The effect of essentialism in settings of historic intergroup atrocities

Three studies tested the effects of essentialist beliefs regarding the national ingroup in situations where a perpetrator group has inflicted harm on a victim group. For members of the perpetrator group, it was hypothesised that ‘essentialism’ has a direct positive association with ‘collective guilt’ felt as a result of misdeeds conducted by other ingroup members in the past. Simultaneously, it was hypothesised to have an indirect negative association with collective guilt, mediated by perceived threat to the ingroup. Considering these indirect and direct effects jointly, it was hypothesised that the negative indirect effect suppresses the direct positive effect, and that the latter would only emerge if perceived ‘ingroup threat’ was controlled for. This was tested in a survey conducted in Latvia among Russians (N = 70) and their feelings toward how Russians had treated ethnic Latvians during the Soviet occupation; and in a survey in Germany among Germans (N = 84), focussing on their feelings toward the Holocaust. For members of the victim group, it was hypothesised that essentialism would be associated with more anger and reluctance to forgive past events inflicted on other ingroup members. It was proposed that this effect would be mediated by feeling connected to the ingroup victims. This was tested in a survey conducted among Hong Kong Chinese and their feelings toward the Japanese and the Nanjing massacre (N = 56). Results from all three studies supported the hypotheses. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

On the (dis-)confirmability of stereotypic attributes

Two experiments investigated the linguistic abstractness and confirmability of elements contained in ingroup and outgroup stereotypes. The first experiment shows that positive elements of the ingroup stereotype (Italians) and negative elements of the outgroup stereotype (Jews, Germans) tended to be particularly abstract. Also, negative elements contained in the outgroup stereotypes required relatively little evidence to be considered ‘true’ but much disconfirming evidence to be rejected as ‘false’. No such bias emerged for ingroup stereotypes. The second experiment compared the abstraction of four outgroup stereotypes (Jews, Blacks, homosexuals, career women) finding the greatest abstraction for the oldest stereotype (Jews), and least abstraction for the most recent stereotype (career women) with the remaining two groups (Blacks, homosexuals) occupying an intermediate position. Results are interpreted as suggesting that stereotypes may become more abstract over time as they lose the concrete elements that are easier to disconfirm while maintaining the abstract elements that are more resistant to change. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

French Calvinism and Judaism

Abstract

Calvin's language against the Jews, as that of the other Reformers, is invariably harsh. Nevertheless, some of his doctrines—the quasi equal status of the two Testaments in matters of faith, but also Original Sin which transformed all human beings, the Jews among them, into sinners—make room for new attitudes: Jews are bad, corrupt and stupid, but Catholics are even worse. Calvin believes that there are still some elected among the Jews. With Beza, this legacy then deepens. Despite variations (millenarianism and irenism, the continually worsening status of the Huguenots), changed attitudes towards the Jews survive in the 17th century, and in the Refuge are reinforced by direct contact with Jews and new conceptions of Jewish history, which in Bayle and Basnage becomes normal human history. Persecutions are not divine punishment, but human evil, and parallelisms between Jewish and Huguenot history become evident. In France's ‘Desert’ clandestine and persecuted Huguenots identify themselves with the captive and persecuted Jews and Jerusalem under siege.     

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.     

Social Dominance and Social Identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Derogation?

American and Israeli university students completed questionnaires in their native languages assessing ingroup identification, social dominance orientation (SDO), and ingroup and outgroup affect. The interrelationships among the variables were examined for high- and low-status groups in three intergroup contexts: whites and Latinos in the United States, Ashkenazim and Mizrachim in Israel, and Jews and Arabs in Israel. Theoretical predictions of social identity theory and social dominance theory were tested. Results indicated that for all high- and low-status groups, stronger ingroup identification was associated with more positive ingroup affect, and for nearly all groups, higher SDO was associated with more negative affect toward the low-status group. In addition, SDO was positively associated with ingroup identification for all high-status groups, and negatively associated with ingroup identification for almost all low-status groups. Explanations for cross-cultural differences in the factors driving group affect are suggested, and theoretical refinements are proposed that accommodate them.     

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.     

Does remembering past ingroup harmdoing promote postwar cross‐group contact? Insights from a field‐experiment in Liberia

In the aftermath of the Liberian civil wars, we investigated whether it is possible to systematically influence how people construe their group's role during the conflict and how this affects intergroup emotions and behavioral intentions. In a field experiment, 146 participants were randomly assigned to think about incidents of violence during the war that were either committed by fellow ingroup members (perpetrator‐focus) or against fellow ingroup members (victim‐focus). Adopting a perpetrator‐focus led to greater willingness to engage in cross‐group contact, greater need for acceptance, and greater intergroup empathy. The focus manipulation did not affect participants' need for empowerment. Key message: Appraising the ingroup as “victim” or “perpetrator” after conflicts with reciprocal harmdoing is largely a matter of psychological construction. A promising avenue for promoting positive cross‐group contact consists in widening the ingroup's victim role by also remembering the harm that the ingroup inflicted upon others. This amplifies the need of acceptance, which leads to greater intergroup empathy and greater willingness to engage in cross‐group contact. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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

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

Saving Bulgaria's Jews: an analysis of social identity and the mobilisation of social solidarity

This paper investigates the arguments used in public documents to mobilise Bulgarians against the deportation of Jews in World War II. We focus on the key documents relating to the first wave of mobilisation in 1940–1941 as provided by Todorov in The Fragility of Goodness ( 2001 ). We demonstrate that these documents are based on three types of argument. The first, category inclusion, treats the Jews as part of a common ingroup rather than as constituting a separate outgroup. The second, category norms, proposes that help for those under attack is a core aspect of ingroup identity. The third, category interest, suggests that the ingroup will be harmed if Jews are persecuted. In each case, the predominant category on which arguments are based is national identity (i.e. ‘we Bulgarians …’). This analysis is used to validate and extend a social identity of model of helping. The theoretical and practical implications of such an approach are considered in the discussion. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

TO CATCH THE SKY — THE JEWISH IDENTITY OF ISRAELIS

In the winter of 2000, Israel’s Channel 2 television presented the series To Catch the Sky. This series allows us to learn about the changes in the viewers’ — and especially the secular viewers’ — attitudes to the phenomenon of teshuvah. Studying the intentions of the programme’s creators, the narrative format, the mode of character design and, especially, the reception, reveals that To Catch the Sky is not only a family story, but, like many other Israeli dramas, also a dramatic document that faithfully represents the changes that have intensified among secular Israeli Jews in recent years. It is possible that the sadness expressed by many secular Israeli viewers at the separation of the parents at the end of the series is, perhaps unconsciously, an expression of grief over their weakening ties with Judaism.     

Ethnic Identity, Legitimizing Ideologies, and Social Status: A Matter of Ideological Asymmetry

This paper examines the ideological asymmetry hypothesis with respect tothe interface between legitimizing ideologies and psychological attachment to one's ethnic group. The ideological asymmetry hypothesis suggests that hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing ideologies should be positively associated with ingroup attachment among high-status groups, but that among low-status groups these associations should be either less positive in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or negative in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The opposite pattern should be found with respect to the interface between hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment: Among high-status groups these associations should be negative, but among low-status groups these associations should be either less negative in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or positive in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The presence of isotropic versus anisotropic asymmetry is hypothesized to depend on the degree of disparity in status between the groups being compared: Wider status gaps should tend toward anisotropic asymmetries. The relationships between legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment were compared for (1) relatively high-status ethnic groups (European and Asian Americans) versus relatively low-status ethnic groups (Latinos and African Americans) in the United States, (2) the higher-status Jewish ethnic group (Ashkenazim) versus the lower-status Jewish ethnic group (Mizrachim) in Israel, and (3) the high-status Israeli Jews versus the low-status Israeli Arabs. The data were largely consistent with the ideological asymmetry hypothesis. The implications of these findings are discussed within the theoretical frameworks of social dominance theory and other approaches to intergroup relations.     

Affective responses to own violations of ingroup norms: the moderating role of norm salience

The findings from two experiments support the argument that the salience of a relevant ingroup norm may moderate the affective consequences of one's normative violations. Participants' counternormative behaviour only influenced their self‐reported affect under conditions of high norm salience. This relationship was mediated by participants' perceptions that their expression of ingroup favouritism was discrepant from a group norm of intergroup fairness. The presented evidence extends previous research in two ways. First, it qualifies prior work concerning the affective impact of normative ‘discrepancy’ on self‐directed negative affect. Second, it shows that increased self‐directed negative affect can be produced by deviations from the norms of a situationally salient and identity‐relevant reference group. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

THE SECULAR HERO

This article examines the ideas of a number of leading Israeli intellectuals on basic questions of secularism and the link between secular Jews and their Jewish heritage. The secular Jews at the focus of the intellectuals’ thinking are individualists, men and women of outstanding personality and aptitude. Most of the article discusses their trend towards individualism (which is often only implied). The last part of the article tries to classify the reasons for that trend—some of which are rooted in the political tension inherent in questions of identity and tradition in Israeli society, and others that are the apolitical legacy of spiritual Zionism.     

Stereotypes as justifications for prior intergroup discrimination: Studies of Scottish national stereotyping

Two studies provide support for the group‐justification approach to stereotyping (Tajfel, 1981 ; Huici, 1984 ). This approach contends that stereotypes not only serve cognitive functions for individuals but also provide a means of justifying prior intergroup discrimination. Study 1 investigated whether the content of the Scottish ingroup stereotype changes due to the prior expression of intergroup discrimination. Scottish students were primed with either a ‘differentiation’ or a ‘fairness’ ingroup norm and completed two intergroup judgement tasks. Other Scottish students were primed only with a ‘differentiation’ ingroup norm, while a control group received no prime or judgement tasks. Only participants who experienced the ‘differentiation’ ingroup norm prime and the intergroup judgement tasks changed the content of their ingroup stereotype as an attempt to justify their discriminatory behaviour. Study 2 examined whether Scottish students would use both positive ingroup and negative outgroup stereotypes to rationalize intergroup discrimination. Students who experienced a ‘differentiation’ ingroup norm prime and intergroup judgement tasks showed the highest level of superior recall for positive ingroup and negative outgroup stereotype‐consistent words compared to stereotype‐neutral words. This finding suggests that the expression of intergroup discrimination activates the use of both positive ingroup and negative outgroup stereotypes. Together the findings of these two studies provide empirical support for the notion that stereotypes serve social as well as cognitive functions. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Minimal majorities and minorities

This study is one of a series of experiments designed to examine how sociostructural factors such as group numbers, power and status affect intergroup behaviour. Using a variant of Tajfel's ‘minimal group’ paradigm the present study investigated the intergroup behaviour of college students categorized as numerical minority, majority or ‘equal’ group members. The effects of salient (S) versus non-salient (S?) group categorizations were also examined. These manipulations yielded a 3 × 2 design matrix consisting of majority/equal/minority × salient (S)/non-salient (S?) group conditions. Unlike most previous studies using this paradigm, subjects' responses on Tajfel's point distribution matrices were supplemented with subjects' report of their own and outgroup's point distribution strategies. As expected, minimal group results were replicated in the ‘equal’ group (S?) condition such that mere categorization into ingroup/outgroup was sufficient to foster intergroup discrimination. However salient (S) equal group members were more fair than discriminatory in their responses. Minorities (S/S?) were generally less fair than equal groups, showed high levels of absolute ingroup favouritism (S?) while simultaneously attempting to establish positive distinctiveness from majorities. Though majorities were generally fair (S/S?), they also appeared to be more concerned than minorities about maintaining positive differentials between themselves and minorities. Although, majority (S/S?) and equal group (S?) members accurately reported their actual distribution strategies, minorities (S/S?) and equal (S) group members were not as accurate in their self reports. Overall the present results are consistent with hypotheses derived from Social Identity Theory. But the results also show that sociostructural variables such as group numbers can have an important impact on intergroup behaviours.     

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.     

Victim and Perpetrator Groups’ Divergent Perspectives on Collective Violence: Implications for Intergroup Relations

Groups in conflict develop strikingly different construals of the same violent events. These clashing perceptions of past violence can have detrimental consequences for intergroup relations and might provoke new hostilities. In this article, we integrate and juxtapose what we know about construals of collective violence by delineating the different dimensions along which these construals differ between victim and perpetrator groups: regarding the question of who is the victim, who is responsible for the harm doing, what the perpetrator’s intent was, how severe the violence was, and when it took place. Then, we discuss the individual‐ and group‐level factors (e.g., collective narratives, social identities) that shape these construals, as well as their implications for attitudes regarding the conflict and support for relevant policies. We distinguish two different core motives that drive construals and their outcomes among victim and perpetrator groups: Perpetrator groups try to cope with moral identity threats and preserve a positive image of the ingroup, while victim groups try to protect their ingroup from future harm doing and desire acknowledgment of their group’s experiences. Lastly, we discuss implications for strategies and interventions to address victim and perpetrator groups’ divergent perspectives of collective violence.     

Level of Performance and Distribution of Errors in the Progressive Matrices Test: A Comparison of Ethiopian Immigrant and Native Israeli Adolescents

The performance of 250 Ethiopian Jews, ages 14–15, on the Progressive Matrices Standard (PMS) test, was compared to that of 1740 Israeli Jews, ages 9–15. The results showed that the Ethiopians' level of performance was similar to that of the young Israeli children's group (ages 9–10). Moreover, the distribution of errors found for the Ethiopian immigrant adolescents was not similar to that found for Israelis of the same age –- it resembled the distribution of errors found for Israeli 9- and 10-year-olds. It is suggested that the low performance of the Ethiopian immigrants reflects cognitive delay rather than cognitive difference.     

Keeping it in‐house: how audience affects responses to group criticism

It is often assumed that group‐directed criticism is best kept ‘in‐house’, but the effects of audience on responses to criticism have not been directly examined. Consistent with predictions, ingroup members who criticized the group to an outgroup audience were seen to be making a less appropriate choice of audience (Experiments 2 and 3), aroused more negative feelings (Experiment 1), were downgraded more strongly on personality traits (Experiment 2), and were seen to be doing more damage to the group (Experiment 2) than were ingroup members who kept their criticisms in‐house. Experiment 3 showed that, whereas moderate identifiers agreed with the comments less and showed weaker friendly intentions toward the critic when an outgroup audience as compared to an ingroup audience was chosen, high identifiers agreed with the criticisms just as strongly—and showed more friendly intentions toward the critic—when they were made to an outgroup as compared to an ingroup audience. Results are discussed in light of the broader literature on identity threat. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.