The Process of Group Differentiation in a Dynamic Intergroup Setting

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the social categorization processes of between-group differentiation and within-group similarity in a dynamic intergroup setting. Traditionally, these processes have generally been examined in static settings, and it was hypothesized that they may not operate in the same way when group members are in a dynamic intergroup setting. Spectators at four collegiate hockey games were tested throughout the games in order to examine ingroup (home team) versus outgroup (visiting team) perceptions. The traditional effect of ingroup favoritism was found with respect to between-group differentiation, but this effect was influenced by objective measures of performance (i.e., goals). For negative characteristics, ingroup favoritism prevailed regardless of the ingroup's relative performance. The results also demonstrated that a distinction could be made between ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination. Although the results pertaining to within-group similarity were only suggestive, they indicated that the outgroup homogeneity effect was not operating in this dynamic context.     

Intergroup relations in a changing political context: the case of veiled and unveiled university students in Turkey

The present study investigated (a) the underlying dimensions of different measures related to identification, categorization, ingroup bias and contact conditions; and (b) relations between two groups related to an important social controversy over time. Questionnaires were administered to veiled (minority) and unveiled (majority) Turkish female university students during the fall of 1996 and the spring of 1998. Results of factor analysis revealed three factors, namely: tolerance, including perceived outgroup homogeneity, ingroup bias, and individuation; identification, including identification and perceived ingroup homogeneity; and contact conditions, including ratings of pleasantness, frequency and feelings of anxiety. Comparison of groups over time revealed that although the minority group reported lower tolerance for outgroups than the majority the pattern was reversed in 1998. In addition, the majority reported greater negative contact conditions of contact in 1998 than in 1996. No time‐related differences were revealed for the minority with respect to reports of contact conditions. Results were discussed with respect to sensitivity of group relations to social context and to Social Identity Theory. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Majority — minority status and perceived ingroup variability revisited

Social identity theory predicts that ingroup members should see their group as more homogeneous when confronted by a large and presumably dominant outgroup. This prediction has been supported in a series of recent studies, all of which purport to show that the usual ingroup—outgroup difference in perceived variability, i.e. outgroup homogeneity, is reversed when the ingroup is in a minority position. In all of these studies, however, the ingroup—outgroup distinction has been confounded with the size of the target group judged. The present study was conducted to overcome this confound. Subjects judged both the ingroup and outgroup, under one of two different orders, and the first group judged varied in size across subjects while the size of the second group was held constant. This permitted comparisons of the perceived variability of the second judged group (be it the ingroup or outgroup) when it followed the judgment of either a larger or equal size first group. Consistent with social identity theory, ingroups were judged as less variable when judged after a large outgroup than after a small one. This was true, however, only on measures of perceived dispersion and not on measures of perceived stereotypicality. On both sorts of measures, however, overall outgroup homogeneity was found, over and above the difference due to the comparison of the ingroup with a large or small outgroup.     

Individual-collective primacy and ingroup favoritism: enhancement and protection effects

Individual-collective primacy refers to the extent to which people emphasize their individual interests (individual-primacy) vs. the interests of their ingroup (collective-primacy). This study examined the interactive effects of individual-collective primacy, ingroup performance, and outgroup performance on ingroup favoritism. Participants from two cultures completed a measure of their individual vs. collective-primacy orientation. Performance feedback (favorable or unfavorable) for themselves, their ingroup, and the outgroup were manipulated orthogonally. As predicted, greater collective-primacy led to more ingroup favoritism when the ingroup performed better or worse than the outgroup. However, when the ingroup and outgroup both performed well or both performed poorly, the relationship between collective-primacy and ingroup favoritism was not significant. Implications for analyses of ingroup favoritism and cross-cultural differences are discussed.     

Intragroup differentiation in terms of ingroup and outgroup attributes

An experiment (n = 36) was conducted to test the hypothesis that attribute typicality moderates intragroup differentiation. The predicted reversal from perceived relative ingroup homogeneity on typical ingroup attributes to perceived relative outgroup homogeneity on typical outgroup attributes was confirmed for both homogeneity measures (standard deviation and probability of differentiation). But the ingroup homogeneity effects were more reliable than the outgroup homogeneity effects. Relative ingroup size (minority versus majority) was included in the experimental design as a between-subjects factor but did not qualify the reversal of perceived relative homogeneity.     

How context-independent is the outgroup homogeneity effect? A response to Bartsch and Judd

Bartsch and Judd (1993) argue that outgroup homogeneity effects occur independently of any tendency for members of minority groups to see their ingroup as more homogeneous than the majority outgroup. This argument is based on evidence of an underlying outgroup homogeneity effect in a study which purports to unconfound the roles of judged group size and ingroup–outgroup judgement by presenting subjects first with a small or large ingroup (or outgroup) and then a small comparison outgroup (or ingroup). However, from the perspective of self-categorization theory (SCT), such a procedure actually introduces a confound as SCT predicts that when an ingroup is judged first it should be perceived as relatively heterogeneous due to the intragroup nature of this judgemental context. Close examination of Bartsch and Judd's data bears this point out: the tendency to see the ingroup as less homogeneous than the outgroup when the ingroup was judged first was extinguished when the ingroup was judged second even when the judged groups were of equal size. Consistent with SCT, this re-analysis suggests that manifestations of outgroup homogeneity are not independent of contextual factors which determine the relative appropriateness of category-based perception of ingroup and outgroup.     

When shared group membership signifies shared subjective experience: I-sharing and the minimal group paradigm

Ingroup favoritism is pervasive. It emerges even in the minimal group paradigm, where participants are assigned to novel groups based on seemingly insignificant characteristics. Yet many of the grouping schemes used in minimal group research may imply something significant: namely, that ingroup members will share in-the-moment subjective experience, or I-share. Two studies examine the role of inferred I-sharing in the minimal group paradigm. We found that (1) people inferred that they would I-share with ingroup members more than outgroup members; (2) inferred I-sharing increased ingroup favoritism; and (3) inferred I-sharing accounted for this ingroup favoritism. Moreover, expecting to I-share with the outgroup improved participants’ attitudes toward the outgroup. These results converge with other research suggesting that people favor ingroup members, in part, because they expect to I-share with them.     

What children remember about ingroup and outgroup peers: effects of stereotypes on children's processing of information about group members

Three studies are reported about children's memory for stereotypic behaviors attributed to ingroup and outgroup members. According to research and theory in social cognition, cues present in the situation make cultural representations about group members accessible, and once primed, influence all phases of the information processing sequence. In Study 1, Euro Canadian and Native Canadian children (N=98) recalled stereotypic behaviors attributed to ingroup and outgroup members. In Study 2 (N=87), the influence of individual difference variables was explored. In Study 3 (N=32), the memory of Native Canadian children living on a First Nation reserve for behaviors attributed to ingroup and outgroup members was studied. Biases in recall were found in Studies 1 and 2, but in Study 3, outgroup favoritism, typically found among low status group members, was reversed among children attending a heritage school. Among the individual difference measures examined, age and level of cognitive development predicted what was remembered about group members. Older Euro Canadian children recalled more negative behaviors about outgroup members than did younger children, and more cognitively mature children recognized more information about ingroup than outgroup members. Results were discussed in terms of cognitive and situational factors influencing children's processing of group-relevant information and the challenges children in low status groups face in maintaining a sense of cultural identity.     

Why do people perceive ingroup homogeneity on ingroup traits and outgroup homogeneity on outgroup traits?

People tend to perceive ingroup homogeneity on ingroup stereotypical traits and outgroup homogeneity on outgroup stereotypical traits (e.g., Kelly, 1989; Simon, 1992a; Simon & Pettigrew, 1990). If it is assumed that people use homogeneity ratings to indicate the extent to which groups possess traits, then this stereotype effect may be interpreted as an expression of perceived trait possession (i.e., ingroups possess ingroup stereotypical traits and outgroups possess outgroup stereotypical traits). If it is further assumed that research participants abide by the conversational norm of appropriate quantity (e.g., Bless, Strack, & Schwarz, 1993), then this stereotype effect should be significantly reduced following prior expressions of perceived trait possession. A literature review and two minimal group experiments (Ns = 75, 104) supported this prediction. This evidence is discussed in relation to the outgroup homogeneity effect and self-categorization theory.     

Perceptions of Ingroup and Outgroup Variability: A Meta-Analytic Integration

This article reports the results of a meta-analytic integration of previous research on perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability. The following patterns were observed: The tendency to perceive greater variability for the ingroup relative to the variability perceived for the outgroup (relative heterogeneity) was demonstrated to be a significant but small effect. The basic relative heterogeneity effect is the result of a small shift away from the midpoint of the scale toward homogeneity for the outgroup, coupled with a smaller, slight shift away from the midpoint of the scale toward heterogeneity for the ingroup, in addition, perceptions of group variability were demonstrated to vary in predictable and interesting ways. For example, relative heterogeneity decreases as the relative size of the ingroup decreases, producing a relative homogeneity effect on the part of small minorities. Relative heterogeneity is strongest when the ingroup and outgroup comprise real, enduring groups, and weakest when the ingroup and outgroup comprise artificial, laboratory-created groups. Discussion considers the implications of these results for the various proposed mediating mechanisms for perceptions of group variability, and for an understanding of the phenomenology of being in a group.     

Effects of mortality salience on evaluation of ingroup and outgroup sources: the impact of pro- versus counterattitudinal positions

Past Terror Management Theory (TMT) research has demonstrated that mortality salience leads to favoritism toward ingroup members and derogation of outgroup members and to polarized attitudes toward the source of pro and counterattitudinal statements. In such research, the individual's group membership and the individual's worldview position were examined separately. Thus, when the individual's group membership was manipulated, one could normally assume that an outgroup member is counterattitudinal and an ingroup member is proattitudinal. It is unclear, therefore, whether ingroup members elicited favoritism from mortality salient participants because of their group membership or because of their presumably proattitudinal position, or both. The authors present two studies in which the individual's group membership and attitudinal position are jointly manipulated. Results showed that among mortality salient participants, the outgroup member received favorable or unfavorable evaluations depending on his position, whereas the ingroup member received moderately positive evaluations regardless of the position taken.     

The effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism,stereotyping and overestimation of relative ingroup size

An experiment (n = 61) investigated the effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism, stereotyping and the overestimation of relative ingroup size. As predicted, outgroup homogeneity was conducive to ingroup favouritism. Ingroup homogeneity, however, failed to influence ingroup favouritism. Also unexpectedly, asymmetry in group homogeneity — irrespective of whether the ingroup or the outgroup was the more homogeneous group — led to pronounced stereotyping of both groups and to the overestimation of relative ingroup size.     

内-外群体偏爱的内隐效应实验研究

本研究以地域刻板印象和地域内一外群体偏爱的两种IAT为实验材料和测量工具,通过它们之间的相关研究进行实验。研究表明：刻板印象和内群体偏爱的内隐效应明显地存在;上海人的内隐效应大于外地人,外地人仍具有一定的内隐效应但也显示具有一定的内隐偏爱;上海人与外地人存在着内群体偏爱,值得注意的是外地人还有一定的对弱势的认同,具有外群体偏爱;实验证明我们设计的IAT纸笔测验版本是可行的,优点是高效、经济、方便和实用。     

Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group

Two field studies examined the attributions made for the historically negative behaviour of a group as a whole, depending on whether the actions were committed by the ingroup or an outgroup. In the first study, Jewish people assigned more internal responsibility to Germans for their treatment of Jewish people during the Second World War than Germans assigned to their own group. In the second study, people attributed the negative historical actions of another nation more internally (and less externally) than similar negative historical actions committed by their own nation. This pattern of intergroup attributional bias was more pronounced among people who highly identified with their national ingroup. Outgroup homogeneity and perceptions of differences between the groups were also significantly predicted by ingroup identification. Links between social identity theory and the intergroup attribution bias are considered. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Stretching the boundaries: strategic perceptions of intragroup variability

We hypothesised that people would strategically alter their perceived intragroup variability on ingroup‐threatening traits in order to maintain positive perceptions of their self and their ingroup. Specifically, we predicted that people would perceive (1) greater relative outgroup homogeneity and (2) greater general intragroup variability on ingroup negative and outgroup positive traits. We confirmed the outgroup homogeneity prediction in a minimal group experiment (N=80) and a gender group experiment (N = 164). In a second gender group experiment (N = 137), we found that ingroup size moderated this effect: only minority group members showed the predicted pattern of outgroup homogeneity. Evidence for the general intragroup variability prediction was less conclusive. We discuss the results in terms of variability strategies. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Leaders and their treatment of subgroups: implications for evaluations of the leader and the superordinate group

This experiment examined members' evaluations of a group leader and the group in contexts where a superordinate group comprised two subgroups and the group leader was aligned with one or other subgroup. The design varied group leader (ingroup, outgroup) and leader behavior (ingroup favoring, outgroup favoring) as well as the broader comparative context (intragroup, intergroup). Across a number of measures, results indicated a consistent Group Leader × Leader Behavior interaction that was independent of comparative context. Although group members were most satisfied with an ingroup leader who favored the ingroup, ingroup leaders were perceived positively irrespective of their behavior. Outgroup leaders who unexpectedly favored the other subgroup were also perceived positively. However, outgroup leaders who favored their own subgroup were perceived as less fair and as more biased than other leaders. They also engendered less identification with the superordinate group and a less unified perception of the group. Results demonstrate the importance of social identity concerns to leadership in nested group contexts and emphasize the fact that perceptions of leader fairness and concern for the common group mediate responses to the superordinate category. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Perceptions of attitudinal similarity in ethnic groups in the U.S.: ingroup and outgroup homogeneity effects

The outgroup homogeneity phenomenon was examined by having majority group members (White Americans) judge the variability in attitudes about intergroup relations in their own group and one outgroup (African Americans). A preliminary study found the threat of the attitude statements to the group doing the judging seemed to affect whether or not participants showed outgroup or ingroup homogeneity. For the present study, statements about ethnic group relations were prerated to obtain two sets of items that aroused either high or low threat to White Americans. White students judged the homogeneity of these items for their own group and for African Americans. Outgroup homogeneity was found for the low threat items and ingroup homogeneity was found for the high threat items. This study demonstrates that the homogeneity effect depends on the threat of the attitude content to the group doing the judging. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Urban district identity as a common ingroup identity: The different role of ingroup prototypicality for minority and majority groups

In this paper, we examined how identification with urban districts as a common ingroup identity and perceived ingroup prototypicality influence the attitudes of residents toward other ethnic groups in their neighborhood. The overall conclusion of two field studies (N = 214 and N = 98) is that for majority‐group members, there may be a positive relation between identification with an overarching identity and outgroup attitudes but only when they perceive their ingroup as low in prototypicality for the overarching group (Study 1 and 2). Conversely, for minority‐group members, there may be a positive relation between identification and outgroup attitudes but only when they perceive their ingroup as high in prototypicality for the overarching group (Study 2). Outgroup prototypicality did not moderate the relation between identification and outgroup attitudes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Striving for difference: On the spontaneous preference for ingroup members who maximize ingroup positive distinctiveness

Previous research demonstrated that individuals spontaneously prefer ingroup members who display ingroup favoritism rather than egalitarian behaviors (Castelli, Tomelleri, & Zogmaister, 2008). In the current work, we explored what specific strategies toward ingroup favoritism are spontaneously preferred. Results from four studies showed that ingroup members who made it possible for the ingroup to achieve a positive intergroup differentiation were preferred as compared to ingroup members who maximized the absolute gain for the ingroup. Study 5 further demonstrated that in the search for positive distinctiveness people are sensitive to the ratio between the gains of the ingroup and outgroup. Study 6 ruled out a possible alternative explanation. Overall, the current findings indicate that group members who set the difference from an outgroup elicit the most positive spontaneous responses demonstrating that the search for a positive intergroup distinctiveness automatically affects intragroup perception. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.