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.     

Young children perceive less humanness in outgroup faces

We investigated when young children first dehumanize outgroups. Across two studies, 5‐ and 6‐year‐olds were asked to rate how human they thought a set of ambiguous doll‐human face morphs were. We manipulated whether these faces belonged to their gender in‐ or gender outgroup (Study 1) and to a geographically based in‐ or outgroup (Study 2). In both studies, the tendency to perceive outgroup faces as less human relative to ingroup faces increased with age. Explicit ingroup preference, in contrast, was present even in the youngest children and remained stable across age. These results demonstrate that children dehumanize outgroup members from relatively early in development and suggest that the tendency to do so may be partially distinguishable from intergroup preference. This research has important implications for our understanding of children's perception of humanness and the origins of intergroup bias.     

Group evaluations as self-group distancing: Ingroup typicality moderates evaluative intergroup bias in stigmatized groups

Outgroup favoritism among members of stigmatized groups can be seen as a form of self-group distancing. We examined how intergroup evaluations in stigmatized groups vary as a function of ingroup typicality. In Studies 1 and 2, Black participants (N = 125,915; N = 766) more strongly preferred light-skinned or White relative to dark-skinned or Black individuals the lighter their own skin tone. In Study 3, overweight participants (N = 147,540) more strongly preferred normal-weight relative to overweight individuals the lower their own body weight. In Study 4, participants with disabilities (N = 35,058) more strongly preferred non-disabled relative to disabled individuals the less visible they judged their own disability. Relationships between ingroup typicality and intergroup evaluations were at least partially mediated by ingroup identification (Studies 2 and 3). A meta-analysis across studies yielded an average effect size of r = .12. Furthermore, higher ingroup typicality was related to both ingroup and outgroup evaluations. We discuss ingroup typicality as an individual constraint to self-group distancing among stigmatized group members and its relation to intergroup evaluations.     

Adolescents' evaluations of those who challenge exclusive and inclusive peer norms

Early and middle adolescents' judgements and reasonings about peers who challenge exclusive and inclusive peer group norms were examined across three studies with varying intergroup contexts. Study 1 participants included (N = 199) non-Arab American participants responding to an Arab American/non-Arab American intergroup context. Study 2 included (N = 123) non-Asian and (N = 105) Asian American participants responding to an Asian/non-Asian American intergroup context. Study 3 included (N = 275) Lebanese participants responding to an American/Lebanese intergroup context. Across all three studies participants responded to ingroup and outgroup deviant group members who challenged their peer groups to either include or exclude an outgroup peer with similar interests. Findings indicated that adolescents approved of peers who challenged exclusive peer norms and advocated for inclusion of an ethnic and cultural outgroup, and disapproved of peers who challenged inclusive group norms and advocated for exclusion. Non-Arab and non-Asian American adolescents displayed ingroup bias when evaluating a deviant advocating for exclusion. Additionally, age differences were found among Asian American adolescents. Findings will be discussed in the light of intergroup research on those who challenge injustices.     

When and How Do High Status Group Members Offer Help: Effects of Social Dominance Orientation and Status Threat

The present study explored the implications of an intergroup perspective on individual difference and situational influences on helping, specifically, outgroup members. In particular, we examined the effects of social dominance orientation (SDO) and group status threat on the amount and kind of help offered by Jewish participants (n = 99) to Arab and Jewish students. Dependent measures were the likelihood of helping outgroup and ingroup members across various situations of need and, when help is given, the likelihood that it would be dependency‐oriented rather than autonomy‐oriented assistance. As expected, higher SDO individuals offered less help to outgroup (Arab) students, particularly when they experienced threat to group status, but not to ingroup members. In addition, higher SDO participants, when they did report that they would help, were more likely to offer dependency‐oriented help to outgroup than to ingroup members. The theoretical and applied implications are discussed.     

Group membership,group norms,empathy, and young children's intentions to aggress

This study assessed the effect of ingroup norms and empathy on 6 and 9‐year‐old children's (N=161) attitudes and aggressive intentions toward outgroup members. Prior to an intergroup drawing competition against an outgroup, participants' empathy was measured, and they were randomly assigned to a simulated group with a norm of direct or indirect aggression, or no aggression norm. Results indicated participants' attitudes were less positive toward the outgroup vs. the ingroup, and that both direct and indirect aggressive intentions were displayed toward the outgroup. Most importantly, the ingroup was liked less when it had an aggression norm, and the participants' aggressive intentions were not enhanced by the group aggression norm. Empathy was a significant negative predictor of direct but not indirect aggression intentions. Implications for understanding the instigation and inhibition of children's aggression intentions are discussed. Aggr. Behav. 35:244–258, 2009. © 2009 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.     

Outgroup prejudice and perceptions of prosocial intergroup behaviors

How people perceive outgroup prosocial behaviors is an important but under‐researched aspect of intergroup relations. In three experiments conducted in two cultural contexts (Italy and Kosovo) and with two different populations (adolescents and adults; N = 586), we asked participants to imagine being offered help by an outgroup versus ingroup member. Participants attributed fewer prosocial motives to and were less willing to accept help from the outgroup (vs. ingroup) member. This was particularly true for highly prejudiced participants and when the outgroup was described negatively. Participants' perceptions of the outgroup helper's prosocial motives and expected quality of the interaction with the helper mediated the effect of helper's group membership on willingness to accept the help (Experiment 3). We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings for intergroup relations.     

Opposing effects of personal and collective self-esteem on interpersonal and intergroup comparisons

The relationship between self-esteem deriving from both personal and social identity and comparisons at both interpersonal and intergroup level was examined. Participants took part in individual and group brainstorming tasks which they later had the opportunity to evaluate. In the case of the individual task, participants' own solutions were judged in conjunction with solutions provided by a member of their ingroup and a member of the outgroup. For the group task, the ingroup solution was compared with an outgroup solution. Both personal and collective self-esteem were found to influence these ratings, but in different ways. In terms of intergroup comparisons, participants with high personal self-esteem (PSE) showed greatest ingroup bias. In contrast, this same effect was associated with low public collective-self esteem (CSE), that is, people who felt that their group was viewed negatively differentiated most strongly. Furthermore, this opposition of the effects of PSE and CSE also applied to the interpersonal comparisons. Participants with high PSE self-enhanced relative to participants with low PSE, while the reverse pertained for CSE scores. Participants with low private CSE rated both their own and the ingroup member's solution more positively than the outgroup solution. An analysis is presented which explains these effects in terms of threat experienced as a result of incongruency between comparative context and optimal identity enhancement strategies. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Children's prosocial behavioural intentions towards outgroup members

When will children decide to help outgroup peers? We examined how intergroup competition, social perspective taking (SPT), and empathy influence children's (5–10 years, N = 287) prosocial intentions towards outgroup members. Study 1 showed that, in a minimal group situation, prosociality was lower in an intergroup competitive than in a non‐competitive or interpersonal context. Study 2 revealed that, in a real groups situation involving intergroup competition, prosociality was associated with higher empathy and lower competitive motivation. In a subsequent non‐competitive context, there were age differences in the impact of SPT and competitive motivation. With age, relationships strengthened between SPT and prosociality (positively) and between competitiveness and prosociality (negatively). Among older children, there was a carry‐over effect whereby feelings of intergroup competitiveness aroused by the intergroup competitive context suppressed outgroup prosociality in the following non‐competitive context. Theoretical and practical implications for improving children's intergroup relationships are discussed.     

Ingroup bias,self-enhancement and group identification

These two studies integrate self-enhancement and ingroup bias and analyse the phenomena from the social identity theory and self-categorization theory. In Study 1, the subjects (N=181) evaluated supporters of two presidential candidates on a rating scale. In Study 2, the subjects (N=302) evaluated either Finnish women's and men's positive characteristics (success condition) or negative characteristics (failure condition) which might play a role in achieving equality between the sexes in Finland. Self-evaluations were conducted on the same scale as those of ingroup and outgroup evaluations. The results showed that ingroup was evaluated more positively than outgroup (hypothesis 1) and that self was evaluated more positively than ingroup (in Study 2, however, this main effect was qualified by gender). As expected, group identification did not dilute self-enhancement (hypothesis 2) in either of the studies but strengthened self-enhancement in Study 1. Hypothesis 3 stated that self-enhancement is inversely related to ingroup favouritism but the hypothesis was only partially confirmed in that the correlation was predictably negative in Study 1 but near zero in both conditions of Study 2. Finally, contrary to hypothesis 4, it turned out that high identified group members evaluated self and ingroup more independently than lows which contradicts the idea of depersonalization. Together the results would be plausible if we rejected the unidimensional conception of interpersonal–intergroup behaviour and assumed instead that interpersonal and intergroup behaviour constitute two bipolar continua. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Asymmetrical evaluation of ingroup versus outgroup members: a look from an information integration perspective

In evaluating ingroup versus outgroup members two types of information can be used: ‘Categorizing information’ related to the target's group membership and ‘individuating information’ related to pieces of information specific to the target to be judged. Information integration theory (IIT, Anderson, 1981) is applied as a formal tool for predicting the judgement resulting from these different pieces of information. It is further assumed that due to a general positivity bias in evaluating own affairs judges tend to evaluate ingroup members more positively than outgroup members. By applying IIT ingroup favouritism on the level of individual targets can be predicted. More importantly, an interaction concerning an asymmetrical impact of ingroup versus outgroup membership information dependent on the individuating information's valence can be predicted: the enhancement of ingroup members should be stronger for negative individuating information, whereas the devaluation of outgroup members should be stronger for positive individuating information. Further a negative correlation between intragroup differentiation and intergroup differentiation on the level of individual judgements is assumed. In a two (judge's group membership: overestimator versus underestimator) by three (target's group membership information absent; target's group membership information present as either ingroup, or outgroup member) by three (valence of the individuating information: positive, neutral, negative) factorial minimal group design with repeated measures on the last two factors the targets' likability had to be rated. The findings are in accord with predictions. Theoretical conclusions with respect to social judgement—and to intergroup theories as well as with respect to general approaches to context effects in social judgement are discussed.     

The threat of moral transgression: The impact of group membership and moral opportunity

When other ingroup members behave immorally, people's motivation to maintain a moral group image may cause them to experience increased threat and act defensively in response. In the current research, we investigated people's reactions to others' misconduct and examined the effect of group membership and the possible threat‐reducing function of moral opportunity—the prospect of being able to re‐establish the group's moral image. In Study 1, students who were confronted with fellow students' plagiarism and who received an opportunity to improve their group's morality reported feeling less threatened than students who did not receive such opportunity. In Study 2, students reacted to a recent academic fraud case, which either implicated an ingroup (scholar in their own discipline) or an outgroup member (scholar in another discipline). Results indicated that participants experienced more threat when an ingroup (versus an outgroup) member had committed the moral transgression. However, as hypothesized, this was not the case when moral opportunity was provided. Hence, the threat‐reducing effect of moral opportunity was replicated. Additionally, participants generally were more defensive in response to ingroup (versus outgroup) moral failure and less defensive when moral opportunity was present (versus absent). Together, these findings suggest that the reduction of threat due to moral opportunity may generally help individuals take constructive action when the behavior of fellow group members discredits the group's moral image.     

Fostering Contact After Historical Atrocities: The Potential of Moral Exemplars

Intergroup contact is a known remedy for complicated intergroup relations. At the same time, contact is rare in postconflict settings. In the present article, we examine whether exposure to narratives about moral exemplars (i.e., members of a perpetrator group who acted morally and in opposition to the passivity or aggression displayed by majority) could increase openness to contact among historical adversaries. In Study 1 (N = 73), presenting members of a historical perpetrator group with information about ingroup moral exemplars led to a decrease of prejudice towards individuals from a historical victim group, which, in turn, resulted in higher openness to contact with them. In Study 2 (N = 100) and 3 (N = 92), exposure to narratives about outgroup moral exemplars in a historically victimized group increased openness to contact with members of a perpetrator group. These effects were mediated by a decrease in prejudice (Studies 2 and 3) and by an increase in trust towards historical perpetrators (Study 2).     

Pathways to prejudice and outgroup hostility: Group alignment and intergroup conflict among football fans

How do different forms of group alignment influence our attitudes toward outgroups? To answer this, the current fieldwork study explored how identification and identity fusion differentially impact outgroup anxiety, prejudice, and hostility toward rival football fan supporter groups in Australia. The community participants (N = 100) were members of two active fan groups who had experienced a history of intergroup tensions. The findings from the full path model confirmed that the predictor group alignment variables of identification and fusion were correlated, and the two outcome variables of outgroup prejudice and hostility were correlated, as predicted. The findings also revealed that fusion with one's club predicted outgroup hostility, but not prejudice, whereas identification with one's club predicted outgroup prejudice, but not hostility. Additionally, outgroup anxiety was found to significantly mediate the relationship between ingroup identification and outgroup prejudice, whereas a similar relationship was not found for fusion. These findings highlight the differential impact of group alignment (i.e., identification and identity fusion) on social constructs of outgroup anxiety, prejudice, and hostility. Empirically, this is the first study to demonstrate the workings of these distinct group alignment pathways in an applied setting involving hard-core football fans. We discuss the broader implications of these findings for a fuller understanding of the drivers of intergroup tensions and conflict.     

Social differentiation between ‘dominant’ and ‘dominated’ groups: Toward an integration of social stereotypes and social identity

In the experiment reported here, 116 male and female adult subjects allocated the points of Tajfel's matrices to the self; an ingroup (same sex), and an outgroup (opposite sex) member, on the basis of gender stereotypical comparison dimensions, individually or in the presence of an ingroup and two outgroup members. Results show that interindividual and intergroup differentiation are associated with masculine characteristics, but not with feminine ones and that there are differences in the male and female patterns of differentiation. Results are discussed within the framework of social identity theory. A theoretical integration of social stereotypes and social identity is proposed, in order to elucidate the process of intergroup discrimination between gender categories.     

Context matters: Explicit and implicit reminders of ingroup privilege increase collective guilt among foreigners in a developing country

We test three ways context matters in the study of intergroup inequality: where participants are approached, who interacts with participants, and how researchers ask participants questions. Regarding how, we replicate a finding that framing intergroup inequality as outgroup disadvantage rather than ingroup privilege reduces collective guilt in a novel context. Regarding where, we go beyond the laboratory to test foreigners in Nepal—a country where inequality is highly salient. Regarding who, we had participants approached by an ingroup (foreign) experimenter or an outgroup (Nepalese) experimenter. We found an outgroup disadvantage framing reduced collective guilt relative to ingroup privilege framing, but only when delivered by an ingroup member. This highlights the importance of taking where, who, and how into account to fully understand the contextual nature of intergroup emotion.     

Effects of Ingroup Bias and Gender Role Violations on Acquaintance Rape Attributions

Two studies of ethnically diverse US college students from northern California examined whether ingroup bias and gender norm violations influence acquaintance rape attributions (Study 1, N?=?118; Study 2, N?=?140). Participants read vignettes depicting acquaintance rape and completed questionnaires. Victims were part of participants’ ingroup or outgroup. Study 1 manipulated the victim’s sexual history (chaste or promiscuous). Study 2 manipulated the victim’s alcohol use (sober or intoxicated). Ingroup victims were perceived more positively than outgroup victims if the victims were promiscuous or intoxicated. More guilt was attributed to rapists of ingroup victims than outgroup victims if the victims were promiscuous or intoxicated. Findings are examined in relation to ingroup bias and gender norm violations.     

Children's social groups and intergroup prejudice: Assessing the influence and inhibition of social group norms

A simulation group study examined whether the effects of group norms on 7‐ and 9‐year‐old children's intergroup attitudes can be moderated by a contrary school norm. Children learnt that their school had an inclusion norm, were assigned to a group with an outgroup inclusion or exclusion norm, and indicated their ingroup and outgroup attitudes under teacher surveillance or not. Results revealed reduced outgroup liking when the group had an exclusion norm, but that the effect was moderated when the school had an inclusion norm, especially among the older children. The participants’ ingroup liking was also reduced, but teacher surveillance had no effect on attitudes. The findings are discussed in relation to possible strategies to moderate social group norm effects.     

Downward Social Comparison in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Test of a Self-Enhancement Interpretation1

We tested some implications of Wills' (1981) downward comparison interpretation of ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup paradigm. Based on a self-enhancement interpretation of ingroup bias, we predicted that subjects who expected to succeed on a task for dispositional reasons and subsequently failed would be most threatened by the feedback and hence, would engage in downward social comparison strategies. The results did not support the self-enhancement interpretation, but a number of interesting findings emerged. First, downward social comparison involving favorable comparisons of the ingroup relative to the outgroup was pervasive and not mediated by self-esteem. Second, ingroup bias was greatest when individuals' outcomes were consistent with their expectations; ingroup bias was mitigated when subjects received feedback that was inconsistent with their expectations. Third, although low self-esteem subjects rated members of the outgroup more negatively than did high self-esteem subjects, high self-esteem subjects engaged in more downward social comparison by enhancing the self relative to both members of the outgroup and their own ingroup. Finally, self-enhancement strategies were affected by performance expectations, attributions, and chronic self-esteem: People who expected to perform well because of stable, dispositional reasons and who were high in self-esteem showed the greatest tendency to engage in self-enhancing comparisons with others. This was true regardless of whether subjects ultimately succeeded or failed on the important task and regardless of whether the comparison others were members of the outgroup or the ingroup.