Minority influence and social categorization

In this article, a theoretical distinction is proposed between representative outgroup minorities (representative of a minority category in the society, e.g. gays) and dissident outgroup minorities (defined as a minority subgroup within a larger outgroup category). Two studies are reported comparing the social influence of dissident outgroup minorities with that of ingroup minorities (belonging to the subject's own social category). It was predicted that a position advocated by a dissident outgroup minority would be more readily accepted than that of an ingroup minority, but that the ingroup minority would be more likely to elicit the generation of new, alternative solutions. A first experiment in which subjects were either exposed to an ingroup minority, an outgroup minority, or no influence source confirmed these predictions. In a second experiment, subjects were either exposed to a majority or to a minority source either belonging to the subject's own social category or to the outgroup. The results indicate that the position of an ingroup majority was readily accepted whereas the otherwise identical message of an outgroup majority was rejected; neither ingroup nor outgroup majority stimulated the development of alternative proposals. Again, in line with Nemeth' (1986a) theory, the position of an ingroup minority was rejected but stimulated the generation of new, alternative proposals. The differential role of social category membership in minority and majority influence and the applicability of Nemeth' (1986a) theory to the attitude change area are discussed.     

When the outgroup becomes ingroup and when the ingroup becomes outgroup: Xenophobia and social categorization in a resource allocation task

Subjects classified as more or less xenophobic allocated resources to SWISS nationals (ingroup) and foreign residents (outgroup) in three intergroup judgement modes: negative interdependence, independence and positive interdependence. When both groups were assessed together as a single beneficiary (positive interdependence) they were allocated more resources than those provided to the outgroup under negative interdependence or independence. More xenophobic subjects, however gave less resources to both groups together under positive interdependence than to the ingroup under independence. In contrast, less xenophobic subjects allocated to both groups together a similar amount as to the ingroup under independence. These results suggest that, depending on their initial attitudes towards the outgroup, individuals will categorize a superordinate entity either more as an ingroup or more as an outgroup.     

The other side of we: when outgroup members express common identity

Previous research on the common ingroup identity model has focused on how one's representations of members of the ingroup and outgroup influence intergroup attitudes. Two studies reported here investigated how learning how others, ingroup or outgroup members, conceive of the groups within a superordinate category affects intergroup bias and willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Across both studies, high school students who learned that other ingroup members categorized students at both schools within the common identity of "students" showed less intergroup bias in evaluations and greater willingness for contact. However, consistent with the hypothesized effects of identity threat, when participants read that outgroup members saw the groups within the superordinate category, they exhibited a relatively negative orientation, except when ingroup members also endorsed a superordinate identity (Study 1). This result occurred even when the relative status of the groups was manipulated (Study 2).     

Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality

According to Mummendey and Wenzel (1999), group members tend to perceive their ingroup, relative to an outgroup, as more prototypical of the superordinate category encompassing both groups. Hence, they tend to regard the outgroup as deviating from the norms of the superordinate category. Factors that inhibit perception of relative ingroup prototypicality should thus promote intergroup tolerance. In two experiments, the representation of the superordinate category was manipulated. Both an undefinable prototype (Experiment 1; N=63) and a complex representation (Experiment 2; N=88) led to a decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality. Dual identification with the ingroup and the superordinate category increased relative ingroup prototypicality, which was negatively correlated with positive attitudes towards the outgroup. The findings supported Mummendey and Wenzel’s assumptions about the conditions that lead to intergroup tolerance.     

参照群体类型与自我—品牌联系

自我－品牌联系(Self-brand Connection)指消费者使用某品牌构建、强化和表达自我的程度。研究参照群体的类型对消费者的自我－品牌联系的影响。研究结果表明：三种非成员群体对自我－品牌联系的影响是不同的,消费者会使用品牌形象与渴望群体一致的品牌来表明自己是什么类型的人,也会使用品牌形象与规避群体相悖的品牌来表明自己不是什么类型的人;消费者对成员群体的情感承诺程度会调节成员群体对自我－品牌联系的影响,情感承诺度高、中的成员群体比情感承诺度低的成员群体对自我－品牌联系的影响更大     

Parents’ moral intentions towards antisocial parent behaviour: An identity approach in youth sport

ObjectivesGrounded in personal and social identity theory, the purpose of this study was to examine whether parents’ personal and social identity perceptions influence their moral intentions towards antisocial parent behaviour in a youth sport setting.DesignParents of competitive youth ice hockey players (N = 437) read a vignette that either described a parent from the participant’s own team (i.e., ingroup), or a parent from an opposing team (i.e., outgroup) acting antisocially towards an athlete from the participant’s own team, an opposing athlete, or their own child. Parents were asked whether they would respond to the antisocial behaviour in the form of direct or indirect criticism or report the behaviour to the coach or to the league.ResultsParents were more likely to directly criticize ingroup parents than outgroup parents and they were more likely to indirectly criticize outgroup parents than ingroup parents. Further, parents with stronger social identities reported higher intentions to indirectly criticize an outgroup parent. There were no main effects for reporting behaviour (to coach or league), and personal identity did not moderate relationships with moral intentions towards antisocial behaviour.ConclusionBy providing parents with a situation that includes antisocial parent behaviour in the immediate youth sport environment, novel insight was gathered with regard to what contextual elements might drive parents’ intention to criticize, but not report antisocial behaviour.     

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.     

被信任者社会身份复杂性对其可信性的影响

被信任者社会身份是单一的还是多样的, 这种数量差异可以体现其社会身份的复杂性。本研究探讨了被信任者社会身份复杂性(单一身份、多重身份)如何影响人们对其可信性的评价。实验1考察了被信任者社会身份复杂性对其可信性的影响以及社会距离在其中的中介作用。实验2用于检验被信任者所属群体类型(内群体、外群体)是否调节他们的社会身份复杂性对其可信性的影响。研究结果表明：被信任者多重社会身份的凸显会提高人们对其可信性的评价, 社会距离在二者之间起着完全中介作用; 群体类型对社会身份复杂性的影响具有调节作用, 社会距离的中介作用在对外群体成员的可信性评价中更为明显。     

The role of social categorization and perceived source credibility in minority influence

This study was conducted in order to compare the influence of ingroup and outgroup minorities and to assess the role of perceived source credibility in minority influence. The subjects were exposed to the simultaneous majority/minority influence paradigm. Ingroup minorities were more influential than outgroup minorities. Subjects moved toward the minority position in private and toward the majority position in public when the minority was represented by members of the ingroup. On private responses subjects were not affected by outgroup minorities who argued for abortion, and they became more positive toward abortion when outgroup minorities opposed abortion. Final &, ingroup minorities were perceived as more credible than outgroup minorities and greater credibility of minority source was associated with greater attitude change toward the minority position. The superior influence of ingroup minorities held when controlling for source credibility. Overall, the results were highly supportive of social identity theory.     

Downward Social Comparison in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Test of a Self-Enhancement Interpretation1

We tested some implications of Wills' (1981) downward comparison interpretation of ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup paradigm. Based on a self-enhancement interpretation of ingroup bias, we predicted that subjects who expected to succeed on a task for dispositional reasons and subsequently failed would be most threatened by the feedback and hence, would engage in downward social comparison strategies. The results did not support the self-enhancement interpretation, but a number of interesting findings emerged. First, downward social comparison involving favorable comparisons of the ingroup relative to the outgroup was pervasive and not mediated by self-esteem. Second, ingroup bias was greatest when individuals' outcomes were consistent with their expectations; ingroup bias was mitigated when subjects received feedback that was inconsistent with their expectations. Third, although low self-esteem subjects rated members of the outgroup more negatively than did high self-esteem subjects, high self-esteem subjects engaged in more downward social comparison by enhancing the self relative to both members of the outgroup and their own ingroup. Finally, self-enhancement strategies were affected by performance expectations, attributions, and chronic self-esteem: People who expected to perform well because of stable, dispositional reasons and who were high in self-esteem showed the greatest tendency to engage in self-enhancing comparisons with others. This was true regardless of whether subjects ultimately succeeded or failed on the important task and regardless of whether the comparison others were members of the outgroup or the ingroup.     

Personal involvement and the evaluation of group products

This research examined favouritism in group product evaluations as a function of personal involvement. After being divided into groups on an arbitrary basis, subjects worked at a group brainstorming task. Some subjects then assessed the merits of their own group's product relative to that of an outgroup's product, whereas other subjects assessed the merits of an ingroup's product relative to that of an outgroup's product. In both conditions, a significant bias was observed such that owngroup and ingroup products were rated as superior to outgroup products. Moreover, this bias was equally strong regardless of whether subjects were appraising a product they had personally helped create. The implications of the findings for understanding the antecedents of group bias are considered.     

We are the opposite of you! Mirroring of national,regional and ethnic stereotypes

The content of stereotypes can be shaped by multiple mechanisms, one of them possibly being the “mirroring effect.” Mirroring describes a phenomenon whereby people rate their ingroup characteristics as opposite to characteristics typical of a relevant outgroup. The aim of our study was to explore mirroring in three intergroup contexts—in national, regional, and ethnic stereotypes. In Study 1, 2,241 participants rated national ingroup stereotype and outgroup stereotypes of five Central European countries. In Study 2, 741 Czech participants rated regional ingroup and outgroup stereotypes of people living in two distinct parts of the Czech Republic. In Study 3, 463 majority and Hungarian minority participants in Slovakia rated ethnic ingroup and outgroup stereotypes. The results showed a clear presence of mirroring in all three contexts.     

On the consequences of deindividuation manipulations for the strategic communication of self: Identifiability and the presentation of social identity

According to traditional models of deindividuation, lowered personal identifiability leads to a loss of identity and a loss of internalized control over behaviour This account has been challenged by arguing that manipulations of identifiability affect the relative salience of personal or social identity and hence the choice of standards to control behaviour The present study contributes to an extension of this argument according to which identifiability manipulations do not only affect the salience of social identity but also the strategic communication of social identity. Reicher and Lvine (1993) have shown that subjects who are more identifiable to a powerful outgroup will moderate the expression of those aspects of ingroup identity which differ from the outgroup position and which would be punished by the outgroup. Here we seek to show that in addition, subjects who are more identifiable to a powerful outgroup will accentuate the expression of those aspects of ingroup identity which differ from the outgroup position but which would not be punished by the outgroup. This is because, when identifiable, subjects may use such responses as a means of publicly presenting their adherence to group norms and hence as a means of establishing their right to group membership. A study is reported in which 102 physical education students are either identifiable (I) or not identifiable (NI) to their academic tutors. They are asked to respond on a number of dimensions where pilot interviews show the ingroup stereotype to differ from outgroup norms. Expressions of difference from the outgroup position would lead to punishment on some of these dimensions (P items) but would not lead to punishment for others (NP items) The predicted interaction between identifiability and item type is highly significant. As expected, for NP items identifiability accentuates responses which differentiate the ingroup stereotype from outgroup norms. All these results occur independently of shifts in the salience of social identity. The one unexpectedfinding is that, for P items, identifiability does lead to decreased expression of the ingroup stereotype, but the diference does not reach significance. Nonetheless, overall the results do provide further evidence for the complex effects of identifiability on strategic considerations underlying the expression of social identity in intergroup contexts.     

Differential attribution of secondary emotions to members of the ingroup and the outgroup: infrahumanization bias in children / Atribución de sentimientos a miembros del endogrupo y del exogrupo: el sesgo de infrahumanización en niños

Abstract

Research on infrahumanization has shown that people reserve uniquely human characteristics, including secondary emotions, for their ingroup, and deny them to their outgroup. However, this hypothesis has been corroborated almost exclusively in adults. The present research objective is to determine whether children, like adults, infrahumanize members of the outgroup. Forty-eight children in a competitive sports context were asked to attribute several secondary emotions to members of the ingroup and the outgroup. Results revealed that, like adults, children infrahumanize the outgroup. Their attributions showed a reluctance to accept the outgroup’s secondary emotions, which they reserved exclusively for the ingroup. Specifically, children attributed more positive and negative secondary emotions to the ingroup than the outgroup.     

Ingroup favouritism and outgroup favouritism in low status minimal groups: differential responses to status-related and status-unrelated measures

To account for the inconsistent findings from previous studies of group status and discrimination, it was hypothesized that low status groups defer to the high status outgroup on measures perceived as related to the status dimension, but favour the ingroup on status-unrelated measures. Subjects randomly assigned to low, equal, or high status minimal groups allocated points to anonymous ingroup and outgroup members using distribution matrices presented as either related or unrelated to the status dimension, and also rated the two groups on traits described as either status-related or status-unrelated. As predicted, low status groups favoured the ingroup more on status-unrelated measures than on status-related measures. Furthermore, while low status groups were less discriminatory than high status groups on status-related matrices, they were no less discriminatory on status-unrelated matrices. In contrast to low status groups, high status groups displayed greater ingroup favouritism when matrices were related to the status dimension than they did when matrices were unrelated. The relatedness manipulation had no significant effect on the discriminatory behaviour of equal status groups. These findings are discussed in terms of implications for research, and relevance to social identity theory. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’: Building Blocks of Intergroup Cognition

Three experiments explored whether group membership affects the acquisition of richer information about social groups. Employing a minimal-groups paradigm, 6- to 8-year-olds were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 novel social groups. Experiment 1 demonstrated that immediately following random assignment to a novel group, children were more likely to generalize negative behaviors to outgroup members and positive behaviors to ingroup members and to report a preference for ingroup members. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that this initial ingroup-favoring bias interacts with subsequent learning, thereby attenuating the effect of negative information about the ingroup and enhancing the effect of negative information about the outgroup. These effects were more powerful with respect to preferences than induction: After hearing that some ingroup members behaved badly, children predicted that ingroup members would behave more negatively than outgroup members, but they did not express preferences for the outgroup over the ingroup. Together these data shed light on the construction of social category knowledge as well as the processes underlying the absence of own-group positivity among children from lower-status social groups.     

Mood and the impact of individuating information on the evaluation of ingroup and outgroup members: The role of mood-based expectancies

This research investigates the role of mood-based expectancies regarding a target's group membership for the impact of individuating information on target judgments. We argue that target judgments in both positive and negative mood may be more or less affected by individuating information depending on whether the target is an ingroup member or an outgroup member. Specifically, in a competitive intergroup setting it should be less congruent with mood-based expectancies when individuals in positive (negative) mood learn that an outgroup (ingroup) member rather than an ingroup (outgroup) member has succeeded. Hence, unexpected (i.e., mood-incongruent) category information should elicit more attention than expected (mood-congruent) category information. More importantly, subsequent individuating information (high vs. low target competence) should be processed more effortful and influence target judgments more strongly given mood-incongruent (vs. mood-congruent) category membership. Findings of an experiment support these predictions. Results are discussed in regard to implications for different research domains.