Ingroup bias and the ‘black sheep’ effect: Assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group judgements

Two studies compared the relative strength of motivational assumptions drawn from SIT (e.g. Tajfel, 1978) and memory-based assumptions drawn from the differential familiarity hypothesis (Linville, Fischer and Salovey, 1989) in explaining ingroup bias and the black sheep effect (Marques, 1986, 1990). In Study 1, 15 subjects estimated member distributions and gave overall ratings of an ingroup and two outgroups. In Study 2, 42 subjects performed similar tasks for ingroup or outgroup, and evaluated likeable and unlikeable group members. Results showed, first, that overall group ratings account better for ingroup bias than do central tendencies of group distributions. In addition, likeable and unlikeable ingroup members were, respectively, upgraded and downgraded relative to their outgroup counterparts. Finally, whole ingroup ratings as well as judgements of likeable and unlikeable ingroup members proved more independent from variability and central tendency of underlying distributions than did similar outgroup judgements. Results are discussed in light of motivational and knowledge-based determinants of group judgements.     

The effect of comparative context upon stereotype content: children's judgments of ingroup behavior

This study addresses self-categorization theory's contention that stereotype content varies as a function of the comparative context within which a given group is considered. A sample of 5-, 7- and 10-year-old children (n = 192) made judgments about gender ingroup behavior in one of two comparative contexts: either adults of the same sex as self or children of the opposite sex. Specifically, judgments were either of the perceived stereotypicality or central tendency of 12 types of behavior. Both types of judgment were found to differ as a function of comparative context in ways predicted by self-categorization theory. However, contrary to prediction, there was no effect of age on the extent of stereotype variability.     

Polarized Norms and Social Frames of Reference: A Test of the Self-Categorization Theory of Group Polarization

Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) explains group polarization as conformity to a polarized norem which defines one's own group in contrast to other groups within a specific social context. Whether the ingroup norm is polarized or not depends on the social comparative context within which the ingroup defines itself. It was predicted from self-categorization theory that an ingroup confronted by a risky outgroup will polarize toward caution, an ingroup confronted by a caution outgroup will polarize toward risk, and an ingroup in the middle of the social frame of reference, confronted by both risky and cautious outgroups, will not polarize but will converge on its pretest mean. Our experiment adopted a modified version of the risky-shift paradigm, in which subjects gave pretest, posttest, and group consensus recommendations on three choice dilemma item-types (risky, neutral, or risky). The frame of reference was manipulated by confronting the ingroup with an outgroup lying on one or the other side, or both sides, of the ingroup distribution. This procedure was successful in producing a polarized theoretical ingroup norm in the appropriate conditions. Subjects' posttest opinions converged on their estimations of the consensual ingroup position, which in turn was polarized or not in line with the theoretical norm. There was some evidence that the degree of behavioral convergence and estimations of the ingroup consensus were a partial function of the extent to which subjects identified the group. There was also the usual main effect for item-type: Subjects converged on a norm polarized toward risk on risky items and toward caution on catious items. The results are consistent with self-categorization theory.     

The effects of group membership and social context on information organization

Self-categorization theory posits that the perception of group members is flexible and determined by the comparative social context as well as by group membership. Subjects read about either four ingroup or outgroup target persons in the context of four additional stimulus persons who were members of either the same group as the target persons (intragroup context) or the other group (intergroup context). Individualized and attribute-wise information organization was assessed on the basis of information clustering in free recall. As predicted, differential processing of ingroup information occurred as a function of the salient social context; in an intragroup context, ingroup information was organized significantly more by person than in an intergroup context. Conversely, ingroup information tended to be clustered more by attribute in an intergroup than in an intragroup context. Clustering of outgroup information was not sensitive to changes in the social context. The results indicate that the perception of group members may be based on more than group membership alone. ©1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ingroup ambivalence and experienced affect: the moderating role of social identification

No previous work in the field of group‐related attitudes and emotions has investigated the possible affective consequences of ingroup ambivalence—that is, the consequences of having attitudes towards an ingroup that are simultaneously both positive and negative. The current study was designed to explore this issue. Ambivalent attitudes have been argued to be more psychologically salient to the individual than univalent ones. A linear increase in participants' experienced affect was therefore predicted as a function of their ambivalence toward the ingroup. However, consistent with the predictions of social identity theory, previous findings have shown that higher ingroup identifiers are more likely to be involved with the ingroup than lower identifiers. Accordingly, we predicted and found effects of ingroup ambivalence on affect for high but not low ingroup identifiers. Combining the findings of two distinct literatures, the initial evidence provided by this study exploratively traces the sources of the affective processes that are set in motion by the evaluation of one's own group in an intergroup context. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Assimilation and contrast to group primes: The moderating role of ingroup identification

This research examined the conditions under which behavioral contrast would be observed in relation to ingroup and outgroup primes. The authors tested the hypothesis that differing levels of commitment to the ingroup would predict diverging behavioral responses to outgroup but not ingroup primes. Across two studies, featuring both age and gender groups, we found that ingroup identification predicted responses to outgroup primes with higher identifiers showing an increased tendency to contrast, that is, behave less like the outgroup, and more like the ingroup. Ingroup identification did not predict responses to ingroup primes. The implications of these findings for social comparison and social identity theories are discussed.     

The role of the ‘other’ in national identity: exploring the context‐dependence of the national ingroup stereotype

Analysts from a range of disciplines (especially sociology and social anthropology) highlight the role of the ‘other’ in the construction and definition of national identity. Recently some social psychologists have come to emphasize the inherently relational nature of identity. Drawing upon these recent investigations, the present paper reports a field study investigating the context‐dependent nature of group identity. Using a modified version of the Katz–Braly task, British subjects (n=240) stereotyped two national groups: Americans and British. They did so in two conditions. In the ‘one‐group’ conditions, subjects rated either of the two groups. In the ‘two‐group’ conditions, they rated one whilst also considering the other. Following Oakes, Haslam and Turner (1994) we predicted that whereas subjects' stereotypes of the national outgroup (the Americans) would be unaffected by this manipulation, their stereotype of the national ingroup (the British) would be affected. This prediction was confirmed. We also predicted that the national ingroup stereotype obtained in the ‘two‐group’ condition would be one which was defined in contrast to the American ‘other’ which constituted the comparative context. Using a measure which takes into account the applicability of ingroup‐defining terms to both the ingroup and the outgroup (the diagnosticity measure of stereotyping proposed by McCauley and Stitt, 1978) we show that the ingroup identity definition produced in this condition did indeed differentiate the British from the Americans. The significance of these data for those concerned with the application of social psychological theory to real‐life social problems is discussed. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

"United We Stand, Divided We Fall"! The Protective Function of Self-Stereotyping for Stigmatised Members' Psychological Well-Being

Self-stereotyping is a process by which people who belong to a stigmatised social group tend to describe themselves more with both positive and negative stereotypical personality traits compared to traits that are irrelevant to the ingroup stereotype. A study is presented that shows how self-stereotyping serves to maintain psychological well-being among Southern Italian participants who suffer from an historical social stigma. Following the rejection-identification model ( Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999 ), perceptions of prejudice are directly negatively linked with well-being, but are compensated for via increased identification with the minority group that has a positive impact on psychological well-being. In the present study we propose that the compensatory role of ingroup identification on well-being is completely mediated by minority members' tendency to self-stereotype. A structural equation analysis provided support for this hypothesis. The present results highlight the importance of the self-stereotyping process in maintaining psychological well-being for members of low-status groups.     

Striving for success in outgroup settings: effects of contextually emphasizing ingroup dimensions on stigmatized group members' social identity and performance styles

For members of stigmatized groups, being confronted with highstatus outgroup members threatens social identity and undermines performance on status-relevant dimensions. Two experiments examined whether the negative effects of outgroup contexts are alleviated when value is expressed for a dimension on which the stigmatized ingroup excels. Specifically, the authors assessed whether ingroup versus outgroup context and contextual value for ingroup dimensions affects group members' reactions to failure on status-relevant dimensions and subsequent performance. Experiment 1 showed that in comparison to ingroup contexts, outgroup contexts induce stigmatized group members to protect social identity and to feel more agitated following negative performance feedback. Experiment 2 showed that when others in the context emphasize the importance of a dimension on which the ingroup excels, the negative effects of outgroup contexts are alleviated, stigmatized group members feel more cheerful concerning an upcoming task, and task performance is characterized by a focus on success.     

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.     

Asymmetrical evaluation of ingroup versus outgroup members: a look from an information integration perspective

In evaluating ingroup versus outgroup members two types of information can be used: ‘Categorizing information’ related to the target's group membership and ‘individuating information’ related to pieces of information specific to the target to be judged. Information integration theory (IIT, Anderson, 1981) is applied as a formal tool for predicting the judgement resulting from these different pieces of information. It is further assumed that due to a general positivity bias in evaluating own affairs judges tend to evaluate ingroup members more positively than outgroup members. By applying IIT ingroup favouritism on the level of individual targets can be predicted. More importantly, an interaction concerning an asymmetrical impact of ingroup versus outgroup membership information dependent on the individuating information's valence can be predicted: the enhancement of ingroup members should be stronger for negative individuating information, whereas the devaluation of outgroup members should be stronger for positive individuating information. Further a negative correlation between intragroup differentiation and intergroup differentiation on the level of individual judgements is assumed. In a two (judge's group membership: overestimator versus underestimator) by three (target's group membership information absent; target's group membership information present as either ingroup, or outgroup member) by three (valence of the individuating information: positive, neutral, negative) factorial minimal group design with repeated measures on the last two factors the targets' likability had to be rated. The findings are in accord with predictions. Theoretical conclusions with respect to social judgement—and to intergroup theories as well as with respect to general approaches to context effects in social judgement are discussed.     

Crossed categorization in common ingroup contexts

In three experiments, the authors tested the hypothesis that a common ingroup context would moderate evaluations of crossed category targets. In Experiment 1, the typical additive pattern of evaluation across artificial crossed category groups became a social inclusion pattern in a common ingroup context. In Experiment 2, the authors manipulated the importance of real crossed category targets. When the crossed groups were of low importance, the effects of imposing a common ingroup replicated those observed in Experiment 1. For important crossed groups, however, the additive pattern remained. In Experiment 3, the authors measured perceived importance of the crossed groups to social identity prior to introducing a common ingroup context. The effects of a common categorization on evaluations were again moderated by perceived importance. These findings are discussed in the context of integrating crossed categorization and common ingroup identity models of multiple categorization.     

The central tendency of a social group can affect ratings of its intragroup variability in the absence of social identity concerns

People report less variability within in-groups than within out-groups when they make their ratings on traits on which the in-group has a higher central tendency than the out-group. [Simon, 1992a] and [Simon, 1992b] proposed that this effect is motivated by the need to protect a positive social identity. The present research tested the necessity of the social identity motive by using participants who were not members of any of the target groups that they judged. In Study 1 (N = 60), psychology undergraduate students reported significantly less intragroup variability on positive traits among a group of fashion designers that won a fashion competition than among a group that lost. Study 2 (N = 75) found a reverse effect on negative traits and confirmed the mediating role of perceived central tendency. These results demonstrate that the social identity motive is not necessary to explain the effect of central tendency on ratings of intragroup variability, and that the effect is more general than previously reported.     

社会群体的实体性:回顾与展望

社会群体的实体性是指群体被知觉为一个真正独立存在的有意义实体的程度.它受到知觉者、社会情境和文化等因素的影响.实体性在群际关系中具有重要意义,它影响着认同、刻板印象,偏见和群际冲突.实体性从本质上来说并不是绝对积极的或消极的群体特征,它主要取决于知觉者与群体的关系性质和其所处的情境.对中国研究者而言,如何让实体性最大可能地发挥积极作用,以利于群体关系的和谐是未来研究应该努力的方向;加强中国文化背景下实体性与群际关系的研究,为解决中国各社会阶层以及不同群体之间的和谐相处提供理论上的指导也是未来可以关注的方向.     

Contrasting Theoretical Approaches to Intergroup Relations

The current forum is designed to assess the strengths and weaknesses of social identity, social dominance, and system justification as theoretical approaches to the study of intergroup relations. Each of these approaches tries to account for variation in the development of ingroup cohesion and outgroup antipathy among individual group members, across groups, and in different societies—three levels at which theorists have commonly sought explanations for variability in intergroup attitudes and behavior. Social dominance theory is the most ambitious of the theories but does not succeed in explaining intergroup relations equally well at all three levels. However, it has excelled in highlighting individual differences in the need and desire to dominate members of lower-status groups and in exploring the interaction between individuals and institutions. Social identity theory is primarily concerned with the attributes of groups that foster the development of ingroup bias and examines the conditions under which this occurs. It is more fully developed in this respect than the other approaches but ignores variation at the individual level and, to a lesser degree, the societal level. System justification theory considers a mix of individual- and societal-level factors, focusing on the role of support for the status quo in producing acceptance of status inequalities among members of low-status groups, even when it is against their own interest to do so. The theory highlights an important problem—the quiescence of low-status groups—but more work is needed to flesh out the theory and its central concepts.     

Explanations and Evaluations by Turks and Dutchmen of Norm Violating Ingroup and Outgroup Behaviour

Group-serving biases in the explanation and evaluation of norm violating ingroup and outgroup behaviour are investigated. The intergroup relationship concerns autochthonous Dutchmen and allochthonous Turks living in The Netherlands. It was hypothesized that Dutch observers exhibit group-serving biases. No hypothesis was formulated for the Turks. A 2×2 design was employed with actor's group membership (ingroup or outgroup), and observer's group membership (Dutch or Turkish) as factors. 50 Dutch and 50 Turkish pupils responded to a hypothetical norm violating situation. The Dutch displayed a group-serving bias on some variables, but ingroup derogation on others. The Turks engaged in a consistent group-serving bias. These outcomes are discussed in terms of the groups need to strive for a positive social identity vis-a)-vis one another and the role explaining away negative ingroup behaviour in fulfilling this need.     

Group Status and Hierarchy Legitimacy Effects on Effort Versus Ability Attributions for Ingroup and Outgroup Failures

Previous research has shown that people have a tendency to explain various outcomes in ways that favour their ingroup. However, there is also some evidence that this tendency may be moderated by perceptions of group status and hierarchy legitimacy. In this study, we experimentally test the combined effects of group status and hierarchy legitimacy on effort and ability attributions for ingroup and outgroup failures. It was predicted that participants assigned to an illegitimately low status condition would attribute ingroup but not outgroup failure more to a lack of effort than ability. Conversely, participants assigned to a legitimately high status group were expected to attribute ingroup but not outgroup failure more to a lack of effort than ability. Results supported these predictions and also showed outgroup failure was attributed more to a lack of effort than ability when ingroup status was either legitimately low or illegitimately high. We conclude that intergroup attributions are constrained by perceptions about relative group status and the legitimacy of the status hierarchy.