-group friendship quantity (Study 1) and greater positive (but not negative) contact (Study 2) with Kurds, prejudicial attitudes did not predict negative outgroup behavioral tendencies. Confirming these studies, Study 3 indicated that the association between homophobic attitudes and outgroup avoidance/approach tendencies was weaker among individuals who reported more LGBTI friends. Study 4 replicated the latter finding among children using Syrians as the target outgroup. Study 5 further showed that the buffering role of intergroup contact occurred only among participants who held less certain attitudes towards Syrian refugees. Findings provide insights into how existing contact experiences shape the relationship between negative attitudes towards outgroups and relevant behavioral intentions.     

The development of bystander intentions and social–moral reasoning about intergroup verbal aggression

A developmental intergroup approach was taken to examine the development of prosocial bystander intentions among children and adolescents. Participants as bystanders (N = 260) aged 8–10 and 13–15 years were presented with scenarios of direct aggression between individuals from different social groups (i.e., intergroup verbal aggression). These situations involved either an ingroup aggressor and an outgroup victim or an outgroup aggressor and an ingroup victim. This study focussed on the role of intergroup factors (group membership, ingroup identification, group norms, and social–moral reasoning) in the development of prosocial bystander intentions. Findings showed that prosocial bystander intentions declined with age. This effect was partially mediated by the ingroup norm to intervene and perceived severity of the verbal aggression. However, a moderated mediation analysis showed that only when the victim was an ingroup member and the aggressor an outgroup member did participants become more likely with age to report prosocial bystander intentions due to increased ingroup identification. Results also showed that younger children focussed on moral concerns and adolescents focussed more on psychological concerns when reasoning about their bystander intention. These novel findings help explain the developmental decline in prosocial bystander intentions from middle childhood into early adolescence when observing direct intergroup aggression.     

Reaction in action: intergroup contrast in automatic behavior

Whereas previous research has shown automatic behavior conforming to outgroup stereotypes, the authors demonstrate automatic behavioral contrast away from a stereotype/trait associated with an outgroup (Study 1 and 2) and point to the importance of an "us-them" intergroup comparison in this process. In Study 1, participants colored pictures more messily when neatness was associated with an outgroup rather than the ingroup. In Study 2, using a different behavior, participants primed with busy business people reacted faster than controls (assimilation) but became slower when their student ingroup identity was activated (contrast). Subliminally priming an "us-them" intergroup comparison set undermined the accessibility of outgroup stereotypic words (Study 3), especially for those higher in prejudice (Study 4). This suggests that people automatically distance themselves from outgroup attributes when intergroup antagonism is cued or chronic. Implications for the role of self and comparison processes in automatic behavior are discussed.     

Imagined contact in high conflict settings: The role of ethnic group identification and the perspective of minority group members

Recent contact literature has shown that imagining a positive intergroup encounter improves intergroup attitudes and behaviors, yet less is known about the effects of imagined contact in high conflict settings. We conducted three studies to understand the potential effects of imagined intergroup contact among ethnic Turks (majority status) and ethnic Kurds (minority status) in the Turkish‐Kurdish interethnic conflict setting. Study 1 (N = 47, Turkish) tested standard imagined contact effects (neutral vs. standard imagined contact condition) among majority Turks and showed that imagined contact was effective on outgroup attitudes, perceived threat, intergroup anxiety, and support for multiculturalism only among participants with higher ethnic identification. Study 2 (N = 107, Turkish) examined how ethnic identification of the contact partner would influence the effectiveness of the standard imagined contact scenario (neutral vs. standard vs. ethnic identification condition) and demonstrated that imagined contact effects were more negative when the contact partner identified with his/her ethnic group during imagined contact. Study 3 (N = 55, Kurdish) investigated imagined contact effects (neutral vs. standard imagined contact condition) among an ethnic minority group and showed that imagined contact did not improve minority group members' outgroup attitudes, but did decrease intergroup anxiety and perceived discrimination (marginally significantly) and increased perceived positive attitudes from the majority group. Practical implications of the use of imagined intergroup contact strategy in conflict‐ridden settings were discussed.     

Intergroup threat,knowledge of the outgroup,and willingness to purchase ingroup and outgroup products: The mediating role of intergroup emotions

Established theories have acknowledged that intergroup threat is one of the key determinants of intergroup attitudes and behaviours, but how intergroup threat can affect consumer behaviour remains unclear. Here, four preregistered studies (total N = 988) examined the effect of intergroup threat (manipulated in terms of realistic and symbolic threats) on consumers’ willingness to purchase ingroup and outgroup products. In the context of China–West relations, we measured Chinese consumers’ willingness to purchase Chinese (ingroup) and Western (outgroup) products. These studies together revealed that realistic and symbolic threats (versus control) increased willingness to purchase ingroup products and decreased willingness to purchase outgroup products, regardless of the product category. Studies 3a and 3b also measured knowledge of the outgroup as a potential moderator, revealing that realistic threat (versus control) reduced willingness to purchase outgroup products only among individuals who had less knowledge of the outgroup. Furthermore, Study 3b showed that the intergroup threat manipulation indirectly influenced consumers’ willingness to purchase ingroup/outgroup products through increased anger and decreased hope. We discussed the contributions to the intergroup relations and consumer behaviour literature and the implications for transnational marketing practices, as well as the limitations of this research.     

Group entitativity and similarity: Their differing patterns in perceptions of groups

Three studies were conducted to investigate the relation between perceptions of group entitativity and group similarity. The first two studies tested whether entitativity and similarity would be perceived differently in participants' ingroups and outgroups. Across several different group types, we found that, in comparison to outgroups, ingroups were perceived to be relatively more entitative than outgroups, whereas outgroup members were perceived to be highly similar in comparison to ingroup members. The results of Study 3 showed that manipulation of group entitativity influenced perceptions of group entitativity but not of group similarity, whereas manipulation of similarity influenced perceptions of group similarity but not of group entitativity. The results of these studies provide support for the contention that entitativity and similarity are distinct (though related) concepts that function differently in group perception. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

We are one and I like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification

It is argued that the entitativity of the ingroup moderates the level of identification with the ingroup. Specifically, that high levels of entitativity are conducive to strong identification, whereas low levels of entitativity reduce identification with the ingroup. These hypotheses were tested across four studies using the European Union (EU) as the reference group. The four studies manipulated four different factors that, according to Campbell (1958), impact on group entitativity: common fate (Study 1), similarity (Study 2), salience (Study 3), and boundedness (Study 4). Across the four studies, we found evidence for the impact of these factors on the level of identification with the EU among European citizens holding moderate attitudes toward the EU but not (or much less) for citizens holding more extreme attitudes towards the EU. Mediational analyses further confirmed the viability of an entitativity‐based interpretation of the impact of the manipulations on the level of identification. The findings are discussed in light of the current debate on the concept of entitativity, the motives for social identification, and the reduction of ingroup bias. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Examining dispositional and situational effects on outgroup attitudes

Two research lines have dominated the quest for the antecedents of outgroup attitudes. Whereas the first has viewed outgroup attitudes as a result of individual differences, the second stressed the importance of the intergroup situation. In order to investigate the interplay of individual differences and situational characteristics, key predictors of the individual differences perspective (i.e. right‐wing authoritarianism or RWA, and social dominance orientation or SDO) and the intergroup relations perspective (i.e. ingroup identification and ingroup threat) were simultaneously tested. Two studies revealed additive but no interaction effects of RWA and SDO, ingroup identification and threat. Additionally, Study 1 showed that threat effects remain limited to the outgroup that is portrayed as threatening and do not generalize to other outgroups. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Stereotypes as justifications for prior intergroup discrimination: Studies of Scottish national stereotyping

Two studies provide support for the group‐justification approach to stereotyping (Tajfel, 1981 ; Huici, 1984 ). This approach contends that stereotypes not only serve cognitive functions for individuals but also provide a means of justifying prior intergroup discrimination. Study 1 investigated whether the content of the Scottish ingroup stereotype changes due to the prior expression of intergroup discrimination. Scottish students were primed with either a ‘differentiation’ or a ‘fairness’ ingroup norm and completed two intergroup judgement tasks. Other Scottish students were primed only with a ‘differentiation’ ingroup norm, while a control group received no prime or judgement tasks. Only participants who experienced the ‘differentiation’ ingroup norm prime and the intergroup judgement tasks changed the content of their ingroup stereotype as an attempt to justify their discriminatory behaviour. Study 2 examined whether Scottish students would use both positive ingroup and negative outgroup stereotypes to rationalize intergroup discrimination. Students who experienced a ‘differentiation’ ingroup norm prime and intergroup judgement tasks showed the highest level of superior recall for positive ingroup and negative outgroup stereotype‐consistent words compared to stereotype‐neutral words. This finding suggests that the expression of intergroup discrimination activates the use of both positive ingroup and negative outgroup stereotypes. Together the findings of these two studies provide empirical support for the notion that stereotypes serve social as well as cognitive functions. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Disruptive effects of vigilance on dominant group members' treatment of outgroup members: choking versus shining under pressure

Three studies examined the hypothesis that evaluative concerns exert a disruptive effect on intimacy-building behaviors exhibited by dominant group members in intergroup interaction. The authors predicted that although evaluative concerns would lead individuals with a negative baseline response to outgroup members to shine (i.e., to exhibit warmer, more friendly behavior), such concerns would have a contrary, choking, effect on individuals with a more positive baseline response. Results were generally consistent with these hypotheses across 3 different operationalizations of evaluative concerns and regardless of whether individuals' orientation toward outgroup members was assessed in terms of prejudiced racial attitudes or racial ingroup identification. Implications for lower status group members' experience of intergroup interaction and for the prejudice-reduction process are considered.     

Unprejudiced and self-focused: When intergroup contact is experienced as being about the ingroup rather than the outgroup

Many problematic responses that occur in intergroup interaction, such as inhibited behavior, restricted disclosure of valuable information, and miscommunication, do not arise from negative attitudes and sometimes are more frequently exhibited by lower-prejudice individuals. Thus it is important to consider how lower-prejudice individuals respond to methods for improving intergroup relations that have been investigated with the prejudiced person in mind. Two studies tested the hypothesis that for lower-prejudice individuals intergroup contact is experienced as being about the ingroup rather than the outgroup, and thus fails to exert its usual effect of paving the way for more positive subsequent intergroup exchanges. As predicted, for individuals seeking to be unbiased an initial exchange with one outgroup member affected feelings about ingroup worthiness, but not reactions to a subsequently encountered outgroup member. The opposite pattern was evident for higher-prejudice individuals, who readily generalized from their experience with one outgroup member to the next.     

The influence of social consensus information on intergroup attitudes: the moderating effects of ingroup identification

Two studies examined the role of ingroup identification in the influence of social consensus information (information about others' beliefs) on intergroup attitudes. Research demonstrates that consensus information influences individuals' intergroup attitudes. However, the extent to which individuals identify with the group providing consensus information seems important to understanding consensus effects. In Study 1, 100 high or low ingroup identifiers received information that other ingroup members held favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward African Americans and then provided their own attitudes. In Study 2, 250 participants completed an ingroup identification manipulation (high, low, or control) before receiving favorable or no consensus information. Results of both studies demonstrated that ingroup identification moderated consensus effects, such that high identifiers were more susceptible to others' beliefs than individuals in the low identification and control conditions. In determining critical factors involved in consensus effects, we hope to create a useful method to promote favorable intergroup attitudes and behaviors.