Is there an "I" in "team"? The role of the self in group-serving judgments

Why do people make judgments that favor their groups, attributing outcomes to internal factors to a greater extent when their group succeeds than when their group fails? The present research demonstrates that group-serving judgments serve a self-protective function. In Study 1, participants in team sports competitions made more internal team attributions after experiencing victory than defeat; this group-serving bias was eliminated among those who completed an affirmation of personal values. Study 2 replicated Study 1 and found that affirmed people were less likely to use their self-judgments as an anchor for judgments about the group. Study 2 also found that self-affirmation secured feelings of being a worthy group member, and this was associated with the reduction of group-serving judgments. The present research examines the motivational factors that promote, reduce, link, and separate self-serving and group-serving judgments.     

Perception of achievement attribution in individual and group contexts: Comparative analysis of Japanese, Korean, and Asian-American results

The present study focuses on the relational dynamics between individual and group attributions and examines cultural variations of people's perceptions of self-enhancing and group-enhancing attributions. Middle school students in Japan, Korea and the USA (Hawaii) were asked to read a vignette and to evaluate the stimulus person who makes an internal or external attribution for his personal or team's success. The results revealed that: (i) the self-effacing attributor was perceived as likable by the participants from all three cultures, but as less self-confident by Asian-Americans; and (ii) although Japanese and Koreans share similar cultural backgrounds, they had different preferences for the group-enhancing or group-effacing attributions. The different systems of self-enhancement across cultures are discussed.     

The Other Side of Injustice: When Unfair Procedures Increase Group-Serving Behavior

ABSTRACT— Greater group identification and higher levels of procedural justice typically work together to encourage group members to engage in group-serving cooperative behavior. However, when people who already identify with a group receive information indicating that the group is procedurally unjust, their motivation to engage in group-serving behavior may increase. This article reports two studies in which college students' identification with their university was measured and information about the procedural justice of the university was manipulated. Study 1 used an explicit measure of group identification and a deliberative measure of group-serving behavior. Study 2 used an implicit measure of group identification and both deliberative and spontaneous measures of group-serving behavior. The findings of both studies support the hypothesis that among people who are highly identified with a group, learning about the group's injustice leads to short-term increases in group-serving behavior.     

Hidden consequences of the group-serving bias: Causal attributions and the quality of group decision making

A long stream of research in attribution theory suggests that groups are biased toward attributing their success to factors that are internal to their group. However, the existing research has confounded two types of attributions that are both internal to the group, but theoretically distinct: (1) attributions that differentiate between the contributions made by each individual group member and (2) attributions that focus on the group as a whole. This dichotomy is important because, drawing on theories of social influence, we predict that different types of attributions will have different consequences for the quality of group decision making. In Experiment 1, individually focused attributions for past success caused groups to consider more divergent alternatives prior to making a shared decision. In Experiment 2, individually focused attributions for past success facilitated the sharing of unique information and improved decision accuracy. These findings suggest that the group-serving tendency to internalize success may have important consequences for group performance that have not yet been considered in current research.     

Group-serving attributions across intergroup contexts: Cultural differences in the explanation of sex-typed behaviours

This research attempted to integrate Tajfel's (1978) social identity theory with self-presentational concerns by exploring attributions about perceived group differences in behaviour. As such, it dealt with group-level rather than individual-level attributions, exploring whether bias in making such verbal attributions varied as a function of the interviewer's group identity and the presence of an ingroup audience. Undergraduate men and women at The Chinese University of Hong Kong rated the appropriateness of ingroup-favouring and outgroup-favouring explanations for male-typed and female-typed behaviors in a face-to-face interview. A group-serving bias was found for female-typed behaviours, but only when the same-sex audience was absent. A conceptual replication of the experiment was run in the United States to examine the possible cultural basis for the Chinese moderation of favouritism in the audience condition. The group-serving bias was more robust for the American undergraduates, extending across male- and female-typed behaviours and also across audience conditions, It was argued that these cultural differences in attributional bias appear to reflect the strength of the movement for women's liberation and norms surrounding the avoidance of conflict in the United States and Hong Kong.     

Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifications of Polish and Dutch students

This paper investigates two theoretical statements that are central to Social Identity Theory and Self-Categorization Theory: (1) when people identify as members of a social group, they are motivated to distinguish this group in a positive sense from relevant comparison groups, and: (2) in an hierarchically organized system of possible social identities, people may define their identity at various levels, but two levels cannot be salient in the same situation. Four studies investigate whether these hypothesized processes can be traced in natural social categories. Study 1 (N=150) found that Polish subjects had a more negative national stereotype than Dutch subjects. Study 2 (N=160) investigated whether these national stereotypes were related to the perceived distinctiveness of national traits, and to differential levels of national and European identification for Polish and Dutch subjects. Contrary to the expectations, it was found that Polish subjects identified more strongly with their national group than Dutch subjects. Both positive and negative national traits were considered more distinctive by Polish subjects than by Dutch subjects. Moreoever, Polish subjects expressed stronger European identity than Dutch subjects. Study 3 (N=161) replicated the findings of Study 2 under more controlled conditions. The Polish national stereotype was found to be largely based on negatively evaluated traits, and Polish subjects were more motivated to accentuate the distinctiveness of their national traits than Dutch subjects. Again, Polish subjects displayed stronger national and European identities. Further-more, no support was found for the expectation that Polish subjects would employ some self-protective strategy when such an opportunity was offered in this study. Similarly, in Study 4 (N=40) we found no evidence that Polish subjects utilized an alternative self-protective mechanism, namely ‘group-serving’ attributions, by means of which negative national traits could be ascribed to external circumstances. The results of these four studies are discussed in relation to Social Identity Theory, Self-Categorization Theory and political/historical developments in Europe.     

Reciprocity Effects with Intimate and Nonintimate Disclosure: The Importance of Establishing Baseline

Abstract

A number of laboratory studies report evidence for a self-serving bias in attribution for group success and failure. In more recent research using real-life groups, however, a group-serving bias has emerged: Individual group members attribute blame to themselves for group failure and share the responsibility for success with fellow group members. The present study attempted to assess the extent to which group members are sensitive to attributional styles for group performance. Self-serving and group-serving response patterns were prepared by the experimenter, in the form of answers given by hockey players to a questionnaire, and these were presented to members of different hockey teams. Respondents reacted consistently more favorably to the player exhibiting the group-serving pattern, especially in terms of the contribution such a person would make to group cohesiveness.     

Respect for group members: intragroup determinants of collective identification and group-serving behavior

This experiment examined how (disrespectful vs. respectful) treatment and (negative vs. positive) performance evaluation, both received from the same fellow group members, affects collective identification and willingness to engage in group-serving behavior. It was predicted and found that respectful as opposed to disrespectful intragroup treatment increased collective identification and willingness to engage in group-serving behavior in the immediate group situation, irrespective of whether intragroup evaluation was positive or negative. There was also evidence of a mediating role of collective identification. Regression analyses based on the measurement of perceived intragroup treatment and perceived intragroup evaluation as continuous variables corroborated these findings but also pointed to limits of the positive effects of respectful intragroup treatment. Finally, the interrelation of treatment and evaluation by fellow group members as two possible components of intragroup respect are discussed as well as the political dimension of research on intragroup respect.     

The group as a resource: reducing biased attributions for group success and failure via group affirmation

Self-affirmation theory proposes that people can respond to threats to the self by affirming alternative sources of self-integrity, resulting in greater openness to self-threatening information. The present research examines this at a group level by investigating whether a group affirmation (affirming an important group value) increases acceptance of threatening group information among sports teams and fans. In Study 1, athletes exhibited a group-serving attributional bias, which was eliminated by the group affirmation. In Study 2, the most highly identified fans exhibited the most bias in terms of their attributions, and this bias was eliminated by the group affirmation. These studies suggest that groups can serve as resources from which people can draw in response to threatening group events.     

On the nature and accuracy of attributions that change over time

“Actor” subjects engaged in a brief getting-acquainted conversation while “observer” subjects watched. Ratings of and causal attributions for behavior during the conversation were obtained immediately upon its conclusion and three weeks later from the same subjects and from an independent group of subjects not asked for immediate attributions. Comparison between immediate and the independent, “postponed” assessments showed that attributions by actors and observers tended to emphasize situational factors more over time, and personal factors less. Attributions by the “repeated assessment” subjects did not show a significant change over time, but their delayed attributions were significantly less likely to emphasize situational factors than were the delayed attributions of the “postponed assessment” group. The relative accuracy of these attributions could not, of course, be directly assessed. However, valid attributions presumably must be based upon valid perceptions or memories of the behaviors they seek to explain, and reliable criterion ratings of behaviors in the present study could be obtained from the experimenters. Actors' and observers' delayed behavior ratings agreed less with these criteria than did their immediate ratings, an indirect indication that attributions do not increase, and may decrease, in accuracy over time.     

Effects of own group success or failure on judgements of task performance by children of different ethnicities

Children in majority groups hold favourable attitudes toward members of their own group, whereas those in minority groups typically hold more favourable attitudes toward majority than own group members. It was expected that when evaluating task outcomes, majority group children would display own group favouritism, and minority children would show other group favouritism or ‘reverse ethnocentrism’. In this study, white and Native Indian elementary school children saw a video of a white and native child listening to sounds and trying to identify them. One-third of subjects saw white models correct more often than Native models, one-third saw Native models more often correct than white models, and the remaining third saw both models correct on an equal number of trials. When white models were successful, children from both groups made more positive evaluations of, optimistic predictions about, and internal attributions for task outcomes. When these models did poorly, negative attributes were deemphasized and task outcomes were attributed to external factors. Success by native models was attributed to external factors and task outcomes had little influence on predictions or evaluations. When native models were unsuccessful subjects accentuated negative attributes of these models and made internal attributions for their failures. Results were discussed in terms of cognitive and motivational theories of social judgements.     

The paradox of the disrespected: Disrespected group members’ engagement in group-serving efforts

Previous research has demonstrated that intra-group respect can strengthen people’s group identification, and encourage them to exert themselves on behalf of their group. In the present contribution, we focus on the possibility that those who are not respected by other group members (i.e., the disrespected) can also display group beneficial behavior. Experiment 1 (N = 159) confirms this paradoxical premise and reveals that systematically disrespected group members indeed exert themselves on group-serving tasks. These findings were replicated in Experiment 2 (N = 110). Additional indicators in Experiment 2 demonstrate that the effort by systematically disrespected group members cannot be attributed to a desire to improve their acceptance in the group, but should be interpreted as attempts to assert the worth of the self separately from the group. Results are discussed in relation to the group-value model and insights on marginal group membership and social exclusion.     

Whites' ethnocentrism and their attributions for the behavior of blacks: A motivational bias1

Previous research has shown that people make more derogatory attributions for the behavior of outgroup members than for the behavior of ingroup members. However, these results may be due merely to a cultural stereotype of the outgroup rather than to ethnocentrism (which would entail dislike for members of the outgroup). To examine the effect of ethnocentrism on attributions, irrespective of the cultural stereotype, and to examine whether people who differ in ethnocentrism also differ in their attributions for whites and blacks, high and low ethnocentric whites made attributions for the success and failure of black and white actors on a task which required an ability that was outside the scope of the cultural stereotype of blacks, i.e., ESP ability. Examination of these attributions revealed that the more ethnocentric the subjects were, the more they tended to give whites greater credit for success than blacks, and the more they tended to give whites less blame for failure than blacks. These results were discussed in terms of their implications for the persistence of prejudice and for the effects of motivations on attributions for the behavior of others.     

The group-member mind trade-off: attributing mind to groups versus group members

People attribute minds to other individuals and make inferences about those individuals' mental states to explain and predict their behavior. Little is known, however, about whether people also attribute minds to groups and believe that collectives, companies, and corporations can think, have intentions, and make plans. Even less is known about the consequences of these attributions for both groups and group members. We investigated the attribution of mind and responsibility to groups and group members, and we demonstrated that people make a trade-off: The more a group is attributed a group mind, the less members of that group are attributed individual minds. Groups that are judged to have more group mind are also judged to be more cohesive and responsible for their collective actions. These findings have important implications for how people perceive the minds of groups and group members, and for how attributions of mind influence attributions of responsibility to groups and group members.     

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.     

Do I want to know? How the motivation to acquire relationship-threatening information in groups contributes to paranoid thought,suspicion behavior,and social rejection

We investigated the psychological and social consequences associated with individuals’ motivation to search for information about whether they have been indirectly harmed by members of their group. Consistent with a motivated social cognition perspective, group members who were either chronically (Study 1a) or temporally (Study 1b) high in the motivation to acquire relationship-threatening information (MARTI) made more sinister attributions in ambiguous situations and entertained more paranoid cognitions about their coworkers. Moreover, paranoid cognitions about coworkers mediated the relationship between MARTI and suspicion behaviors toward coworkers (Study 2). Consistent with a social interactionist perspective, others chose to exclude prospective group members who were high in MARTI from joining the group and planned to reject them if they became group members (Study 3). Others’ social rejection of the focal group member was predicted by their anger toward group members who were high in MARTI (Study 4).     

For better or for worse: the congruence of personal and group outcomes on targets' responses to discrimination

This paper reports two studies examining how (in‐) congruence between personal and group outcomes affects emotional well‐being, outcome attributions and procedural justice perceptions of individuals who are exposed to subtle discrimination. In Study 1 (N = 82) participants are either accepted or rejected in a (bogus) job application procedure, and either do or do not receive additional information indicating group‐level disadvantage. In Study 2 (N = 79), participants were either accepted or rejected, and received information indicating either advantage or disadvantage for members of their group. Results of both studies reveal that not only emotional well‐being and outcome attributions, but also procedural justice perceptions are primarily guided by personal outcomes. That is, being informed of group‐level disadvantage does not intensify but can instead alleviate negative affect resulting from personal rejection. Furthermore, group disadvantage is only seen as an indicator of an unjust procedure by individual group members who have personally suffered rejection. Results are discussed in relation to current insights on discrimination, tokenism and social justice. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Source attributions and false memories: a test of the demand characteristics account

When lists of related words are presented to subjects, they sometimes recall or recognize nonpresented words related to those lists (critical lures). In fact, subjects sometimes claim to remember which of two speakers said the critical lures. We examined whether this finding could be accounted for by demand characteristics. If subjects’ willingness to make source attributions to critical lures reflects experimental demand, one would predict that subjects should be willing to change and should have little confidence in these attributions. Subjects made more attributions, were less likely to change their attributions, and were more confident in their attributions for critical lures than for unrelated distractors. Subjects had even more confidence in the attributions that they made for words that had actually been presented, and they were even less likely to change these attributions. These findings suggest that false memories are quite compelling but that they are also subtly different from true memories.     

Past success and convergent thinking in groups: The role of group‐focused attributions

Past success often causes groups to think narrowly around strategies that have worked in the past, even when environmental change has rendered these strategies ineffective. From a psychological perspective, this research seems to indicate that past success may give rise to convergent thinking in groups. Why might successful groups be prone to convergent thinking? I argue that the relationship between past success and convergent thinking may depend on the attributions that groups generate to explain their shared success. In this paper, I focus on two distinct attributions at the group level: Individual‐focused attributions that reflect the idiosyncratic characteristics of individual group members and group‐focused attributions that reflect the emergent properties of the group as a whole. I found that group‐focused attributions for past success cause groups to generate fewer ideas that are, on average, more convergent. In contrast, individual‐focused attributions cause groups to generate more ideas that are on average more divergent. These findings suggest that the experience of success may actually stimulate divergent thinking depending on how a group chooses to explain it. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of knowledge that attributions will be observed by others

The current study was conducted to determine if attribution statements would be affected by subjects' knowledge that their attributions of success or failure would be observed by an opposite-sex peer. At the time subjects recorded their attributions, half of them anticipated that their attributions would soon be observed in their presence by an opposite-sex peer, while the other half recorded their attributions anonymously. Results indicated that attributions of success and failure were affected by the social context. Observed subjects evidenced less tendency to attribute their failure to low ability than did nonobserved subjects. Subjects who succeeded on an identity-relevant task reported higher ability attributions under observation conditions than under nonobservation conditions. Observed subjects evidenced significantly greater willingness to attribute failure to lack of effort than did nonobserved subjects. For a task intended to be of minimal relevance to subjects' identities, nonobserved subjects attributed failure to task difficulty to a significantly greater degree than did observed subjects. Results were discussed in relation to Bradley's contention that self-serving biases in attribution can usefully be conceptualized as strategic self-presentations.