When differences matter: intergroup distinctiveness and the evaluation of impostors

The present study examined the effect of intergroup distinctiveness and group membership on evaluations of impostors. We predicted that ingroup members would be harsher than outgroup members on an impostor and that perceptions of intergroup distinctiveness would further moderate these evaluations. Specifically, we tested the social identity theory prediction that low intergroup distinctiveness would lead to greater derogation of the impostor (the ‘reactive distinctiveness’ hypothesis) against the self‐categorization hypothesis that high intergroup distinctiveness would instigate more derogation of an impostor (the ‘reflective distinctiveness’ hypothesis). In this study, vegetarians (ingroup members) and meat eaters (outgroup members) were presented with a target claiming to be vegetarian, but caught indulging in a meat dish. We found that ingroup members derogated the impostor more and felt less pleased about discovering the impostor behaviour than did outgroup members. In line with the reflective distinctiveness hypothesis, the heightened derogation displayed by ingroup members only emerged when intergroup distinctiveness was high, an effect that was mediated by ratings of group identification. The discussion focuses on the different responses intergroup distinctiveness may evoke. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The ingroup as pars pro toto: projection from the ingroup onto the inclusive category as a precursor to social discrimination

In an approach to intergroup discrimination and tolerance, it is assumed that the outgroup's difference from the ingroup is evaluated with reference to the prototype of the higher-order category that includes both groups. Two correlational studies yielded evidence that (a) group members tend to perceive their ingroup as relatively prototypical for the inclusive category (projection), (b) members highly identified with both ingroup and inclusive category (dual identity) tend to project most, and (c) relative prototypicality is related to negative attitudes toward the outgroup. The latter relation was further specified in Study 3, manipulating the valence of the inclusive category. Projection was related to more negative attitudes toward the outgroup when the inclusive category was primed positively but to more positive attitudes when it was primed negatively. The meaning of dual identities for intergroup relations is discussed.     

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).     

The effects of intergroup context of evaluation on ambivalence toward the ingroup and the outgroup

A study is reported which examines the relations between ambivalence toward the ingroup and the outgroup. The basic assumption was that ambivalent attitudes in intergroup contexts contribute to satisfying two competing motivations of group members, i.e. establishment of positive distinctiveness for the ingroup and conformity to the fairness norm. Participants were asked to evaluate the ingroup and one other group by using unipolar (positively and negatively valenced) affect‐ and cognition‐based items. We predicted an interaction effect of target group (ingroup versus outgroup) and attitude domain (affect‐based versus cognition‐based) on ambivalence. Additional hypotheses were formulated taking separately into account the positive and the negative unipolar items. We expected that on positively valenced items the ingroup would be favoured over the outgroup on both affect‐ and cognition‐based evaluations. Besides, we predicted that on negatively valenced items, the ingroup would be favoured over the outgroup on affect‐based evaluation but not on cognition‐based evaluation. Results indicated support for the predictions and shed light on the moderating role played by attitude domains on both ambivalence and ingroup favouritism. Copyright © 2002 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.     

Contrary effects of group cohesiveness in minority influence: Intergroup categorization of the source and levels of influence

The roles of group cohesiveness and intergroup categorization of the source in minority influence were studied in a 2 (high versus low cohesiveness) × 2 (ingroup versus outgroup source) × 3 (phases) factorial design. Six subjects forming a group were confronted with a confederate defending a minority position in a perceptual task. The results indicated a manifest influence effect (slide colour), accompanied by a latent polarization (afterimage) in the high cohesrveness/outgroup source condition, and a latent unfluence effect in the low cohesiveness/ingroup source condition.     

Crossed categorization versus simple categorization and intergroup evaluations: a meta‐analysis

Crossed categorization typically refers to the crossing of two dichotomous social dimensions, resulting in four groups (double‐ingroup, two mixed groups, and double‐outgroup). This paper reports the results of a meta‐analysis comparing the effects of crossed categorization on intergroup evaluations with the effects of simple categorization on intergroup evaluations. The crossed categorization paradigm is shown to increase or decrease ingroup bias, depending on how ingroup bias is defined in the crossed categorization paradigm. Moreover, just as in simple categorization, ingroup bias in crossed categorization is shown to be greater when the proportionate size of the ingroup is smaller. However, contrary to the patterns established in simple categorization, the reality of the group categorizations does not increase ingroup bias in crossed categorization. We discuss the implications of these results for future research on intergroup evaluations. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

When Me versus You Becomes Us versus Them: How Intergroup Competition Shapes Ingroup Psychology

Throughout evolutionary history, intergroup competition has been an influential part of social life. Although the topic has received substantial empirical attention among social psychologists, the majority of that work has focused on how ingroup and outgroup members regard one another. Only recently have researchers begun examining how intergroup rivalry changes that way that ingroup members perceive and relate to one another. New findings suggest that a variety of within‐group processes are influenced by the presence of a rival outgroup. In general, altruistic cooperation and prosocial motives increase among ingroup members when their group competes against another. The relationship between leaders and followers also shifts in response to intergroup rivalry: rather than wielding their power for selfish purposes, leaders prioritize the needs of their group. On the flip side, followers’ choice of leader changes, preferring males during times of intergroup competition but females in the absence of competition. Given the substantial impact of intergroup competition on ingroup processes, future research should continue to deepen the field’s knowledge of this topic. Additionally, the scope of research should be broadened to capture the effect of intergroup competition on ingroup dynamics, such as performance and group outcomes.     

Intergroup discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: categorization, reciprocation, or fear?

H. Tajfel's (1970) minimal group paradigm (MGP) research suggests that social categorization is a sufficient antecedent of ingroup-favoring discrimination. Two experiments examined whether discrimination in the MGP arises from categorization or processes of outcome dependence, that is, ingroup reciprocity and outgroup fear. Experiment 1 unconfounded categorization from outcome dependence. Categorized men discriminated only when dependent on others. Categorized women discriminated regardless of the structure of dependence. Experiment 2 examined dependence on the ingroup versus the outgroup as the locus of male-initiated discrimination. Consistently with an ingroup reciprocity effect, men discriminated when dependent on ingroup, but not outgroup, members. Sex differences are discussed in regard to women's heightened ingroup dependence produced by biological or environmental constraints.     

Effects of diversity versus segregation on automatic approach and avoidance behavior towards own and other ethnic groups

We present the results of a study in which we measured automatic intergroup behavior and evaluations in ethnic majority and minority group members. We focus our attention on the level of segregation and diversity of immediate life contexts as indicators of outgroup exposure. Specifically, Dutch ethnic minority and majority students enrolled at ethnically segregated and diverse schools completed a measure of automatic approach and avoidance behavior and reported explicit intergroup attitudes. The research is framed into prevailing theories in the field: Social Identity Theory and System Justification Theory. Results of our study suggest that segregation of minority group members' immediate life context may be an important moderator of evaluations as well as approach and avoidance behavior toward ingroup and outgroup. In particular, minority members in segregated schools showed an approach bias towards their ingroup, whereas minority members in diverse schools showed an approach bias towards the majority outgroup.     

Extending Contact Across Generations: Comparison of Direct and Ancestral Intergroup Contact Effects on Current Attitudes Toward Outgroup Members

There is a growing body of evidence that intergroup relations are affected not only by direct contact with outgroup members, but also by extended contact: the mere knowledge that an ingroup member has a positive relationship with an outgroup. The present article focuses on the transgenerationally transmitted effects of contact, namely the impact of knowledge about ancestors’ contact with outgroup members on descendants’ attitudes toward the outgroup. A correlational study in the Polish–Ukrainian borderland region (N = 288) shows that ancestral intergroup contact – independently from direct intergroup contact – plays a crucial role in the process of improving intergroup attitudes. The mediating mechanisms of perceived similarity of the outgroup to the self and of perspective taking are discussed. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Receptivity to dating and marriage across the religious divide in Northern Ireland: The role of intergroup contact

Intergroup contact has long been recognized as an important factor in promoting positive intergroup attitudes. However, in operationalizing intergroup attitudes, previous studies have rarely investigated attitudes toward one of the most intimate forms of contact, romantic relationships. In this study (N = 176), we expand the intergroup contact literature to examine the association between intergroup contact and, arguably, a litmus test of intergroup attitudes: receptivity to intergroup romance. We do so in Northern Ireland, a context that is historically and presently characterized by sectarian division and tension between Catholics and Protestants. Our findings reveal that intergroup contact is positively associated with receptivity to both dating and marrying an outgroup member. These associations are mediated by ingroup norms toward outgroup romances. General outgroup attitudes were also found to be positively associated with contact but, in contrast to romantic attitudes, this association was shown, for the first time, to be simultaneously mediated by ingroup norms, anxiety, empathy, and trust. In addition, strength of ingroup identification played a moderating role, with a stronger positive relationship between contact and both romantic and general outgroup attitudes among higher identifiers. The findings highlight the importance of examining attitudes toward intergroup romantic relationships, as well as understanding the different mediating and moderating mechanisms which may account for how contact influences general attitudes and romantic attitudes. In the wake of the UK vote to leave the European Union, they also serve as an important reminder of how intergroup contact can be effective in promoting peace in Northern Ireland.     

Perceived ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias: an interconnection of self and others

Campbell's (1958) concept of ingroup entitativity is reformulated as a perceived interconnection of self and others. A 2 (intergroup relations: competitive, neutral)×3 (intragroup interaction: low, medium, high) between-subjects design was used to examine (1) the effects of intergroup and intragroup relations on perceived ingroup entitativity and (2) the relation between ingroup entitativity and intergroup bias. Regardless of the relations between groups, members who experienced intragroup interaction had stronger perceptions of ingroup entitativity and stronger representations of the aggregate of ingroup and outgroup members as two separate groups than members who lacked intragroup interaction. Furthermore, perceptions of ingroup entitativity mediated the effect of the salience of the intergroup boundary on behavioral intergroup bias. These results call into question the ‘intergroup’ nature of group based phenomena. An ingroup entitativity framework is presented that locates the source of group-based phenomena (e.g. intergroup bias) in intragroup processes. Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.