The Janus face in group psychotherapy

Combined therapy offers the practitioner a rich data field for observation and research. Seeing the same patient in the group and in individual analytic therapy raises certain questions such as how differently does the patient present him- or herself, what does the difference or lack of difference mean, and is it prognostically meaningful. Based on ego theory, the author hypothesized that different therapeutic environments ought to evoke different levels of response. This adaptive quality was thought to be prognostically significant and indicative of a greater possibility for structural change. A small clinical sample showed a tendency in that direction.     

Evaluation of aggressive interactions in interpersonal and intergroup contexts

The article deals with possible differences in the evaluation of interpersonal and intergroup aggression. Study I investigated whether the typical perspective-specific divergence in judgments about aggressive interactions (with actors evaluating their behavior as more reasonable and less inappropriate than recipients) varied in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. Additionalty, the possible mediating influence of lay epistemic motivation and subjective judgmental confidence was explored. Results indicated that the social context had an important impact on the evaluation of aggressive interactions: there was a lower dissent between actors and recipients in the intergroup than in the interpersonal condition. However, the direction of this pattern of data differed from what could be derived from theories of aggressive and intergroup behavior. Subjective confidence and lay epistemic motivation did not influence the inappropriatencess ratings. Study II tried to shed some further light on the context-specific evaluation of aggressive interaction by presenting episodes of different severity and by obtaining judgments on both actions as well as reactions. Results showed that-irrespective of severity-aggressive reactions were evaluated more negatively in intergroup contexts. It is proposed that this effect stemmed from context-specific differences in the application of the norm of reciprocity.     

Group-serving attributions across intergroup contexts: Cultural differences in the explanation of sex-typed behaviours

This research attempted to integrate Tajfel's (1978) social identity theory with self-presentational concerns by exploring attributions about perceived group differences in behaviour. As such, it dealt with group-level rather than individual-level attributions, exploring whether bias in making such verbal attributions varied as a function of the interviewer's group identity and the presence of an ingroup audience. Undergraduate men and women at The Chinese University of Hong Kong rated the appropriateness of ingroup-favouring and outgroup-favouring explanations for male-typed and female-typed behaviors in a face-to-face interview. A group-serving bias was found for female-typed behaviours, but only when the same-sex audience was absent. A conceptual replication of the experiment was run in the United States to examine the possible cultural basis for the Chinese moderation of favouritism in the audience condition. The group-serving bias was more robust for the American undergraduates, extending across male- and female-typed behaviours and also across audience conditions, It was argued that these cultural differences in attributional bias appear to reflect the strength of the movement for women's liberation and norms surrounding the avoidance of conflict in the United States and Hong Kong.     

Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status differences on effort in intergroup contexts

This paper examines how the status of an out-group impacts effort in intergroup settings. The results provide evidence that people work harder when their individual performance is compared to a lower, as opposed to higher, status out-group member. Moreover, comparisons to a lower status out-group were found to elicit motivation gains as these participants worked harder than participants in the control (Studies 1-3) or in-group comparison conditions (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 4, evidence for the role of threat as an underlying mechanism was provided as gains in effort for those compared with a lower status out-group member were eliminated when participants self- or group-affirmed prior to comparison. Finally, Study 5 shows that both social identity threat and self-categorization threat underlie increases in effort for participants compared to a lower status out-group member. We detail a theoretical basis for our claim that performance comparisons with lower status out-group members are especially threatening, and discuss the implications for this research in terms of social identity and self-categorization theories as they relate to effort in intergroup contexts.     

Beyond contact: intergroup contact in the context of power relations

This work investigated how group-based power affects the motivations and preferences that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups bring to situations of contact. To measure the preferred content of interactions, desires to address particular topics in intergroup contact were assessed for both experimental groups (Study 1) and real groups (Study 2). As predicted, across both studies, the desire to talk about power was greater among members of disadvantaged than of advantaged groups. This difference was mediated by motivation for change in group-based power. Study 2 further demonstrated that more highly identified members of disadvantaged groups wanted to talk about power more. Members of advantaged groups generally preferred to talk about commonalities between the groups more than about group-based power, and this desire was greater with higher levels of identification. However, perceiving that their group's advantage was illegitimate increased the desire of advantaged group members to address power in intergroup interactions.     

With a little help from my cross-group friend: reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship

The authors induced cross-group friendship between Latinos/as and Whites to test the effects of cross-group friendship on anxiety in intergroup contexts. Cross-group friendship led to decreases in cortisol reactivity (a hormonal correlate of stress; W. R. Lovallo & T. L. Thomas, 2000) over 3 friendship meetings among participants high in race-based rejection sensitivity (R. Mendoza-Denton, G. Downey, V. J. Purdie, A. Davis, & J. Pietrzak, 2002) and participants high in implicit prejudice (A. G. Greenwald, B. A. Nosek, & M. R. Banaji, 2003). Cross-group partners' prior intergroup contact moderated the relationship between race-based rejection sensitivity and cortisol reactivity. Following the manipulation, participants kept daily diaries of their experiences in an ethnically diverse setting. Implicitly prejudiced participants initiated more intergroup interactions during the diary period after making a cross-group friend. Participants who had made a cross-group friend reported lower anxious mood during the diary period, which compensated for greater anxious mood among participants high in race-based rejection sensitivity. These findings provide experimental evidence that cross-group friendship is beneficial for people who are likely to experience anxiety in intergroup contexts.     

Fertility and intergroup bias in racial and minimal-group contexts: evidence for shared architecture

Recent research has shown that White women's bias against Black men increases with elevated fertility across the menstrual cycle. We demonstrate that the association between fertility and intergroup bias is not limited to groups defined by race, but extends to group categories that are minimally defined, and may depend on the extent to which women associate out-group men with physical formidability. In Study 1, Black and White women with strong associations between the racial out-group and physical formidability displayed greater bias against out-group men as conception risk increased. Study 2 replicated these results in a minimal-group paradigm. These findings are consistent with the notion that women may be endowed with a psychological system that generates intergroup bias via mechanisms that rely on categorization heuristics and perceptions of the physical formidability of out-group men, particularly when the costs of sexual coercion are high.     

Children's face recognition in different contexts: the role of encoding strategies

In this study, the relationship between face recognition and different facial encoding strategies was investigated. Children (6-8 years, N= 134) participated in both a face recognition task and an encoding task. During the recognition task, they saw 7 target faces in an eyewitness context (video) or in a neutral context (static black and white slides) which they later had to recognize from a set of 21 faces. On the encoding task, the same children had to categorize new faces (schematic and photorealistic) into two categories. The construction of the categories allowed participants to encode the faces either analytically (by focusing on a single attribute) or holistically (in terms of overall similarity). The results showed that face recognition was better in the social than in the neutral context. In the neutral context, only holistic encoding was connected to better face recognition. In the social context, children seemed to use not only information about the faces but also information about the persons.     

The political solidarity model of social change: dynamics of self-categorization in intergroup power relations

Social and political change involves a challenge to the status quo in intergroup power relations. Traditionally, the social psychology of social change has focused on disadvantaged minority groups collectively challenging the decisions, actions, and policies of those in positions of established authority. In contrast, this article presents a political solidarity model of social change that explores the process by which members of the majority challenge the authority in solidarity with the minority. It is argued that political solidarity as a social change process involves a contest between the authority and the minority over the meaning of a shared (higher order) identity with the majority. When identity ceases to be shared with the authority and becomes shared with the minority, majority challenge to authority in solidarity with the minority becomes possible. The model's contributions to existing social psychological approaches to social change are also discussed.     

When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts

An experiment with 213 participants provided evidence for in-group projection—the generalization of distinctive in-group attributes to a superordinate category. The frame of reference for in-group (German) judgments was manipulated by presenting either Italians or the British as an out-group. Results showed that attributes on which Germans differed from each out-group were accentuated not only in in-group judgments but also when judging Europeans. By adapting features of the superordinate category to those of the in-group, the in-group's similarity to, and the out-group's deviation from, the prototype of the superordinate category were maintained, if not emphasized. Further, higher in-group prototypicality—compared to out-group prototypicality—for the superordinate category was related to negative out-group attitudes. In-group projection was reduced when a complex representation of the superordinate category was primed.     

Superordinate goals and intergroup behaviour: The effect of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance

An experiment examined the effects of role ambiguity and relative group status in an intergroup situation where a superordinate goal was salient. One-hundred-and-fifty-six subjects in groups of three undertook a cooperative task under conditions where the groups' roles were clearly Different, Similar, or not allocated (Control). In addition, the groups' perceived competence at the task was either equally High, equally Low, or unequal. Financial rewards were contingent on successful completion of the joint task. Two contrasting hypotheses were derived from Social Identity Theory: one (H1) predicted most favourable intergroup attitudes in the Control condition where lack of any clear differentiation in group roles might facilitate a superordinate identifcation. In contrast, (H2) predicted least favourable attitudes in this condition on the grounds that groups lacked a distinctive identity. Support for the second hypothesis was found since friendliness towards the outgroup decreased with increasing role ambiguity. The status variable also had consistent effects. As predicted, mutual evaluations tended to reflect the consensually agreed status differences: least bias being shown towards high status outgroups, most by high status ingroups. Task performance was also affected by role ambiguity. Judges' ratings of the group products were found to be more favourable as role ambiguity increased, in contrast to the friendliness data. The implications of these findings for Social Identity Theory, the Contact Hypothesis, and theories of group performance are discussed.     

The feature positive effect in the face of variability: novelty as a feature

Past literature has shown, across various methods and species, that feature positive (FP) tasks (AB-/B+) are learned more easily than are feature negative (FN) tasks (AB-/B+), giving rise to what is known as the feature positive effect (FPE). Experiment 1 was intended to assess the role of expected absence in the FPE through manipulation of the context (constant vs. varied common elements) that was paired with the feature. The results indicate that novel contextual elements (varied common elements) may be salient enough to eliminate the FPE, creating a feature negative effect (FNE). Experiment 2 replicated the FNE. The addition of a testing phase confirmed that participants in the FN task judged novel stimuli to be strong positive predictors whereas participants in the FP task did not, thus producing a novelty FPE. These results are problematic for contemporary associative learning models.     

Causal learning is collaborative: Examining explanation and exploration in social contexts

Causal learning in childhood is a dynamic and collaborative process of explanation and exploration within complex physical and social environments. Understanding how children learn causal knowledge requires examining how they update beliefs about the world given novel information and studying the processes by which children learn in collaboration with caregivers, educators, and peers. The objective of this article is to review evidence for how children learn causal knowledge by explaining and exploring in collaboration with others. We review three examples of causal learning in social contexts, which elucidate how interaction with others influences causal learning. First, we consider children’s explanation-seeking behaviors in the form of “why” questions. Second, we examine parents’ elaboration of meaning about causal relations. Finally, we consider parents’ interactive styles with children during free play, which constrains how children explore. We propose that the best way to understand children’s causal learning in social context is to combine results from laboratory and natural interactive informal learning environments.     

The role of cognitive abilities in children's inferences about social atypicality and peer exclusion and inclusion in intergroup contexts

Children aged 6–7 years judged a loyal and a partially disloyal member of a school in terms of how typical they are within the school group and their likely acceptance by peers from the same school and a different school. Second‐order mental‐state understanding (SOMSU) predicted whether children thought atypical members would be included differently in the two groups. Counterfactual reasoning ability, multiple classification ability, and working memory ability did not predict children's judgements of group members. Moreover, as predicted by the developmental subjective group dynamics model, only children with higher levels of SOMSU and who discerned differences in the typicality of normative and deviant ingroup members inferred that peers would differently include atypical individuals from the same and different groups.     

Judgments of grammaticality of sentences violating the principle of full interpretation: a further exploration

54 Japanese speakers judged isolated simple bitransitive sentences involving an unnecessary extra argument in addition to three legitimate arguments. Two variables were manipulated, with one variable concerning the role the extra argument assumed in a sentence, subjective, dative, or objective and the other concerning the relation it bore with the legitimate argument. The sentences with the extra arguments were judged to be an average grammaticality of about 3 on a 7-point scale. This score, although still lower than that obtained for sentences involving only the legitimate arguments, suggests that speakers' judgments are not fully consistent with the judgments expected if they might possess and demonstrate the knowledge of the principle of Full Interpretation.     

The Jigsaw classroom under test: No effect on intergroup relations evident

Two quasi‐experiments with intervention and control classes investigated effects of the Jigsaw classroom on intergroup relations, with 11 years old in grade 6 (Study 1) and 13–15 years old in grades 8–10 (Study 2). Both studies investigated developments in majority members' outgroup attitudes, intergroup friendship and empathy. They also investigated attitudes towards school among all the students. Study 2 added assessments of common ingroup identity in the majority sample and considered outgroup attitudes in the minorities' sample. Particularly in Study 2, an effort was made to ensure an accurate implementation of Jigsaw. The studies could not confirm that Jigsaw had effects on intergroup relations. Study 2, using adolescents as participants and 11 Jigsaw classes, found no effects of Jigsaw. In Study 1, one of the two Jigsaw classes had a statistically significant, minor favourable development along outgroup attitudes. However, this development may have been an effect of having two teachers (and few students in the class); no similar development was uncovered in the second Jigsaw class (with one teacher). The data question the frequent optimism on behalf of the Jigsaw classroom as an effective means to counter prejudice. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Hierarchy in the mind: The predictive power of social dominance orientation across social contexts and domains

The question of whether social dominance orientation represents a generalized orientation towards group-based hierarchies continues to arouse heated debate. Some researchers maintain that rather than indexing support for hierarchy across a variety of situations and social contexts, social dominance orientation scores simply reflect individuals' attitudes towards whatever specific context individuals had in mind while completing the scale. We systematically examine the generality of SDO by investigating its pattern of relationships with a very wide range of variables across a variety of disparate contexts, exploring inequality both as an ideal and as manifested in specific policies towards particular groups. We also experimentally test an important question raised by Sibley and Liu (2010) about whether administration of modified instructions to think only of “groups in general” is required to ensure SDO's generality. Evidence that SDO functions as a generalized orientation only when administered with instructions to think of groups in general would be a cause for much concern among the many researchers who have used the unmodified scale to index such an orientation. As expected, our results are clear in suggesting (a) that SDO represents a generalized orientation towards group-based hierarchy, and (b) that this property is not dependent on specific instructions to participants to think only of groups in general. Theoretical and practical implications for the status of SDO are discussed.