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.     

Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups.

Five aspects of the complexity of the knowledge representation of business and engineering majors were examined to see whether these differed by group membership and whether these differences were related to differences in perceived variability. Significantly more subgroups were generated when describing the in-group than the out-group; this difference predicted the relative tendency to see the in-group as more variable, and when controlled for statistically, out-group homogeneity effects were eliminated. Familiarity, redundancy, number of attributes used to describe the group, and the deviance of the subgroups from the larger group generally showed differences for in-group and out-group but did not show consistent evidence of mediation. In a 2nd study, Ss who were asked to sort group members into meaningful subgroups perceived greater variability relative to those who did not perform the sorting task.     

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.     

What Is Social about Justice? Inclusive Identity and Group Values as the Basis of the Justice Motive

Three studies tested the claim that the justice motive is based on commitment to the perceived values of the “primary category” of potential recipients of an allocation. In Study 1, participants who identified more strongly with their group regarded a member who represented the group's strengths as more entitled to a common profit. In Study 2, participants judged their own entitlement versus that of a member who represented the group's strengths. Members who identified more strongly with their group were less likely to display self-interest in their judgments. In Study 3, participants judged the entitlement of an in-group member representing out-group strengths versus an out-group member representing in-group strengths. When identification with the primary category (including in-group and out-group) was strong, members who identified more strongly with their in-group viewed the out-group member representing in-group values as more deserving.     

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.     

The impact of positive mood and category importance on crossed categorization effects

Four studies examined the effect of positive versus neutral affect on preference among potential discussion partners who were members of two in-groups, two out-groups, or both an in-group and an out-group (crossed targets). The importance of targets' category memberships was manipulated by idiographically based selection. Positive affect elevated evaluation of crossed targets with a dominant (differentially important) in-group (Study 1). When categories were made equally important, positive affect had no impact (Studies 2 and 3). Study 4 presented crossed targets with both equally and differentially important group memberships and showed that differential category importance (dominance) is necessary for positive affect to influence judgments about them. These results are explained by the broadened categorization induced by positive affect.     

The Janus face of power in intergroup contexts: a further exploration of the noblesse oblige effect

The authors examined the impact of power on in-group bias by manipulating group members' power over the in-group and power over the out-group as orthogonal factors. Each factor had 3 levels: 0%, 50%, and 100%. Participants were 216 male pupils (12-13 years old). Participants showed no in-group bias when they had 0% control over the in-group, strong in-group bias with 50% control, but less in-group bias with 100% control. Participants showed more in-group bias when they had 0% control over the out-group than when they had 50% or 100% control. The combination of these 2 main effects resulted in the noblesse oblige effect: Group members with complete control over both in-group and out-group expressed less in-group bias than did group members who shared control with an out-group.     

In-Group Favoritism Among Native and Immigrant Turkish Cypriots: Trait Evaluations of In-Group and Out-Group Targets

Abstract

The authors investigated whether in-group favoritism manifests itself as praise for the in-group or as denigration of the out-group. A total of 450 Turkish Cypriots (248 native, 202 immigrant) judged the applicability of positive and negative trait words to in-group and out-group targets. Both the native and the immigrant groups judged the positive traits as more applicable to their respective in-groups than to the out-group. The native group evaluated the negative social traits as more applicable to the immigrant group. The immigrant group also judged the negative social traits as more applicable to themselves. The two groups did not differ in their judgments for more personal negative traits.     

In-group favoritism among Native and immigrant Turkish Cypriots: trait evaluations of in-group and out-group targets

The authors investigated whether in-group favoritism manifests itself as praise for the in-group- or as denigration of the out-group. A total of 450 Turkish Cypriots (248 native, 202 immigrant) judged the applicability of positive and negative trait words to in-group and out-group targets. Both the native and the immigrant groups judged the positive traits as more applicable to their respective in-groups than to the out-group. The native group evaluated the negative social traits as more applicable to the immigrant group. The immigrant group also judged the negative social traits as more applicable to themselves. The two groups did not differ in their judgments for more personal negative traits.     

Self-activation and out-group contrast

It has been suggested that higher in-group identifiers primed with an out-group stereotype show contrastive behavioral responses because they activate the in-group, social-self. However, priming the personal-self can lead to contrastive judgments. We investigated whether personal self-activation was also evident for higher identifiers primed with an out-group. An experiment demonstrated that higher identifiers primed with an out-group showed faster responses to self-words than higher identifiers primed with the in-group. This findings suggest that the personal-self is also activated for higher identifiers primed with an out-group, and this self-activation may underlie their contrastive responding.     

Devaluing domains in response to threatening intergroup comparisons: perceived legitimacy and the status value asymmetry

Group status and status legitimacy were tested as moderators of devaluing in response to threatening intergroup comparisons. In 3 experiments, participants received feedback comparing their in-group (based on school or gender) to a higher or lower status out-group. When the legitimacy of group status differences was assumed (Studies 1 and 2) or manipulated (Study 3), participants devalued the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a lower status out-group but did not devalue the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a higher status out-group. In Study 3, this status value asymmetry was eliminated when status differences were delegitimized. Mediational analyses suggested that the status value asymmetry was explained by the perceived utility of the domain for gaining status-relevant rewards.     

Majority group children expect that ethnic out-group peers feel fewer positive but more negative emotions than in-group peers

Across two studies majority group children’s (8–13 years) perception of positive and negative emotions in ethnic in-group and disadvantaged ethnic out-group peers was examined. Study 1 (N?=?302) showed that children expected in-group peers to feel better in a positive situation compared to out-group peers. Whereas, in a negative situation, children expected in-group peers to feel less bad compared to out-group peers, particularly when they evaluated the in-group as very positive. Study 2 (N?=?201) replicates these findings across multiple positive and negative situations, and additionally shows that in very negative situations children expect in-group and out-group peers to feel equally bad. These results suggest that children’s perception of emotions in others is influenced by ethnic group membership.     

Intergroup differentiation: stereotyping as a function of status hierarchy

The authors explored how negative intergroup comparisons affect intergroup differentiation. More specifically, they tested the prediction that the in-group's negative intergroup comparisons with a high-status group would result in more negative stereotyping of a lower status out-group. The authors elicited stereotypes of a lower status university in 2 conditions. In the 1st, the participants judged only the middle-ranking university in-group and a lower status university. In the 2nd, those judgments followed comparison with a higher status university. In the 2nd condition, there was an increased differentiation between the in-group and the lower status out-group because of the more negative stereotyping of the lower status out-group. This evidence of intergroup differentiation was found only on the dimension judged most important and along which the in-group was negatively compared with the higher status group.     

Trait ratings of the in-group and out-group with minimal acquaintance: Differentiation and out-group favorability

Malloy et al. (2011) studied trait judgments and behavior of Black and White men during face-to-face interactions at zero-acquaintance and found that intergroup responses were asymmetric. The present research extends that work. In Study 1 Black and White men observed two dyadic interactions from the Malloy et al (2011) study and rated in-group targets’ traits. In Study 2, using the type generation paradigm, Black and White males and females generated types of persons from their racial in-group or out-group and rated their traits. Blacks differentiated the unique traits of Whites to a greater extent than Whites differentiated the unique traits of Blacks. Blacks and Whites judged out-group targets’ traits more positively than those of in-group members, and both differentiated the unique traits of in-group members more than out-group members.     

The cross-category effect: mere social categorization is sufficient to elicit an own-group bias in face recognition

Although the cross-race effect (CRE) is a well-established phenomenon, both perceptual-expertise and social-categorization models have been proposed to explain the effect. The two studies reported here investigated the extent to which categorizing other people as in-group versus out-group members is sufficient to elicit a pattern of face recognition analogous to that of the CRE, even when perceptual expertise with the stimuli is held constant. In Study 1, targets were categorized as members of real-life in-groups and out-groups (based on university affiliation), whereas in Study 2, targets were categorized into experimentally created minimal groups. In both studies, recognition performance was better for targets categorized as in-group members, despite the fact that perceptual expertise was equivalent for in-group and out-group faces. These results suggest that social-cognitive mechanisms of in-group and out-group categorization are sufficient to elicit performance differences for in-group and out-group face recognition.     

Self-Activation and Out-Group Contrast

ABSTRACT

It has been suggested that higher in-group identifiers primed with an out-group stereotype show contrastive behavioral responses because they activate the in-group, social-self. However, priming the personal-self can lead to contrastive judgments. We investigated whether personal self-activation was also evident for higher identifiers primed with an out-group. An experiment demonstrated that higher identifiers primed with an out-group showed faster responses to self-words than higher identifiers primed with the in-group. This findings suggest that the personal-self is also activated for higher identifiers primed with an out-group, and this self-activation may underlie their contrastive responding.     

The effect of subject's race and other's race on judgments of causality for success and failure

This study examined the proposition that blacks and whites make dispositional attributions for an in-group's positive behaviors and an out-group's negative behaviors. The study also examined whether this positive in-group bias was caused by dislike of the out-group or belief in a stereotype. Thus, blacks and whites made attributions to black and white others who succeeded or failed on tasks for which there was either no stereotype or a more negative stereotype of whites than of blacks. An out-group other's failure on both tasks was attributed to lack of ability more than was an in-group other's failure. This finding suggests that the in-group bias is caused by dislike of the out-group. Furthermore, in success conditions subjects' attributions to the in-group or out-group other did not differ. It was suggested that these attributions may result from a combination of an in-group bias and a polarized appraisal.     

The Impact of In-Group and Out-Group Homogeneity/Heterogeneity Upon Intergroup Relations

This study explores the effect of experimentally manipulated in-group and out-group homogeneity/heterogeneity upon subsequent intergroup discrimination. In order to do this, homogeneity/heterogeneity of the in-group as well as of the out-group was experimentally manipulated. Seventy-two boys and 72 girls, ages 12 to 14, participated in the experiment. On the presumed basis of a perceptual task, they were randomly allocated to minimal social categories, whose variability was manipulated. After performing a perceptual estimation task, they were asked to evaluate the performance of the in-group and out-group in this task. The results indicated that a manipulation of in-group homogeneity/heterogeneity produced not much of an effect: Although a heterogeneous in-group discriminated more than a homogenous one, this difference was not significant. The manipulation of out-group homogeneity/heterogeneity had a much stronger effect: Although subjects discriminated significantly against a homogenous out-group, this discrimination disappeared when the out-group was heterogenous. The theoretical implications of the data are discussed.     

Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: behavioral antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance

Bridging the literatures on social dilemmas, intergroup conflict, and social hierarchy, the authors systematically varied the intergroup context in which social dilemmas were embedded to investigate how costly contributions to public goods influence status conferral. They predicted that contribution behavior would have opposite effects on 2 forms of status-prestige and dominance-depending on its consequences for the self, in-group and out-group members. When the only way to benefit in-group members was by harming out-group members (Study 1), contributions increased prestige and decreased dominance, compared with free-riding. Adding the option of benefitting in-group members without harming out-group members (Study 2) decreased the prestige and increased the dominance of those who chose to benefit in-group members via intergroup competition. Finally, sharing resources with both in-group and out-group members decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance, compared with sharing them with in-group members only (Study 3). Prestige and dominance differentially mediated the effects of contribution behavior on leader election, exclusion from the group, and choices of a group representative for an intergroup competition. Taken together, these findings show that the well-established relationship between contribution and status is moderated by both the intergroup context and the conceptualization of status.     

Positive Effects of Within-Group Cooperation on Between-Group Negotiation1

The present study simulated an organizational dispute to test two sets of alternative hypotheses regarding the effects of within-group cooperation and conflict on a subsequent negotiation with an out-group. The first set of hypotheses concerned in-group cooperation. We expected that either (a) in-group cooperation would produce greater cooperation toward an out-group, the result of a carryover effect; or (b) in-group cooperation would increase group cohesiveness and strengthen group boundaries, and thus produce greater competitiveness toward an out-group. The second set of alternative hypotheses concerned in-group conflict. We expected that either (a) in-group conflict would produce greater competitiveness toward an out-group, the result of a carry-over effect; or (b) in-group conflict would decrease group cohesiveness and weaken group boundaries, and thus produce less competitiveness toward an out-group. Subjects in three-person groups negotiated first with one another on a cooperative or competitive task, and then as a group, with another group. The data supported the carryover hypothesis for the effects of both in-group cooperation and conflict. Groups that experienced internal cooperation were more cooperative in the subsequent between-group negotiation and, to a lesser extent, groups that experienced internal conflict were more competitive in the subsequent between-group negotiation, relative to a control condition that had no prior in-group negotiation. Taken together, the results were consistent with recent research on dispute intervention that suggested that mediators in between-group conflict should foster within-group cooperation prior to between-group negotiations.