Perceptions of group homogeneity as a function of social comparison: The mediating role of group identity

Recent research has shown that creating an intergroup context of comparison may influence the outgroup homogeneity effect or even turn it into an ingroup homogeneity effect. In the present study, the aim was to replicate these findings by using overall judgment of similarity instead of the more commonly used dimensional ratings. Further, and more importantly, it was argued that this effect could be explained by an increase in the salience of participants’ group identity. The results showed that context of comparison revealed an effect on both level of group identification and perceptions of relative ingroup and outgroup homogeneity. In line with predictions, participants’ level of group identification seemed to account for the effect of the comparison context on the homogeneity ratings.     

Getting rid of the bad ones: The relationship between group identification, deviant derogation, and identity maintenance

Two studies investigated the impact of the presentation of an undesirable group member on group stereotype judgments among participants with varying degrees of ingroup identification. In Study 1 (N = 67), identification was associated with stereotype change following presentation of an undesirable, but not a desirable, ingroup member. This relationship was mediated by evaluations of the undesirable ingroup member: the stronger the identification, the more negative the evaluation, and the greater the shift towards a more positive ingroup stereotype. In Study 2 (N = 180), identification was positively associated with ingroup stereotype ratings following presentation of an undesirable ingroup member but was negatively associated with outgroup ratings following presentation of an undesirable outgroup member. As in Study 1, the association between ingroup identification and ingroup stereotype ratings was mediated by evaluations of the undesirable ingroup member. Results are discussed in relation to the black sheep effect and identity maintenance strategies.     

How context-independent is the outgroup homogeneity effect? A response to Bartsch and Judd

Bartsch and Judd (1993) argue that outgroup homogeneity effects occur independently of any tendency for members of minority groups to see their ingroup as more homogeneous than the majority outgroup. This argument is based on evidence of an underlying outgroup homogeneity effect in a study which purports to unconfound the roles of judged group size and ingroup–outgroup judgement by presenting subjects first with a small or large ingroup (or outgroup) and then a small comparison outgroup (or ingroup). However, from the perspective of self-categorization theory (SCT), such a procedure actually introduces a confound as SCT predicts that when an ingroup is judged first it should be perceived as relatively heterogeneous due to the intragroup nature of this judgemental context. Close examination of Bartsch and Judd's data bears this point out: the tendency to see the ingroup as less homogeneous than the outgroup when the ingroup was judged first was extinguished when the ingroup was judged second even when the judged groups were of equal size. Consistent with SCT, this re-analysis suggests that manifestations of outgroup homogeneity are not independent of contextual factors which determine the relative appropriateness of category-based perception of ingroup and outgroup.     

Minimal‐group membership influences children's responses to novel experience with group members

Children, like adults, tend to prefer ingroup over outgroup individuals, but how this group bias affects children's processing of information about social groups is not well understood. In this study, 5‐ and 6‐year‐old children were assigned to artificial groups. They observed instances of ingroup and outgroup members behaving in either a positive (egalitarian) or a negative (stingy) manner. Observations of positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors reliably reduced children's liking of novel outgroup members, while observations of negative ingroup and positive outgroup behaviors had little effect on liking ratings. In addition, children successfully identified the more generous group only when the ingroup was egalitarian and the outgroup stingy. These data provide compelling evidence that children treat knowledge of and experiences with ingroups and outgroups differently, and thereby differently interpret identical observations of ingroup versus outgroup members.     

Why do people perceive ingroup homogeneity on ingroup traits and outgroup homogeneity on outgroup traits?

People tend to perceive ingroup homogeneity on ingroup stereotypical traits and outgroup homogeneity on outgroup stereotypical traits (e.g., Kelly, 1989; Simon, 1992a; Simon & Pettigrew, 1990). If it is assumed that people use homogeneity ratings to indicate the extent to which groups possess traits, then this stereotype effect may be interpreted as an expression of perceived trait possession (i.e., ingroups possess ingroup stereotypical traits and outgroups possess outgroup stereotypical traits). If it is further assumed that research participants abide by the conversational norm of appropriate quantity (e.g., Bless, Strack, & Schwarz, 1993), then this stereotype effect should be significantly reduced following prior expressions of perceived trait possession. A literature review and two minimal group experiments (Ns = 75, 104) supported this prediction. This evidence is discussed in relation to the outgroup homogeneity effect and self-categorization theory.     

Ingroup bias and the ‘black sheep’ effect: Assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group judgements

Two studies compared the relative strength of motivational assumptions drawn from SIT (e.g. Tajfel, 1978) and memory-based assumptions drawn from the differential familiarity hypothesis (Linville, Fischer and Salovey, 1989) in explaining ingroup bias and the black sheep effect (Marques, 1986, 1990). In Study 1, 15 subjects estimated member distributions and gave overall ratings of an ingroup and two outgroups. In Study 2, 42 subjects performed similar tasks for ingroup or outgroup, and evaluated likeable and unlikeable group members. Results showed, first, that overall group ratings account better for ingroup bias than do central tendencies of group distributions. In addition, likeable and unlikeable ingroup members were, respectively, upgraded and downgraded relative to their outgroup counterparts. Finally, whole ingroup ratings as well as judgements of likeable and unlikeable ingroup members proved more independent from variability and central tendency of underlying distributions than did similar outgroup judgements. Results are discussed in light of motivational and knowledge-based determinants of group judgements.     

Intergroup relations in a changing political context: the case of veiled and unveiled university students in Turkey

The present study investigated (a) the underlying dimensions of different measures related to identification, categorization, ingroup bias and contact conditions; and (b) relations between two groups related to an important social controversy over time. Questionnaires were administered to veiled (minority) and unveiled (majority) Turkish female university students during the fall of 1996 and the spring of 1998. Results of factor analysis revealed three factors, namely: tolerance, including perceived outgroup homogeneity, ingroup bias, and individuation; identification, including identification and perceived ingroup homogeneity; and contact conditions, including ratings of pleasantness, frequency and feelings of anxiety. Comparison of groups over time revealed that although the minority group reported lower tolerance for outgroups than the majority the pattern was reversed in 1998. In addition, the majority reported greater negative contact conditions of contact in 1998 than in 1996. No time‐related differences were revealed for the minority with respect to reports of contact conditions. Results were discussed with respect to sensitivity of group relations to social context and to Social Identity Theory. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Striving for success in outgroup settings: effects of contextually emphasizing ingroup dimensions on stigmatized group members' social identity and performance styles

For members of stigmatized groups, being confronted with highstatus outgroup members threatens social identity and undermines performance on status-relevant dimensions. Two experiments examined whether the negative effects of outgroup contexts are alleviated when value is expressed for a dimension on which the stigmatized ingroup excels. Specifically, the authors assessed whether ingroup versus outgroup context and contextual value for ingroup dimensions affects group members' reactions to failure on status-relevant dimensions and subsequent performance. Experiment 1 showed that in comparison to ingroup contexts, outgroup contexts induce stigmatized group members to protect social identity and to feel more agitated following negative performance feedback. Experiment 2 showed that when others in the context emphasize the importance of a dimension on which the ingroup excels, the negative effects of outgroup contexts are alleviated, stigmatized group members feel more cheerful concerning an upcoming task, and task performance is characterized by a focus on success.     

The two faces of dominance: The differential effect of ingroup superiority and outgroup inferiority on dominant-group identity and group esteem

The present paper provides evidence that dominant-group members distinguish dominance framed as ingroup superiority from dominance framed as outgroup inferiority, and that ingroup superiority enhances esteem for, and thus identification with, the group more than outgroup inferiority. In Experiment 1, Democrats report higher levels of party identification after being told that Democrats won an election than after being told that Republicans lost the election. These effects are attenuated among dominant group members whose values are in conflict with how dominance was achieved. In Experiments 2a and 2b, unearned dominance framed as ingroup superiority resulted in higher levels of White identification than unearned dominance framed as outgroup inferiority among Whites who did not value meritocracy. In contrast, Whites who valued meritocracy did not increase their levels of identification with the group. In Experiment 2b, this interactive effect on racial identification was mediated by esteem for the group.     

Majority — minority status and perceived ingroup variability revisited

Social identity theory predicts that ingroup members should see their group as more homogeneous when confronted by a large and presumably dominant outgroup. This prediction has been supported in a series of recent studies, all of which purport to show that the usual ingroup—outgroup difference in perceived variability, i.e. outgroup homogeneity, is reversed when the ingroup is in a minority position. In all of these studies, however, the ingroup—outgroup distinction has been confounded with the size of the target group judged. The present study was conducted to overcome this confound. Subjects judged both the ingroup and outgroup, under one of two different orders, and the first group judged varied in size across subjects while the size of the second group was held constant. This permitted comparisons of the perceived variability of the second judged group (be it the ingroup or outgroup) when it followed the judgment of either a larger or equal size first group. Consistent with social identity theory, ingroups were judged as less variable when judged after a large outgroup than after a small one. This was true, however, only on measures of perceived dispersion and not on measures of perceived stereotypicality. On both sorts of measures, however, overall outgroup homogeneity was found, over and above the difference due to the comparison of the ingroup with a large or small outgroup.     

The effects of group membership and social context on information organization

Self-categorization theory posits that the perception of group members is flexible and determined by the comparative social context as well as by group membership. Subjects read about either four ingroup or outgroup target persons in the context of four additional stimulus persons who were members of either the same group as the target persons (intragroup context) or the other group (intergroup context). Individualized and attribute-wise information organization was assessed on the basis of information clustering in free recall. As predicted, differential processing of ingroup information occurred as a function of the salient social context; in an intragroup context, ingroup information was organized significantly more by person than in an intergroup context. Conversely, ingroup information tended to be clustered more by attribute in an intergroup than in an intragroup context. Clustering of outgroup information was not sensitive to changes in the social context. The results indicate that the perception of group members may be based on more than group membership alone. ©1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Corralling the Ingroup: Deviant Derogation and Perception of Group Variability

ABSTRACT

Two experiments investigated the relationship between the evaluation of a deviant group member and the perceived group variability among participants with varying degrees of ingroup identification. In Experiment 1 (N?=?79) ingroup identification was negatively associated with perceived ingroup variability following the presentation of a deviant ingroup member. This relationship was mediated by ratings of the deviant: the stronger the identification, the more negatively the deviant was evaluated, and the more homogeneous the ingroup was perceived. These effects were replicated in Experiment 2 (N?=?169), which also showed that there was no association between ingroup identification and the representation of the outgroup following exposure to a deviant outgroup member. The findings suggest that deviant derogation may serve to isolate undesirable members from the rest of the ingroup and protect the group's identity.     

Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: implications for evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group

This experiment examined members' evaluations of a group leader and the group in contexts where a superordinate group comprised two subgroups and the group leader was aligned with one or other subgroup. The design varied group leader (ingroup, outgroup) and leader behavior (ingroup favoring, outgroup favoring) as well as the broader comparative context (intragroup, intergroup). Across a number of measures, results indicated a consistent Group Leader × Leader Behavior interaction that was independent of comparative context. Although group members were most satisfied with an ingroup leader who favored the ingroup, ingroup leaders were perceived positively irrespective of their behavior. Outgroup leaders who unexpectedly favored the other subgroup were also perceived positively. However, outgroup leaders who favored their own subgroup were perceived as less fair and as more biased than other leaders. They also engendered less identification with the superordinate group and a less unified perception of the group. Results demonstrate the importance of social identity concerns to leadership in nested group contexts and emphasize the fact that perceptions of leader fairness and concern for the common group mediate responses to the superordinate category. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When differences matter: intergroup distinctiveness and the evaluation of impostors

The present study examined the effect of intergroup distinctiveness and group membership on evaluations of impostors. We predicted that ingroup members would be harsher than outgroup members on an impostor and that perceptions of intergroup distinctiveness would further moderate these evaluations. Specifically, we tested the social identity theory prediction that low intergroup distinctiveness would lead to greater derogation of the impostor (the ‘reactive distinctiveness’ hypothesis) against the self‐categorization hypothesis that high intergroup distinctiveness would instigate more derogation of an impostor (the ‘reflective distinctiveness’ hypothesis). In this study, vegetarians (ingroup members) and meat eaters (outgroup members) were presented with a target claiming to be vegetarian, but caught indulging in a meat dish. We found that ingroup members derogated the impostor more and felt less pleased about discovering the impostor behaviour than did outgroup members. In line with the reflective distinctiveness hypothesis, the heightened derogation displayed by ingroup members only emerged when intergroup distinctiveness was high, an effect that was mediated by ratings of group identification. The discussion focuses on the different responses intergroup distinctiveness may evoke. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group

Two field studies examined the attributions made for the historically negative behaviour of a group as a whole, depending on whether the actions were committed by the ingroup or an outgroup. In the first study, Jewish people assigned more internal responsibility to Germans for their treatment of Jewish people during the Second World War than Germans assigned to their own group. In the second study, people attributed the negative historical actions of another nation more internally (and less externally) than similar negative historical actions committed by their own nation. This pattern of intergroup attributional bias was more pronounced among people who highly identified with their national ingroup. Outgroup homogeneity and perceptions of differences between the groups were also significantly predicted by ingroup identification. Links between social identity theory and the intergroup attribution bias are considered. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Assimilation and contrast to group primes: The moderating role of ingroup identification

This research examined the conditions under which behavioral contrast would be observed in relation to ingroup and outgroup primes. The authors tested the hypothesis that differing levels of commitment to the ingroup would predict diverging behavioral responses to outgroup but not ingroup primes. Across two studies, featuring both age and gender groups, we found that ingroup identification predicted responses to outgroup primes with higher identifiers showing an increased tendency to contrast, that is, behave less like the outgroup, and more like the ingroup. Ingroup identification did not predict responses to ingroup primes. The implications of these findings for social comparison and social identity theories are discussed.     

Cognitive differentiation between self,ingroup, and outgroup: The roles of identification and perceived intergroup conflict

Several models predict that persons ascribe opposite characteristics to self and ingroups on the one hand and outgroups on the other (outgroup contrast). However, only few studies have found this effect. This study explored its boundary conditions. Sixty‐two students rated (a) characteristics of themselves, an ingroup (own study major), and an outgroup (other study major), (b) ingroup identification, and (c) perceived intergroup conflict. Participants who were relatively high in ingroup identification and who perceived relatively high levels of intergroup conflict displayed outgroup contrast, as indicated by negative correlations between trait ratings for self and ingroup and between trait ratings for ingroup and outgroup. The other participants showed weaker or no outgroup contrast. Thus, this study is one of the few empirical demonstrations of outgroup contrast and points to moderators that should be considered in future research on this effect. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism

Studied the effects of reward magnitude and comparability of the outgroup on minimal intergroup discrimination where self-interest was related to ingroup profit. Favouritism towards own group is hypothesized to arise from intergroup comparisons to enhance self-esteem as well as instrumental rivalry for group and self-interest. Sixty-two fourteen to fifteen years' old school-boys and girls were randomly assigned to a high or low reward condition in which they distributed monetary rewards, via choice-matrices, to the ingroup and a relevant comparison outgroup, and the ingroup and an irrelevant comparison outgroup. Monetary self-interest was explicitly and directly linked to ingroup's absolute profit. Ss sacrificed group and personal gain to achieve intergroup differences in monetary outcomes favouring the ingroup; and were less fair and more discriminatory towards the relevant than irrelevant outgroup. especially with High Rewards.     

The effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism,stereotyping and overestimation of relative ingroup size

An experiment (n = 61) investigated the effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism, stereotyping and the overestimation of relative ingroup size. As predicted, outgroup homogeneity was conducive to ingroup favouritism. Ingroup homogeneity, however, failed to influence ingroup favouritism. Also unexpectedly, asymmetry in group homogeneity — irrespective of whether the ingroup or the outgroup was the more homogeneous group — led to pronounced stereotyping of both groups and to the overestimation of relative ingroup size.