Group size,group status and trait valence as determinants of intergroup bias: Stereotyping in Finland and Sweden

The effects of group size, group status and trait valence (positive or negative stereotypes of in‐ and outgroup) on intergroup bias was studied in nation‐wide probability samples of majority and minority groups in Finland and Sweden, (N = 2479). Ethnolinguistic vitality was used as a proxy for status. It is argued that the specific history of real‐life intergroup relations has to be duly acknowledged when predicting main and interactive effects on intergroup bias in natural contexts. Supporting the predictions made, numerical group size showed a stable main effect; members of numerical minorities showed more bias than members of numerical majorities, regardless of trait valence. While status had no main effect, there was a significant interaction between status and size as well as between status and trait valence: intergroup bias was highest in the high status minority, and low status groups showed less bias than high status groups on negatively valenced traits. In fact, minority members showed the reverse of PNAE. In addition, majority members favoured the outgroup on negatively valenced traits, but favoured their ingroup on positively valenced traits. Different explanations for these results are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Intergroup Differentiation: Stereotyping as a Function of Status Hierarchy

Abstract

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.     

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.     

On helping lower status out-groups: The nature of the help and the stability of the intergroup status hierarchy

The current research expanded upon previous theoretical and empirical arguments regarding the nature of intergroup helping. In doing so, we considered the role of relative in-group status, the stability of this status, and the type of help provided. In a scenario study, we observed that members of a relatively high status group more strongly supported the provision of assistance to in-group members than members of a lower status out-group when the assistance was empowering in nature and when the high in-group status was unstable. When the intergroup status differences were stable, however, support for empowerment help to members of a lower status out-group was not significantly lower than support for such help to in-group members. We discuss these data with reference to realistic intergroup conflict theory and social identity theory.     

Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations

Using a variant of the minimal group paradigm (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), this study tested the effects of power, status and group numbers on intergroup behaviours and perceptions. Subjects (N = 160) were categorized into groups that varied on status (high or low), power (dominant or subordinate) and group numbers (majority or minority) variables within a 2 × 2 × 2 experimental design. Based on their evaluations of others' creative products, subjects distributed credit points to ingroup and outgroup others using the Tajfel matrices. Results showed that dominant group members were much more discriminatory and less parity oriented towards outgroup others than subordinate group members. High status group members were more discriminatory and less parity oriented than low status group members. Minority group members who were dominant and of high status were highly discriminatory and were unique in showing no parity whatsoever towards outgroup others. Subordinate low status minorities did not discriminate and were exceptional in showing out-group favouritism. Relative to group status and group numbers, group power seemed more predictive of actual discriminatory behaviour. Group status accounted for the greatest variance in social identification and intergroup perceptions measures. Results also showed that social categorization was sufficient to elicit more in-group than outgroup liking amongst all group members regardless of their position in the intergroup structure. Overall, this study indicated that power, status and group numbers independently and in combination, have a strong impact on intergroup behaviours and perceptions.     

Status differenttals and intergroup behaviour

This study investigated the independent effects of status differential on intergroup behaviour. Using a variant of the minimal group paradigm (Tueland Turner, 1979), subjects were categorized into groups of differing status (high, equal, low) with two levels of category salience (high, low). Using Tajfel's matrices subjects rated the creativity of products ostensibly produced by ingroup and outgroup members. Own group identification, intergroup perceptions and self-reported strategies on the matrices constituted the other dependent measures. Results indicated a main effect for group status but none for salience. Equal status groups discriminated against each other thus replicating the minimal intergroup discrimination effect. High and equal status group members were more discriminatory against outgroups and more positive about their own group membership than were low status group members. In contrast, low status group members engaged in significant amounts of outgroup favouritism. Results also showed that social categorization per se was sufficient to elicit more ingroup than outgroup liking amongst all group members regardless of status differentials between groups. Overall, the results illustrate important aspects of the interplay between group status, social identity, prejudice and discrimination.     

Disruptive effects of vigilance on dominant group members' treatment of outgroup members: choking versus shining under pressure

Three studies examined the hypothesis that evaluative concerns exert a disruptive effect on intimacy-building behaviors exhibited by dominant group members in intergroup interaction. The authors predicted that although evaluative concerns would lead individuals with a negative baseline response to outgroup members to shine (i.e., to exhibit warmer, more friendly behavior), such concerns would have a contrary, choking, effect on individuals with a more positive baseline response. Results were generally consistent with these hypotheses across 3 different operationalizations of evaluative concerns and regardless of whether individuals' orientation toward outgroup members was assessed in terms of prejudiced racial attitudes or racial ingroup identification. Implications for lower status group members' experience of intergroup interaction and for the prejudice-reduction process are considered.     

Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem

The combined influence on ingroup bias of threat to group distinctiveness and prototypicality as a group member was examined in two studies. It was predicted, in line with social identity theory, that threat to group distinctiveness would lead to more ingroup bias. In addition, on the basis of self-categorization theory it was predicted that protypical and peripheral group members would react differently to a threat to their group distinctiveness. Only group members who define themselves as prototypical group members should be motivated to defend their threatened distinctiveness by engaging in increased ingroup bias. This hypothesis was first supported in a modified minimal group setting in which threat was operationalized as overlapping group boundaries. These results were then replicated in a second study, using better-established groups, for whom distinctiveness threat was manipulated in terms of intergroup similarity. Moreover, some support was found in Study 2 for the prediction that the opportunity to engage in intergroup differentiation can, under restricted conditions, enhance group-related self-esteem. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

The development of subjective group dynamics: When in‐group bias gets specific

Children aged 6–7 years and 10–11 years evaluated an in‐group or out‐group summer school and judged in‐group or out‐group members whose attitudes towards the summer schools were either normative or anti‐normative. According to a subjective group dynamics model of intergroup processes, intergroup differentiation and intragroup differentiation co‐occur to bolster the validity of in‐group norms. The hypothesis that this process develops later than simple in‐group bias was confirmed. All children expressed global in‐group bias, but differential reactions to in‐group and outgroup deviants were stronger among older children. Moreover, the increasing relationship, with age, between in‐group bias and evaluative preferences for in‐group and out‐group members that provide relative support to in‐group norms, is mediated by the degree of perceptual differentiation among group members.     

Differentiation in Understanding One's Own and the Adversary's Identity in Protracted Intergroup Conflict: Zionism and Palestinianism

This study examines the meaning of identity for in-group and out-group members in protracted intergroup conflict, and the extent of differentiation people show in understanding in-group and out-group national identity. Based on the differential familiarity hypothesis, it was hypothesized that group members will show more differentiation when referring to in-group than to out-group identity. Based on the established relationship between cognitive complexity and political ideology, it was hypothesized that supporters of conciliatory political parties will demonstrate more differentiation when referring to in-group and out-group identity than supporters of nonconciliatory parties. These hypotheses were confirmed in a study that asked Arab and Jewish high-school students in Israeli schools about the meaning of Zionism and Palestinian identity.     

群体独特性对群际偏差的影响

群体独特性影响群体认同,较高或较低的群体独特性都可能引发群际偏差,分别称为“反射式独特性假说”与“反应式独特性假说”.调节作用研究揭示,在较低群体认同或上位群体分类凸显时,群体独特性越高越易引发群际偏差;而在较高群体认同时,独特性越低越易引发群际偏差.动机作用的研究表明,在具有群际竞争目标时,这两种过程分别受工具性动机与认同性动机的驱动.情绪与认知的中介作用研究显示,在低独特性条件下,社会身份复杂性与焦虑情绪可起中介作用引发群际偏差.     

Refusing intergroup help from the morally superior: How one group's moral superiority leads to another group's reluctance to seek their help

We examine how group members paradoxically refuse intergroup help where they might need it most: in the moral status domain. Based on the Sacred Value Protection Model (Tetlock, 2002), we predicted and found that group members felt stronger group-based anger and a stronger motivation to reaffirm their group's moral status when an outgroup was morally superior to them. Despite this moral motivation, however, we also predicted and found that group members more strongly refused intergroup help to improve their moral status vis-à-vis the morally superior outgroup (compared to an uninvolved outgroup). Consistent with the Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects (Reicher, Spears, & Postmes, 1995), group members thus strategically refused intergroup help to defend their group identity. Supporting this interpretation, particularly highly identified group members were most likely to refuse intergroup help when they needed it most. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our findings.     

Can the absence of prejudice be more threatening than its presence? It depends on one's worldview

The present research used validated cardiovascular measures to examine threat reactions among members of stigmatized groups when interacting with members of nonstigmatized groups who were, or were not, prejudiced against their group. The authors hypothesized that people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system would moderate their experience of threat during intergroup interactions. The authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the status system is fair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would disconfirm their worldview and result in greater threat. In contrast, the authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the system is unfair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would confirm their worldview and result in less threat. The authors examined these predictions among Latinas interacting with a White female confederate (Study 1) and White females interacting with a White male confederate (Study 2). As predicted, people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system moderated their experiences of threat during intergroup interactions, indicated both by cardiovascular responses and nonverbal behavior. The specific pattern of the moderation differed across the 2 studies.     

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.     

Individual,social group and intergroup behaviour. Some conceptual remarks on the social identity theory

An investigation of the group concept proposed by Tqjfel and Turner shows that group formation and intergroup behaviour cannot be explained by the similarity of group members. Taking into account only similarity of elements leads to conceptual contaminations concerning group and class, group and collective, personal and social identity, and finally interpersonal and intergroup behaviour. It is claimed that only the consideration of group structure and the differentiation of partially individual and partially structural attributes of the group members results in a conceptually adequate theory of group formation and intergroup behaviour of its members.     

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.     

Equity,Intergroup bias and Interpersonal bias in Reward allocation

Decisions to allocate rewards to ingroup and outgroup members are under the dual pressures of equity and intergroup bias. This study examined variations in equity and bias resulting from the incongruity and salience of intergroup status. Incongruity arose from a mismatch between high subjective and low accorded status. Congruity occurred when subjective status and accorded status were both high or both low. By pairing school classes with known subjective and accorded statuses, an incongruous and a congruous status setting were derived naturally. The setting was made either salient or nonsalient experimentally. It was hypothesized that bias would progressively increase, and equity would progressively decrease, with incongruity and salience. Each set of hypotheses was partially supported. Further data analysis showed a robust tendency to under-reward both ingroup and outgroup members. This interpersonal negativity bras was shown by incongruous status allocators either when rewarding superior performance or in the salient condition. Apparently, it served to safeguard personal rather than social identity. The implications for equity and social identity theories were discussed.     

Experimentally manipulated high in‐group status can buffer personal self‐esteem against discrimination

We present an experiment in which the relative status of an in‐group and the discriminatory nature of a decision maker's intergroup behaviour (in‐group‐favouring/out‐group‐favouring/even‐handed) were independently manipulated to observe their effects on self‐esteem. Adopting a Social Identity Theory framework, and following from previous empirical work, we predicted that discrimination against one's in‐group would lead to lower self‐esteem among members of a low‐status group but not among members of a high‐status group. This prediction was confirmed. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.