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.     

Salient Intergroup Ideology and Intergroup Interaction

ABSTRACT— Two experiments examined how rendering different intergroup ideologies salient affects dominant- and minority-group members' behavior during, and experience of, intergroup interactions. We hypothesized that ideologies that encourage an outward focus on appreciating out-group members' distinctive qualities (multiculturalism) would have more positive implications than ideologies that encourage a self-control focus on ignoring social categories and avoiding inappropriate behavior (color blindness and antiracism). As predicted, in both ostensible ( Study 1 ) and actual face-to-face ( Study 2 ) intergroup interactions, the multicultural ideological prompt led dominant- and minority-group members to adopt a more outward focus and hence to direct more positive other-directed comments to an interaction partner who was a member of an out-group. In contrast, the color-blind prompt fostered a prevention orientation in dominant-group members that led them to express negative affect toward their out-group interaction partner. The antiracist prompt had no consistent effects. Implications for efforts to improve intergroup relations are discussed.     

Meta-stereotype activation: evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative concerns experienced by members of dominant groups in intergroup interaction

Six experiments demonstrated that dominant group members readily frame intergroup interaction in terms of how they themselves are evaluated. The authors used indirect measures of meta-stereotype activation to assess dominant group members' inclination to spontaneously consider an out-group member's (ostensible) stereotypic expectations about them. The necessary conditions for meta-stereotype activation were rather minimal, but the potential for evaluation by an out-group member--as opposed to mere exposure to the person--was required. Individual differences involving the importance accorded to social evaluation (public self-consciousness and personal importance of racial attitudes) were associated with meta-stereotype activation, whereas racial attitudes were not. Two studies in which evaluative orientation was manipulated directly demonstrated a link between thinking in terms of how one is viewed and the activation and application of meta-stereotypes.     

Perceptual asymmetry in consensus estimates of majority and minority members

Three experiments revealed a consistent pattern of consensus estimates. Numerical status and group growth or decline were manipulated between subjects. Growth was manipulated orthogonally to a 3rd variable: focus. Focus was manipulated by describing growth information with respect either to the in-group or the out-group (e.g., in-group growth and out-group decline). A Numerical Status X Focus interaction emerged in Study 1. Numerical minority members' consensus estimates for an opinion issue increased when growth information was out-group focused, whereas majority members' estimates did not differ as a function of the focus variable. Study 2 replicated these effects across other opinion dimensions. Study 3 confirmed the importance of the growth and focus variables in the absence of numerical status manipulations.     

Status-based asymmetry in intergroup responses: Implications for intergroup reconciliation

We studied intergroup responses as a function of relative intergroup status and familiarity. In Study 1, 34 African Americans and 34 European Americans interacted with two members of the out-group in separate, 20-min dyadic interactions. Intergroup perception, affect, and behavior were asymmetric; Blacks differentiated the traits of and the quality of interactions with Whites, whereas Whites did not make these differentiations. Blacks and Whites predicted that different out-group partners perceived them similarly. Study 2 showed that the failure to differentiate an out-group member is due to intergroup status differences. Asymmetric intergroup responses pose a barrier to intergroup reconciliation and explain, in part, why increased interracial contact has not eradicated disparities in life outcomes for Black Americans.     

新生代农民工积极群际接触的有效性:基于群体身份与认同视角

以新生代农民工为研究对象,以其对群际通透性的感知为测量指标,检验积极群际接触的有效性,探察群体受害者身份感知和群体认同对积极群际接触有效性的影响,以及群体认同在群体受害者身份感知与积极群际接触关系中的作用。结果表明:(1)积极群际接触可以有效促进新生代农民工对群际通透性的感知;(2)新生代农民工群体受害者身份感知对积极群际接触有效性有显著的中介作用;(3)新生代农民工的城市人认同水平对积极群际接触有效性具有显著的调节作用;(4)新生代农民工群体受害者身份感知对积极群际接触有效性的中介作用不受其群体认同水平的影响。研究结论对积极群际接触的有效性和感知的群体受害者身份与群体认同的关系进行了深入地讨论。     

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.     

Who Will See Me? The Impact of Type of Audience on Willingness to Display Group‐Mediated Attitude–Intention Consistency

The present study examined the role that group norms, group identification, and imagined audience (in-group vs. out-group) play in attitude–behavior processes. University students ( N =187) participated in a study concerned with the prediction of consumer behavior. Attitudes toward drinking their preferred beer, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, group norm, and group identification were assessed. Intentions and perceived audience reactions to consumption were assessed. As expected, group norms, identification, and imagined audience interacted to influence likelihood of drinking one's preferred beer and perceived audience reactions. High identifiers were more responsive to group norms in the presence of an in-group audience than an out-group audience. The present results indicate that audience concerns impact upon the relationship between attitudes and behavior.     

"In-group love" and "out-group hate" as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: a new game paradigm

What motivates individual self-sacrificial behavior in intergroup conflicts? Is it the altruistic desire to help the in-group or the aggressive drive to hurt the out-group? This article introduces a new game paradigm, the intergroup prisoner's dilemma-maximizing difference (IPD-MD) game, designed specifically to distinguish between these two motives. The game involves two groups. Each group member is given a monetary endowment and can decide how much of it to contribute. Contribution can be made to either of two pools, one that benefits the in-group at a personal cost and another that, in addition, harms the out-group. An experiment demonstrated that contributions in the IPD-MD game are made almost exclusively to the cooperative, within-group pool. Moreover, preplay intragroup communication increases intragroup cooperation, but not intergroup competition. These results are compared with those observed in the intergroup prisoner's dilemma game, in which group members' contributions are restricted to the competitive, between-group pool.     

Inside the opponent's head: perceived losses in group position predict accuracy in metaperceptions between groups

Members of groups in conflict typically perceive the same reality in opposing ways. We investigated individuals' ability to accurately perceive out-group members' views of the conflict. Drawing on research on power and metaperceptions, we hypothesized that perceiving losses to in-group position would increase accuracy in predicting out-group members' views. Study 1 was conducted immediately following the Gaza flotilla incident. Israelis, who perceived the event as causing political losses to their group, were more accurate in predicting out-group members' views of the incident than were Palestinians, who perceived the event as causing political gains for their group. Moreover, Israelis' accuracy increased with their perception of political losses for Israel, whereas Palestinians' accuracy decreased with their perception of political gains for Palestinians. These effects were particularly pronounced among those participants who were highly identified with their group. Study 2 replicated the relationship between perceived losses and accuracy, and demonstrated that it could not be accounted for by factors such as education, political orientation, or empathy.     

Effects of in-group and out-group support on behavioral consistency: The majority and minority in the context of an intergroup belief cross

Abstract:   The present study investigated the social determinants required to stimulate consistency in minority members' attitudes and behavior. The experiment was designed to examine the consistency of individuals in the context of an intergroup belief cross wherein the majority belief (or minority) in a categorical in-group shifted to the minority (or majority) in the out-group. The results indicated that the members of a majority within an in-group consistently preserved their behavioral intentions and beliefs even though they were positioned as a minority within an out-group. That is, the minority members in the whole intergroup context maintained consistency diachronically as a result of support from the majority of their in-group. The theoretical implications on the consistency of minority members, such as whistle-blowers in companies, are discussed.     

Intergroup conflict, out-group derogation, and self-directed negative affect among Italian South Tyroleans

In South Tyrol, a multiethnic Italian province, the authors examined the self-directed negative affect that members of an Italian group experienced after they evaluated members of the German and Albanian groups. The authors examined the affect as a function of out-group derogation. The authors argued that to the extent that out-group derogation may run counter to norms toward intergroup fairness, such normative nonconformity will elicit negative affect directed at the self as a function of perceived intergroup conflict. The findings support the authors' line of reasoning: among Italian South Tyroleans, those who expressed greater out-group derogation were led to experience stronger negative self-directed affect when they rated a low-conflict out-group, but not when they rated a high-conflict out-group, compared to participants whose out-group derogation was less.     

Contact with out-group friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes toward gay men

Two studies examined the effects of cross-group friendships on heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men. In Study 1, the authors tested the effects of cross-group friendships with gay men on out-group attitudes, meta-attitudinal strength, and attitude accessibility. The authors simultaneously explored mediational effects of intergroup anxiety. Path analysis showed that cross-group friendships were associated with meta-attitudinally stronger and more accessible out-group attitudes, and the effects on all 3 criterion variables were mediated by intergroup anxiety. In Study 2, the authors sought to replicate the basic results of Study 1, while additionally exploring mediational effects of closeness of cross-group friendship and moderational effects of perceived group typicality. Structural equation modeling showed that cross-group friendships were associated with meta-attitudinally stronger and more accessible out-group attitudes; friendships had indirect effects on all 3 criterion variables, via closeness of friendship and intergroup anxiety. Closeness of friendship only predicted lower intergroup anxiety, however, when the out-group friend was perceived as highly typical. The authors emphasize the importance of considering the nature of out-group attitudes more completely when evaluating the effectiveness of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice.     

Status differences and in-group bias: a meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability.

This work examines the moderating effects of status stability, legitimacy, and group permeability on in-group bias among high- and low-status groups. These effects were examined separately for evaluative measures that were relevant as well as irrelevant to the salient status distinctions. The results support social identity theory and show that high-status groups are more biased. The meta-analysis reveals that perceived status stability, legitimacy, and permeability moderate the effects of group status. Also, these variables interacted in their influences on the effect of group status on in-group bias, but this was only true for irrelevant evaluative dimensions. When status was unstable and perceived as illegitimate, low-status groups and high-status groups were equally biased when group boundaries were impermeable, compared with when they were permeable. Implications for social identity theory as well as for intergroup attitudes are discussed.     

The importance of being we: human nature and intergroup relations

The author discusses the nature of in-group bias and the social motives that underlie ethnocentric attachment to one's own membership groups. Two common assumptions about in-group bias are challenged: that in-group positivity necessitates out-group derogation and that in-group bias is motivated by self-enhancement. A review of relevant theory and research on intergroup relations provides evidence for 3 alternative principles: (a) in-group attachment and positivity are primary and independent of out-groups, (b) security motives (belonging and distinctiveness) underlie universal in-group favoritism, and (c) attitudes toward out-groups vary as a function of intergroup relationships and associated threats to belonging and distinctiveness     

Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance

The present work examined the relationship between people's own interpretations of why they avoid intergroup contact and their interpretations of why out-groups avoid intergroup contact. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that Whites and Blacks would like to have more contact with the out-group but believe the out-group does not want to have contact with them. Studies 3-5 show that Whites and Blacks make divergent explanations about their own and their potential out-group partner's failure to initiate contact. Specifically, individuals explained their own inaction in terms of their fear of being rejected because of their race but attributed the out-group members' inaction to their lack of interest. Study 6 examined the behavioral consequences of this self-other bias. Finally, Study 7 applied theoretical work on the extended contact hypothesis to explore a means to reduce this self- other bias. The implications of these studies for improving intergroup interactions are discussed.     

The Irony of Harmony: Intergroup Contact Can Produce False Expectations for Equality

ABSTRACT— Positive intergroup contact has been a guiding framework for research on reducing intergroup tension and for interventions aimed at that goal. We propose that beyond improving attitudes toward the out-group, positive contact affects disadvantaged-group members' perceptions of intergroup inequality in ways that can undermine their support for social change toward equality. In Study 1, participants were assigned to either high- or low-power experimental groups and then brought together to discuss either commonalities between the groups or intergroup differences. Commonality-focused contact, relative to difference-focused contact, produced heightened expectations for fair (i.e.,  egalitarian) out-group behavior among members of disadvantaged groups. These expectations, however, proved unrealistic when compared against the actions of members of the advantaged groups. Participants in Study 2 were Israeli Arabs (a disadvantaged minority) who reported the amount of positive contact they experienced with Jews. More positive intergroup contact was associated with increased perceptions of Jews as fair, which in turn predicted decreased support for social change. Implications for social change are considered.     

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.     

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.     

Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status differences on effort in intergroup contexts

This paper examines how the status of an out-group impacts effort in intergroup settings. The results provide evidence that people work harder when their individual performance is compared to a lower, as opposed to higher, status out-group member. Moreover, comparisons to a lower status out-group were found to elicit motivation gains as these participants worked harder than participants in the control (Studies 1-3) or in-group comparison conditions (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 4, evidence for the role of threat as an underlying mechanism was provided as gains in effort for those compared with a lower status out-group member were eliminated when participants self- or group-affirmed prior to comparison. Finally, Study 5 shows that both social identity threat and self-categorization threat underlie increases in effort for participants compared to a lower status out-group member. We detail a theoretical basis for our claim that performance comparisons with lower status out-group members are especially threatening, and discuss the implications for this research in terms of social identity and self-categorization theories as they relate to effort in intergroup contexts.