Moral judgments of the powerless and powerful in violent intergroup conflicts

The present research examined observers' moral judgments of groups in conflict. Study 1 found support for the prediction that actions are interpreted as more moral in the context of low power. People judged the violent actions of a fictitious group as more moral and justifiable when done by a smaller, less powerful country compared to a larger one. However, a second study found that violence may undermine the moral advantage accorded underdog groups. People reading about Israeli construction of settlements in Palestinian territories judged the Israeli actions to be more moral when Palestinians resisted violently compared to when they used non-violent resistance tactics. Together, these studies demonstrate how moral judgments of the actions of groups in conflict are influenced by contextual factors independent of the actions themselves.     

The quality and quantity of mother-toddler conflicts in two contexts

Current Psychology - The purpose of this study was to examine the quantity and quality of the mother-toddler conflicts in two contexts. Forty mother-toddler pairs participated in the study in South...     

In the worst rather than the best of times: effects of salient intergroup ideology in threatening intergroup interactions

Three studies demonstrated that a salient multicultural ideology increases hostile treatment of threatening outgroup interaction partners. The effect of multiculturalism on hostile behavior was evident regardless of whether threat was operationalized in terms of disagreement with an outgroup partner on important social issues (Studies 1 and 3) or rejection by the partner (Study 2). Moreover, the results clearly point to the learning orientation fostered by multiculturalism--as opposed to other factors such as enhanced other-focus, group-level attributions, or focus on differences--as the critical mediator of its effect on hostile behavior under threat. Thus, it appears that multiculturalism enhances the expression of hostility because it prompts individuals to really engage with and attach meaning and importance to threatening behaviors exhibited by outgroup members. The effects of multiculturalism were distinct from those of anti-racism and color-blindness, which set in motion processes that in many respects are directly opposite to those instantiated by multiculturalism. The findings highlight that the behavioral implications of multiculturalism may be quite different in conflictual interactions than they have previously been demonstrated to be in less threatening exchanges.     

Evidence for the regulatory function of intergroup emotion: Emotional consequences of implemented or impeded intergroup action tendencies

If intergroup emotions are functional, successfully implementing an emotion-linked behavioral tendency should discharge the emotion, whereas impeding the behavioral tendency should intensify the emotion. We investigated the emotional consequences of satisfying or thwarting emotionally induced intergroup behavioral intentions. Study 1 showed that if an attack on the ingroup produced anger, retaliation increased satisfaction, but if an attack produced fear, retaliation increased fear and guilt. Study 2 showed that outgroup-directed anger instigated via group insult dissipated when the ingroup successfully responded, but was exacerbated by an unsuccessful response. Responding in an emotionally appropriate way was satisfying, but ingroup failure to respond elicited anger directed at the ingroup. Study 3 showed that intergroup guilt following aggression was diminished when the ingroup made reparations, but was exacerbated when the ingroup aggressed again. Satisfying behavioral intentions associated with intergroup emotions fulfills a regulatory function.     

Role of perceived importance in intergroup contact

Furthering G. W. Allport's contentions for optimal contact, the authors introduce a new construct: the perceived importance of contact. They propose that perceived importance is the best proximal predictor of contact's reduction of prejudice. If individuals have opportunities for contact at work or in the neighborhood, their chances to have intergroup acquaintances and friends increase. Intergroup contact among acquaintances and friends can be perceived as more or less important, which in turn determines intergroup evaluations. A 1st study shows that the new measure of perceived importance is indeed distinct from established quantity and quality indicators. The results are cross-validated in a 2nd study that also sheds light on the meaning of importance. In 3rd and 4th studies, structural equation analyses and a meta-analysis support the hypotheses.     

Linking superiority bias in the interpersonal and intergroup domains

The author conducted 2 studies to explore the link between superiority bias in the interpersonal and intergroup domains. Australian university students evaluated the extent to which various personality traits were more or less applicable to themselves than to other Australian university students in general. They then evaluated the extent to which the same traits were more or less applicable to Australians than to people from other countries in general. As expected, the more participants evaluated themselves as superior to other university students, the more they evaluated Australians as a whole as superior to people from other countries. This link between interpersonal and intergroup superiority biases explained 22.1% of variance in Study I and 33.6% of variance in Study 2. The author interprets the results of the 2 studies as support for fundamental principles of social identity theory: (a) that self-concept consists of not only one's personal self but also the social groups to which one belongs and (b) that people are motivated to view both levels of self in a relatively positive fashion.     

Perspective taking combats the denial of intergroup discrimination

Despite the continuing, adverse impact of discrimination on the lives of racial and ethnic minorities, the denial of discrimination is commonplace. Four experiments investigated the efficacy of perspective taking as a strategy for combating discrimination denial. Participants who adopted a Black or Latino target's perspective in an initial context were subsequently more likely to explicitly acknowledge the persistence of intergroup discrimination than were non-perspective takers (Experiments 1–3) or participants who adopted a White target's perspective (Experiment 1). Perspective taking also engendered more positive attitudes toward a social policy designed to redress intergroup inequalities (i.e., affirmative action), and this relationship was mediated by increased recognition of discrimination (Experiments 2a and 2b). Increased identification with the targeted outgroup, as reflected in automatic associations between the self and African Americans, was found to underlie the effect of perspective taking on sensitivity to discrimination (Experiment 3). The collective findings indicate that perspective taking can effectively combat discrimination denial.     

Initial experiences in the detection of psychodynamic conflicts

A few extracts from an "anamnesis sheet for neurotics" are presented that has been in use at the psychotherapy department of the neurological clinic of the Charité since 1981. The author reports on the experience that has been gained in the use of this sheet.     

The survival of a cooperative tradition in the intergroup discontinuity context

Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity is the tendency, in mixed-motive situations, for groups to interact more competitively, or less cooperatively, than individuals, even though mutual competition yields worse results that mutual cooperation. The present laboratory experiment attempted to assess whether the discontinuity effect could be reduced by the establishment of an intergroup cooperative tradition. Cooperation between intact pairs of groups was induced by placing in each group confederates who successfully convinced their fellow group members of the long-term advantage of trust and cooperation. On subsequent blocks of trails, the confederate was replaced by an actual subject, and then each of the original subjects was replaced so as to simulate generational turnover. By the time all initial members were replaced, their level of cooperation had eroded to the level of groups never experiencing mutual cooperation. The results are discussed in the context of other means of reducing discontinuity. This research was supported by National Science Foundation grants (BNS-9007414 and SBR-9408760) to John Schopler and Chester A. Insko.     

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.     

Effects of minority status in the classroom on children's intergroup attitudes

Three studies examined the effects of relative group size on the development of children's intergroup attitudes. The studies employed a novel group paradigm in which elementary school children attending a summer school program were assigned to larger (i.e., majority) or smaller (i.e., minority) novel groups in their classroom (denoted by colored tee-shirts). In each study, relative group size was situated within a different classroom context. Study 1 examined the effects of relative group size when teachers made functional use of the novel groups and were themselves members of the novel groups. Study 2 examined the effects of relative group size in the absence of functional use. Study 3 examined the effects of relative group size when the classroom environment contained implicit messages about group status. In each study, children's intergroup attitudes (e.g., trait ratings, group evaluations) were assessed following several weeks in the classroom. The effect of relative group size on in-group bias was complex, varying as a function of (a) the relative size and salience of groups, (b) the measure used to assess intergroup attitudes, (c) group status (higher or lower), and (d) children's age.     

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.     

The effects of intergroup comparison on the polarization of opinions

This study investigates the expression of attitudes by individuals within the context of groups. A link is made between two theoretical areas: that of intergroup relations and that of the effects of group interaction on the expression of opinions. It is argued that individuals in groups adopt more polarized attitudes to achieve a more positively distinct group identity, and to afford themselves identification with that group. Subjects individually expressed their opinion on an issue, while the salience of group membership was varied by evoking the identity of an alternative group which held opposed opinions on the issue. When their own group identity was more salient, subjects tended to express their opinions in a more polarized manner, and in a manner more in keeping with the presumed view of their group. Also, they attributed to the other group attitudes that were more polarized and more in keeping with their presumed view of the issue.     

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.     

Judgments of quantity and conservation of quantity: the area of a rectangle

This study examines the relationships between perceptive judgment of quantity and conservation judgment of quantity with regard to the concept of area. Twenty children who passed an area conservation task (mean age = 8) and 20 children who failed it (mean age = 6, 7) were administered an area judgment task. This task was a replication of Anderson and Cuneo's study (1978, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 335-378). The conserving children generally appeared to apply an additive rule (the height and width rule) observed by Anderson and Cuneo in 5 year olds. The nonconserving children in contrast generally presented patterns suggesting centration on one of the two dimensions. The implications for Anderson's and Piaget's conceptions of conservation development are discussed.     

Separation-individuation conflicts in children of Holocaust Survivors

This article examines the developmental conflicts of children of Holocaust Survivors with specific emphasis on psychic trauma and second-generation Survivor effects. Issues related to depression, guilt, and aggression are discussed in relation to Mahler's separation-individuation process. Developmental failures at early phases may predispose these children toward low self-esteem, narcissistic vulnerability, identity problems, and impairments in interpersonal relations. The need for further research and clinical investigation is emphasized to help develop preventive measures and attenuate the effects of the Holocaust on future generations.     

A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: the mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self

S. C. Wright, A. Aron, T. McLaughlin-Volpe, and S. A. Ropp (1997) proposed that the benefits associated with cross-group friendship might also stem from vicarious experiences of friendship. Extended contact was proposed to reduce prejudice by reducing intergroup anxiety, by generating perceptions of positive ingroup and outgroup norms regarding the other group, and through inclusion of the outgroup in the self. This article documents the first test of Wright et al.'s model, which used structural equation modeling among two independent samples in the context of South Asian-White relations in the United Kingdom. Supporting the model, all four variables mediated the relationship between extended contact and outgroup attitude, controlling for the effect of direct contact. A number of alternative models were ruled out, indicating that the four mediators operate concurrently rather than predicting one another.