Implicit associations as the seeds of intergroup bias: how easily do they take root?

Three experiments provided evidence that intergroup bias occurs automatically under minimal conditions, using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In Experiment 1, participants more readily paired in-group names with pleasant words and out-group names with unpleasant words, even when they were experienced only with the in-group and had no preconceptions about the out-group. Participants in Experiment 2 likewise showed an automatic bias favoring the in-group, even when in-group/out-group exemplars were completely unfamiliar and identifiable only with the use of a heuristic. In Experiment 3, participants displayed a pro-in-group IAT bias following a minimal group manipulation. Taken together, the results demonstrate the ease with which intergroup bias emerges even in unlikely conditions.     

Implications for the self determine benevolence and self-protection in intergroup relations

People often favor groups they belong to over those beyond the in-group boundary. Yet, in-group favoritism does not always occur, and people will sometimes favor an out-group over the in-group. We delineate theoretically when in-group favoritism (i.e., self-protection) and out-group favoritism (i.e., benevolence) should occur. In two experiments, groups’ relative status and competence stereotypes were manipulated; groups’ outcomes were non-contingent in Experiment 1 and contingent in Experiment 2. When allocating reward, members of a low-status group were self-protective, favoring the in-group over the out-group under both non-contingent and contingent outcomes. Those with high status benevolently favored the out-group when outcomes were non-contingent, but were self-protective with contingent outcomes. People were willing to engage in social activities with an out-group member regardless of competence. However, when task collaboration had implications for the self, those with low status preferred competent over less competent out-group members. Traits of high status targets were differentiated by those with low status in both experiments, whereas those with high status differentiated low-status members’ traits only when outcomes were contingent. A general principle fits the data: The implications of intergroup responses for the self determine benevolence and self-protection.     

群体关系与问责对信息共享意愿及谈判行为的影响研究

本研究就国人的群体关系与问责对谈判者行为及信息共享意愿进行考察,试图探讨文化对谈判者的影响。通过对128名在校大学生的模拟谈判实验,发现谈判者在群内谈判比在群际谈判时有更高的信息共享意愿和更少的强硬行为,群体关系和问责对信息共享意愿及主观利益冲突有交互效应。具体而言,高度问责时,谈判者在群内谈判比群际谈判时有更多的信息共享意愿;低度问责时,谈判者在群内谈判比群际谈判时有更少的主观利益冲突。     

Sex differences in in-group cooperation vary dynamically with competitive conditions and outcomes

Men's but not women's investment in a public goods game varied dynamically with the presence or absence of a perceived out-group. Three hundred fifty-four (167 male) young adults participated in multiple iterations of a public goods game under intergroup and individual competition conditions. Participants received feedback about whether their investments in the group were sufficient to earn a bonus to be shared among all in-group members. Results for the first trial confirm previous research in which men's but not women's investments were higher when there was a competing out-group. We extended these findings by showing that men's investment in the in-group varied dynamically by condition depending on the outcome of the previous trial: In the group condition, men, but not women, decreased spending following a win (i.e., earning an in-group bonus). In the individual condition, men, but not women, increased spending following a win. We hypothesize that these patterns reflect a male bias to calibrate their level of in-group investment such that they sacrifice only what is necessary for their group to successfully compete against a rival group.     

The importance of social factors is a matter of perception

Caucasian female faces were randomly assigned to participants' in- or out-group following false feedback on a personality inventory. Participants recognised in-group faces better than out-group faces, but they showed no evidence of category-contingent opposing aftereffects. We conclude that the explanatory power of social-cognitive models will be enhanced when they are integrated with models of perceptual expertise.     

Group-Based Trust in Strangers: The Role of Stereotypes and Expectations

ABSTRACT— Across two studies, we provide evidence for group-based trust in strangers. Specifically, when we offered participants a choice between an unknown monetary allocation made by an in-group (university or major) or an out-group allocator, both of whom had total control over the distribution of an identical sum of money, participants strongly preferred the in-group allocator. This preference occurred regardless of whether the stereotype of the in-group was relatively more positive or more negative than that of the out-group. However, this preference did not persist when participants believed that the allocator was unaware of their group membership. Measures of expected share of the allocator's funds support our hypothesis that differential trust of in-group members results from expectations of altruistic and fair behavior toward fellow in-group members rather than from positive stereotypes of the in-group.     

Social Identification and a Solution to Social Dilemmas

The study explored whether cooperation could be promoted by identification with an in-group. A game was used to create two groups independent of each other. Thirty-six Japanese undergraduate students participated in the game, followed by a social dilemma game. Analysis revealed a two-factor structure of social identification: identification with the group and identification with its members. As predicted from social identity theory, subjects showed a significantly higher level of cooperation when the dilemma game was played with in-group members than with out-group members. Furthermore, identification with the group affected both in-group bias and cooperative behavior in the social dilemma game, but this effect was not found for identification with members.     

使用加工分离程序对低地位群体内\外群体偏爱的研究

使用加工分离程序（PDP）,以50名农村籍大学生为被试, 采用2（群体：外群体、内群体）×2（特质词效价：积极、消极）×2（加工：意识加工、无意识加工）混合设计,研究了低地位群体对内群体以及高地位外群体偏爱的内隐特征。在本研究情境中发现：农村大学生在提取城市群体积极特质词比消极特质词时的无意识加工更显著;而提取农村群体的积极和消极特质词时,无意识加工的贡献没有显著差异。说明低地位群体成员对外群体有内隐偏爱,对内群体却不存在内隐偏爱。     

Diversity in in-group bias: structural factors, situational features, and social functions

Four experiments addressed the different forms and functions of in-group bias in different contexts. The authors proposed 2 functions: an identity-expressive function and an instrumental function (or promotion of positive social change). The authors manipulated status differentials, the stability of these differences, and the communication context (intra- vs. intergroup) and measured in-group bias and both functions. As predicted, identity expression via in-group bias on symbolic measures was most important for stable, high-status groups. By contrast, material in-group bias for instrumental motives was most prevalent in unstable, low-status groups but only when communicating with in-group members. This latter effect illustrates the strategic adaptation of group behavior to audience (i.e., displaying in-group bias may provoke the out-group and be counterproductive in instrumental terms). Stable, low-status groups displayed more extreme forms of in-group bias for instrumental reasons regardless of communication context (i.e., they had nothing to lose). Results are discussed in terms of a contextual-functional approach to in-group bias.     

They all look the same to me (unless they're angry): from out-group homogeneity to out-group heterogeneity

People often find it more difficult to distinguish ethnic out-group members compared with ethnic in-group members. A functional approach to social cognition suggests that this bias may be eliminated when out-group members display threatening facial expressions. In the present study, 192 White participants viewed Black and White faces displaying either neutral or angry expressions and later attempted to identify previously seen faces. Recognition accuracy for neutral faces showed the out-group homogeneity bias, but this bias was entirely eliminated for angry Black faces. Indeed, when participants' cognitive processing capacity was constrained, recognition accuracy was greater for angry Black faces than for angry White faces, demonstrating an out-group heterogeneity bias.     

The implicit power motive predicts decisions in line with perceived instrumentality

Past research suggests that the implicit power motive (i.e., an unconsciously held motivational disposition to derive pleasure from having impact on others) predicts a preference to interact with individuals having submissive-looking faces. The present research extends this finding by testing whether the relation between the implicit power motive and approaching submissiveness depends on instrumentality. In two experiments, participants were assigned to a group that would ostensibly compete with another group. Within this intergroup context, they were asked to select persons as leaders or members for the in-group or the out-group. Potential leaders and members were displayed as submissive-looking or dominant-looking. Results showed that the implicit power motive predicted decisions favoring dominant-looking persons as in-group leaders, and submissive-looking persons as out-group leaders (Study 1) or in-group members (Study 2). These findings indicate that the tendency for people high in the implicit power motive to approach submissive-looking persons depends on the perceived instrumentality for gaining influence over others.     

Older but wilier: In-group accountability and the development of subjective group dynamics

To test social and cognitive variables that may affect the development of subjective group dynamics, the authors had 224 children between the ages of 5 and 12 years evaluate an in-group and an out-group and normative and deviant in-group members under conditions of high or low accountability to in-group peers. In-group bias and relative favorability to normative versus deviant in-group members (differential evaluation) increased when children were accountable to peers and as a function of perceptions of peer group acceptance of these members (differential inclusion). These effects were significantly larger among older children. Multiple classification ability was unrelated to judgments of group members. This study shows that the development of subjective group dynamics involves an increase in sensitivity to the normative aspects of the intergroup context.     

Dating Violence Attributions: Do They Differ for In-Group and Out-Group Members Who Have a History of Dating Violence?

In this research we examined the influence of in-group bias and dating violence history on dating violence attributions. Participants were 113 college students (97 women and 16 men; age M=21.9). They read a vignette that depicted dating violence and then completed a questionnaire concerning the assault. The couple was described as either part of the participants' in-group or the participants' out-group. The dating violence was described as either a first-time event for the couple or a repeated act of violence. Participants formed more lenient attributions for the in-group assailant than for the out-group assailant, but only if he was a first-time assailant rather than a repeat assailant. In addition, participants attributed less blame to the in-group victim than to the out-group victim, but only if she was a repeat victim of dating violence. These findings are examined in relation to in-group bias.     

Selective self-categorization: meaningful categorization and the in-group persuasion effect

Research stemming from self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987) has demonstrated that individuals are typically more persuaded by messages from their in-group than by messages from the out-group. The present research investigated the role of issue relevance in moderating these effects. In particular, it was predicted that in-groups would only be more persuasive when the dimension on which group membership was defined was meaningful or relevant to the attitude issue. In two studies, participants were presented with persuasive arguments from either an in-group source or an out-group source, where the basis of the in-group/out-group distinction was either relevant or irrelevant to the attitude issue. Participants' attitudes toward the issue were then measured. The results supported the predictions: Participants were more persuaded by in-group sources than out-group sources when the basis for defining the group was relevant to the attitude issue. However, when the defining characteristic of the group was irrelevant to the attitude issue, participants were equally persuaded by in-group and out-group sources. These results support the hypothesis that the fit between group membership and domain is an important moderator of self-categorization effects.     

Reactions to Intragroup Deviance: Does Disidentification Have a Role?

In this study, we address previous evidence about the interchangeable use of derogation and disidentification in protecting the self from intragroup deviance. We argue that when the in-group stands for a valued social identity, members may disidentify from the group, but only if the immediate context provides no opportunity to derogate. In the present experiments (n = 80 and n = 79), we provided or did not provide participants with the opportunity to recommend a punishment for an in-group or an out-group deviant. We also measured in-group identification before and after exposure to deviant behavior and after judgment. The results show that participants first disidentified from the in-group but, when presented with an opportunity to judge the deviant, also derogated. Importantly, participants who could judge the deviant also recovered their initial in-group identification level. Participants’ reactions to the out-group deviant suggest they used an intergroup rather than intragroup strategy.     

Differentiation in Understanding One's Own and the Adversary's Identity in Protracted Intergroup Conflict: Zionism and Palestinianism

This study examines the meaning of identity for in-group and out-group members in protracted intergroup conflict, and the extent of differentiation people show in understanding in-group and out-group national identity. Based on the differential familiarity hypothesis, it was hypothesized that group members will show more differentiation when referring to in-group than to out-group identity. Based on the established relationship between cognitive complexity and political ideology, it was hypothesized that supporters of conciliatory political parties will demonstrate more differentiation when referring to in-group and out-group identity than supporters of nonconciliatory parties. These hypotheses were confirmed in a study that asked Arab and Jewish high-school students in Israeli schools about the meaning of Zionism and Palestinian identity.     

Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups

Participants evaluated other individuals who deviated in either an anti- or pro-normative direction relative to normative members. In Study 1, in-group gender-normative members were rated more positively than deviant members. The pro-norm deviant was viewed as more attractive than the anti-norm deviant. In Study 2 anti-norm in-group deviants were evaluated more negatively than anti-norm out-group deviants even though both held identical attitudes. In both studies, despite objective equivalence, pro-norm deviance was perceived as less "atypical" than anti-norm deviance. Judgments and reactions to deviance depend on group membership and the direction of deviance, not just its magnitude. Evaluations of deviants are also related to perceivers' identification with their own group. These findings are consistent with our model of subjective group dynamics.     

New knowledge for old credences: Asymmetric information search about in-group and out-group members

Three experiments examined how people gather information on in-group and out-group members. Previous studies have revealed that category-based expectancies bias the hypothesis-testing process towards confirmation through the use of asymmetric-confirming questions (which are queries where the replies supporting the prior expectancies are more informative than those falsifying them). However, to date there is no empirical investigation of the use of such a question-asking strategy in an intergroup context. In the present studies, participants were asked to produce (Study 1) or to choose (Studies 2 and 3) questions in order to investigate the presence of various traits in an in-group or an out-group member. Traits were manipulated by valence and typicality. The results revealed that category-based expectancies do not always lead to asymmetric-confirming testing: whereas participants tended to ask questions that confirmed positive in-group and negative out-group stereotypical attributes, they used a more symmetric strategy when testing for the presence of negative in-group or positive out-group traits. Moreover, Study 3 also revealed a moderation effect of in-group identification. The findings point to the role played by motivational factors associated with preserving a positive social identity. Possible consequences of these hypothesis-testing processes in preserving a positive social identity for intergroup relations are discussed.     

The Black-Sheep Effect: How Positive and Negative Advertisements Affect Voters' Perceptions of the Sponsor of the Advertisement1

Participants read a positive or negative (mock) political advertisement that was sponsored by either an in-group (subject and sponsor were members of the same political party) or an out-group (subject and sponsor were members of different political parties) member. The results found support for a black-sheep effect. An in-group sponsor of a positive advertisement was evaluated more positively than any out-group member, regardless of advertisement type, or an in-group member who sponsored a negative advertisement. However, an in-group sponsor of a negative advertisement was evaluated more negatively than either an in-group sponsor of a positive advertisement. or an out-group sponsor. regardless of advertisement type. The results are discussed in terms of social identity theory.     

Punishing Individuals for Their Infirmities: Effects of Personal Responsibility, Just-World Beliefs, and In-Group/Out-Group Status

This research examined how derogation of cancer victims was moderated by (a) the perceived responsibility of the victim, (b) individual differences in just-world beliefs, and (c) whether the victim was an in-group versus out-group member. Participants formed an impression of an in-group or an out-group member who was known to have a terminal case of cancer. Half of the participants were informed that the target person was partially responsible for this medical condition, whereas the remaining participants were not given this information. Results showed that blaming judgments of high versus low responsibility targets were moderated by just-world beliefs, but this was only true when the person being judged was an out-group member. The implications of these results for research and theory on differential processing of in-group versus out-group members are discussed.