Differential processing of ingroup and outgroup information: the role of relative group status in permeable boundary groups

Perceivers individuate cognitively the ingroup more than the outgroup; that is, perceivers use person categories to process information about the ingroup, but use stereotypic attribute categories to process information about the outgroup. This phenomenon is labelled the differential processing effect (DPE). Is the DPE moderated by relative group status? In two experiments, either high- or low-status members of permeable-boundary groups (i.e. groups that encourage upward mobility) read through information about unfamiliar ingroup and outgroup members. Relative group status moderated the DPE. Clustering indices in recall and confusions in a name-matching task indicated that high-status members individuated the ingroup more than the outgroup, thus replicating the DPE. However, low-status members individuated the outgroup more than the ingroup, thus reversing the DPE. A third experiment suggested that these findings are predicated on the ingroup information being stereotype-consistent. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social identification and permeability of group boundaries

Two experiments were conducted to investigate some of the factors affecting social identification. In Experiment 1 ingroup identification was measured for subjects who were members of high or low status groups with either permeable or impermeable boundaries, and who received high, average or low ability feedback. The main results are that (1) members of high status groups show more ingroup identification than members of low status groups (2) members of low status groups with permeable boundaries identify less with their group than members of low status groups with impermeable boundaries and (3) in low status groups ingroup identification decreases as group members have higher individual ability. In Experiment 2, in addition to manipulating group status and individual ability, permeability was further differentiated into separate possibilities for upward and downward mobility. The most important results of Experiment 2 are that (1) members of high status groups show more ingroup identification than members of low status groups and (2) group members with high individual ability identify less with their group when upward mobility is possible than when upward mobility is not possible. These results are discussed in relation to social identity theory.     

Social creativity strikes back: improving motivated performance of low status group members by valuing ingroup dimensions

Motivation of stigmatized group members to perform on status‐relevant ‘outgroup’ dimensions can be impaired after ingroup failure. Three experiments examined whether social creativity by valuing ingroup dimensions (dimensions on which an ingroup outperforms an outgroup) can increase motivation and performance on outgroup dimensions. It was hypothesized that under high social identity threat, motivation on the outgroup dimension would benefit from valuing an ingroup dimension. Experiments 1 and 2 show that when social identity threat is increased, low status group members who personally value ingroup dimensions show higher motivation to perform on the outgroup dimension. Experiment 3 shows that the induction of high contextual value of both ingroup and outgroup dimensions improves low status group members' well‐being and motivated performance on the outgroup dimension. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

We'll never get past the glass ceiling! Meta‐stereotyping,world‐views and perceived relative group‐worth

This article examines the implications of perceived negativity from members of a dominant outgroup on the world views and perceived relative group worth of members of disadvantaged groups. We hypothesized that concerns about the negative opinions a dominant outgroup is perceived to hold of the ingroup (i.e., meta‐stereotypes) would undermine group members' views about societal fairness. We expected this trend to be mediated by recall of previous personal experiences of discrimination. We further hypothesized that members' views about societal fairness would predict their perception of the ingroup's worth relative to the outgroup – such that undermined views about societal fairness would be associated with lower perceived ingroup worth relative to the outgroup. Taken jointly, results from two studies using two real intergroup contexts support these hypotheses and are discussed in terms of their implications for the social mobility of members of disadvantaged groups.     

Social identity,relative group status and intergroup attitudes: when favourable outcomes change intergroup relations…for the worse

This study examines in a natural setting (N = 253) the effects of favourable outcomes at the individual and group levels on the relations between members of high (nondisabled) and low (disabled) status groups. Consistent with past research, the results show that, overall, high‐status group members are more likely than low‐status group members to display ingroup bias. Furthermore, as hypothesized on the basis of the role of relative gratification in intergroup relations, a favourable group outcome led high‐status group members to derogate the low‐status outgroup. On the other hand, as predicted from the assumption that outgroup favouritism reflects a strategy of individual mobility, a favourable individual outcome led low‐status group members to display an evaluative bias in favour of, and to identify with, the high‐status outgroup. The implications of these findings for the explanation of outgroup favouritism and outgroup derogation are discussed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

My people,right or wrong? Minimal group membership disrupts preschoolers’ selective trust

When preschoolers decide to trust one speaker over another, how does group membership influence their tracking of speaker reliability? In Experiment 1, 4-year-olds were assigned to arbitrary groups of no social significance (0055 and 0170) and asked to endorse novel object labels provided by two ingroup members, one of whom was reliable and the second of whom was unreliable. Children selectively trusted the more reliable informant. In Experiment 2, we asked whether ingroup status or reliability would determine children's choices and found that 4-year-olds failed to trust reliable outgroup members over unreliable ingroup members (or vice versa). Experiment 3 showed that the failure of trust in Experiment 2 was not due to the mere inclusion of both ingroup and outgroup members: children presented with a control paradigm in which the ingroup members were reliable trusted reliable ingroup members over unreliable outgroup members. Children's use of reliability as an indicator of future credibility therefore appears disrupted when outgroup status and reliability are in conflict, even when group membership is arbitrary.     

Minimal‐group membership influences children's responses to novel experience with group members

Children, like adults, tend to prefer ingroup over outgroup individuals, but how this group bias affects children's processing of information about social groups is not well understood. In this study, 5‐ and 6‐year‐old children were assigned to artificial groups. They observed instances of ingroup and outgroup members behaving in either a positive (egalitarian) or a negative (stingy) manner. Observations of positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors reliably reduced children's liking of novel outgroup members, while observations of negative ingroup and positive outgroup behaviors had little effect on liking ratings. In addition, children successfully identified the more generous group only when the ingroup was egalitarian and the outgroup stingy. These data provide compelling evidence that children treat knowledge of and experiences with ingroups and outgroups differently, and thereby differently interpret identical observations of ingroup versus outgroup members.     

Demonstrating knowledge: The effects of group status on outgroup helping

We examined, in two experiments, the notion that members of low status groups, more than members of high status groups, use outgroup helping as a strategic tool to demonstrate their group's knowledge and boost its reputation. In Study 1 (N = 103), we compared outgroup helping in response to requests for help with offering help. As predicted, participants' knowledge was positively related to outgroup helping in response to requests, but only among members of low status groups. Knowledge also predicted the offering of help among members of high status groups. The second study (N = 75) replicated the findings from the requested help condition and showed that the effect disappeared in a condition in which help could not reflect ingroup knowledge. Additional data support a conclusion in terms of a collective strategy to boost the ingroup's reputation by demonstrating ingroup knowledge to the outgroup. The implications for promoting outgroup helping in a salient intergroup context are discussed.     

Exclusion,intergroup hostility,and religious fundamentalism

The goal of the present study was to examine whether exclusion leads to increased intergroup hostility and stronger fundamentalist religious beliefs. Using Cyberball, we examined how adolescents from different ethnic groups in the Netherlands (of Moroccan, Turkish, and Dutch descent with either Muslim, Christian, or secular beliefs) responded to being included or excluded by ethnic in- and outgroup members. We expected that exclusion by ethnic outgroup members would represent a categorization threat and would result in greater hostility. We hypothesized that exclusion by ethnic ingroup members would represent an acceptance threat and would result in responses that reduce uncertainty and increase one's chances of being accepted by others (e.g., a stronger endorsement of fundamentalist religious beliefs). The results revealed that among all ethnic groups, exclusion by ethnic outgroup members led to more hostility toward the co-players and the co-players' ethnic group than exclusion by ethnic ingroup members. This was mediated by the extent to which people attributed their exclusion to the racist attitudes of their co-players. Among Muslims and Christians, exclusion by ethnic ingroup members led to more support for fundamentalist beliefs. We discuss the theoretical extension that these results provide, and practical issues raised regarding the consequences that may occur through the marginalization of religious and ethnic groups.     

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.     

Was It One of Us? How People Cope with Misconduct by Fellow Ingroup Members

How do group members cope with misconduct by members of their own group? Strong evidence for a positive bias in people's evaluations of their own group and its members suggests that an ingroup perpetrator is likely to be treated more leniently than an outgroup perpetrator. However, research has also demonstrated a “Black Sheep‐Effect”, such that ingroup members who deviate negatively from relevant ingroup norms are evaluated and punished even more harshly than outgroup deviants. Both reactions – positive ingroup bias and the Black Sheep Effect – may serve the same goal, namely maintaining positive regard for the ingroup. In this paper, we present several moderators that have been shown to affect responses to negative ingroup deviance. We propose a model that incorporates and organizes these moderators in order to predict whether negatively deviant ingroup members will receive especially lenient or rather harsh and negative evaluations from their fellow ingroup members.     

Retributive justice and social categorizations: the perceived fairness of punishment depends on intergroup status

In the current research, the authors investigate the influence of intergroup status and social categorizations on retributive justice judgments, that is, the extent to which observers perceive punishment as fair. Building on social identity theory and the model of subjective group dynamics, it is predicted that when the ingroup has higher status than the outgroup, people are relatively less concerned about punishment of an outgroup offender than when the ingroup has lower status than the outgroup. Two experiments revealed that participants are more punitive towards an ingroup than an outgroup offender when ingroup status is high but not when ingroup status is low. Furthermore, in correspondence with our line of reasoning, this finding emerged because participants were less punitive towards outgroup offenders when ingroup status is high than when ingroup status was low. It is concluded that the perceived fairness of punishment depends on the offender's social categorization and intergroup status. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

A recognition advantage for members of higher-status racial groups

The other-race effect (ORE) is a recognition memory advantage afforded to one's racial ingroup versus outgroup. The motivational relevance of the ingroup—because of relationships, belonging and self-esteem—is central to many theoretical explanations for the ORE. However, to date, the motivational relevance of outgroups has received considerably less attention in the ORE literature. Across six experiments, Black, White, Asian and Latinx American participants consistently demonstrated better recognition memory for the faces of relatively higher-status racial/ethnic group members than those of lower-status groups. This higher-status recognition advantage even appeared to override the ORE, such that participants better recognized members of higher-status outgroups—but not an outgroup of equivalent status—compared to members of their own ingroup. However, across a variety of self-reported perceived status measures, status differences between the high- and low-status groups generally did not moderate the documented recognition advantage. These findings provide initial evidence for the potential role of group status in the ORE and in recognition memory more broadly, but future work is needed to rule out alternative explanations.     

Expectation of outgroup behaviour: can you trust the outgroup?

Outgroups are usually viewed with suspicion and expected to discriminate against the ingroup. The present study demonstrated that ingroup members attributed past discriminatory behaviour committed by individuals of unknown group membership more to outgroup members than to either ingroup members or members of a neutral group. In contrast, past egalitarian behaviour was attributed less to outgroup members than to members of a neutral group. Ingroup members also expected more discrimination from a future outgroup allocator than from a future neutral group allocator. Finally, the study showed that ingroup members' own behaviour in allocating money became more biased in favour of ingroup members vis-á-vis outgroup members when the future allocator was from an outgroup rather than from a neutral group and when they had witnessed the discriminatory behaviour of an allocator in the past.     

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.     

The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: the importance of congruence

The role of congruence and incongruence in diverse decision-making groups is examined by manipulating opinion agreement within and between members of different social categories. Congruence occurs when ingroup members agree with one another and outgroup members disagree, whereas incongruence occurs when an ingroup member disagrees with a majority composed of ingroup and outgroup members. The results of two studies, one using a scenario methodology and the second using simulated work teams with two ingroup members and one outgroup member, show that regardless of the task-relevance of salient differences, individuals respond most favorably when categorical and opinion differences are congruent. Study 1 examined individuals' emotional reactions and group efficacy. Study 2 examined group performance, the minority influence process, and efforts to maintain congruence. The findings suggest that outgroup minority opinion holders may be more influential in diverse group decision-making settings than ingroup minority opinion holders.     

The impact of implicitly and explicitly primed ingroup–outgroup categorization on the evaluation of others pain: The case of the Jewish–Arab conflict

Despite the automaticity of affective sharing, many studies have documented the role of top-down effects, such as social categorization, on people’s empathic responses. An important question, largely ignored in previous research, concerns empathy to ingroup and outgroup members’ pain in the contexts of ongoing intergroup conflict. In the present study we examined how implicit and explicit ethnic social categorization of others affects empathy to pain in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. To meet this aim, we assessed the evaluation of pain by Jewish and Arab participants who viewed a series of visual stimuli depicting painful and non-painful familiar situations. The stimuli were associated with explicitly or implicitly primed typical names depicting ingroup, neutral outgroup, and adversary outgroup members. Results demonstrate that pain ratings in the explicit priming condition provide support for the ingroup empathy hypothesis, positing that empathy is higher for ingroup than for outgroup members for both Jews and Palestinian Arabs. Conversely, when the targets’ categories are primed implicitly, results revealed difference in empathy by the two ethnic groups where an ingroup bias was detected only for Palestinian Arabs. This suggests that the activation of ingroup bias on the subliminal implicit level among Palestinian Arab participants might be mediated by the amount of conflict permeating in their daily lives and by deeply rooted cultural values and behavioural patterns.