What Is Social about Justice? Inclusive Identity and Group Values as the Basis of the Justice Motive

Three studies tested the claim that the justice motive is based on commitment to the perceived values of the “primary category” of potential recipients of an allocation. In Study 1, participants who identified more strongly with their group regarded a member who represented the group's strengths as more entitled to a common profit. In Study 2, participants judged their own entitlement versus that of a member who represented the group's strengths. Members who identified more strongly with their group were less likely to display self-interest in their judgments. In Study 3, participants judged the entitlement of an in-group member representing out-group strengths versus an out-group member representing in-group strengths. When identification with the primary category (including in-group and out-group) was strong, members who identified more strongly with their in-group viewed the out-group member representing in-group values as more deserving.     

Can happy mood reduce the just world bias? Affective influences on blaming the victim

Do temporary moods influence people's tendency to blame victims for undeserved negative events? Based on research on the just world effect and recent affect theories, this experiment predicted and found that positive mood decreased and negative mood increased people's motivation to blame innocent victims for their misadventures. Participants (N = 70) were induced into positive or negative mood by viewing films, and subsequently read a newspaper article describing a random assault on either a fellow student (in-group member) or a corporate employee (out-group member). Their reactions were assessed on three measures: attributions of responsibility, dissociation from the victim and character evaluations. Positive mood reduced and negative mood increased the tendency to blame the victim, and in-group victims were blamed more than out-group victims. These results are discussed in terms of recent theories of affect and motivation, and their implications for real-life social judgments are considered.     

Dating Violence Attributions: Do They Differ for In-Group and Out-Group Members Who Have a History of Dating Violence?

In this research we examined the influence of in-group bias and dating violence history on dating violence attributions. Participants were 113 college students (97 women and 16 men; age M=21.9). They read a vignette that depicted dating violence and then completed a questionnaire concerning the assault. The couple was described as either part of the participants' in-group or the participants' out-group. The dating violence was described as either a first-time event for the couple or a repeated act of violence. Participants formed more lenient attributions for the in-group assailant than for the out-group assailant, but only if he was a first-time assailant rather than a repeat assailant. In addition, participants attributed less blame to the in-group victim than to the out-group victim, but only if she was a repeat victim of dating violence. These findings are examined in relation to in-group bias.     

Explanations for positive and negative behavior: the intergroup attribution bias in achieved groups

Previous research into intergroup attribution has addressed mainly the behavior of groups to which members are ascribed (e.g. gender, race). The attribution processes of groups of which membership is achieved (e.g. friendship groups) is less well understood, and the current study sought to address this. Fifty-five undergraduate participants were asked to explain the positive and negative behavior of a member of the in-group and a member of the out-group. As predicted, the participants attributed an in-group member's positive behavior more, and their negative behavior less, to internal, global, and specific causes than they did the corresponding behavior of an out-group member. There was also evidence that the participants employed a strategy of out-group derogation in their attributions: they made a higher intemality rating for an out-group member's negative behavior than they did for that person's positive behavior. It is proposed that the current study's use of achieved groups maximized participants' levels of group identification, and that this in turn motivated behavioral strategies aimed at protecting that identity.     

Explanations for positive and negative behavior: the intergroup attribution bias in achieved groups

Previous research into intergroup attribution has addressed mainly the behavior of groups to which members are ascribed (e.g. gender, race). The attribution processes of groups of which membership is achieved (e.g. friendship groups) is less well understood, and the current study sought to address this. Fifty-five undergraduate participants were asked to explain the positive and negative behavior of a member of the in-group and a member of the out-group. As predicted, the participants attributed an in-group member's positive behavior more, and their negative behavior less, to internal, global, and specific causes than they did the corresponding behavior of an out-group member. There was also evidence that the participants employed a strategy of out-group derogation in their attributions: they made a higher intemality rating for an out-group member's negative behavior than they did for that person's positive behavior. It is proposed that the current study's use of achieved groups maximized participants' levels of group identification, and that this in turn motivated behavioral strategies aimed at protecting that identity.     

Perceivers' responses to in-group and out-group members who blame a negative outcome on discrimination

The authors extend recent research concerning the social costs of claiming discrimination by examining men's and women's responses to in-group and out-group targets who either blamed a failing grade on discrimination or answer quality. Although participants generally responded more negatively to targets who blamed discrimination, rather than answer quality, dislike was greatest and gender group identification was lowest when participants evaluated an in-group target. Moreover, an in-group target who claimed discrimination was perceived as avoiding personal responsibility for outcomes to a greater extent than was a similar out-group target. Perceptions that the target avoided outcome responsibility by claiming discrimination were shown to mediate the relationship between attribution type and dislike of the in-group target. The authors discuss their results in terms of intragroup processes and suggest that social costs may especially accrue for in-group members when claiming discrimination has implications for the in-group's social identity.     

Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status differences on effort in intergroup contexts

This paper examines how the status of an out-group impacts effort in intergroup settings. The results provide evidence that people work harder when their individual performance is compared to a lower, as opposed to higher, status out-group member. Moreover, comparisons to a lower status out-group were found to elicit motivation gains as these participants worked harder than participants in the control (Studies 1-3) or in-group comparison conditions (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 4, evidence for the role of threat as an underlying mechanism was provided as gains in effort for those compared with a lower status out-group member were eliminated when participants self- or group-affirmed prior to comparison. Finally, Study 5 shows that both social identity threat and self-categorization threat underlie increases in effort for participants compared to a lower status out-group member. We detail a theoretical basis for our claim that performance comparisons with lower status out-group members are especially threatening, and discuss the implications for this research in terms of social identity and self-categorization theories as they relate to effort in intergroup contexts.     

Prosocial emotions and helping: the moderating role of group membership

In this article, the authors introduce and test a group-level perspective on the role of empathy and interpersonal attraction in helping. In line with our predictions, Study 1, a longitudinal field study of 166 AIDS volunteers, confirmed that empathy was a stronger predictor of helping when the recipient of assistance was an in-group member than when that person was an out-group member. Also as hypothesized, attraction was a stronger predictor of helping when the recipient was an out-group member than when that person was an in-group member. Study 2 replicated and further extended these results in a laboratory experiment on spontaneous helping of a person with hepatitis. Strengthening the validity of the findings, in both studies the effects of empathy and attraction held up even when the authors statistically controlled for potential alternative predictors of helping. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings for helping in intergroup contexts are discussed.     

Effects of experimentally induced peer-group rejection and out-group ethnicity on children's anxiety,self-esteem,and in-group and out-group attitudes

A minimal group study examined the effect of peer-group rejection on children's state anxiety and self-esteem, as well as their attitudes towards the rejecting group and an out-group that had the same or different ethnicity to the participants. Anglo-Australian children (n = 104) 7 and 9 years of age were randomly assigned to an Anglo-Australian team for an intergroup drawing competition. The competitor team had children with the same (i.e., Anglo-Australian) or different (i.e., Pacific Islander) ethnicity as their own team. The children then role-played that they had been accepted or rejected by their team members. Children's subsequent ratings indicated that peer-group rejection caused a decrease in self-esteem and an increase in anxiety, dislike for the rejecting in-group, but greater liking for the out-group, regardless of its ethnicity. Results also indicated that, regardless of peer status, children expressed greater liking for the in-group when there was a different versus same ethnicity out-group, and greater liking for the same versus different ethnicity out-group. The implications of the findings for peer-group rejection research are discussed.     

“It’s not funny if they’re laughing”: Self-categorization, social influence, and responses to canned laughter

Pre-recorded, or “canned” laughter is often used to encourage audience laughter. Previous research suggests that hearing others laugh can influence an audience, although several variables moderate its effects. We examined an unexplored moderator, hypothesizing that canned laughter would influence listeners only if they believed the laughter came from fellow in-group members. We manipulated the presence or absence of canned laughter in a potentially humorous recording and participants’ beliefs about the in-group or out-group composition of the laughing audience. The results confirmed our hypothesis: participants laughed and smiled more, laughed longer, and rated humorous material more favorably when they heard in-group laughter rather than out-group laughter or no laughter at all.     

The Black-Sheep Effect: How Positive and Negative Advertisements Affect Voters' Perceptions of the Sponsor of the Advertisement1

Participants read a positive or negative (mock) political advertisement that was sponsored by either an in-group (subject and sponsor were members of the same political party) or an out-group (subject and sponsor were members of different political parties) member. The results found support for a black-sheep effect. An in-group sponsor of a positive advertisement was evaluated more positively than any out-group member, regardless of advertisement type, or an in-group member who sponsored a negative advertisement. However, an in-group sponsor of a negative advertisement was evaluated more negatively than either an in-group sponsor of a positive advertisement. or an out-group sponsor. regardless of advertisement type. The results are discussed in terms of social identity theory.     

I know you are, but what am I? Self-evaluative consequences of judging in-group and out-group members.

When judging another person, people often spontaneously compare this person with themselves. Six studies examined the self-evaluative consequences of such spontaneous comparisons with in-group versus out-group members. They demonstrate that spontaneous comparisons with in-group members primarily involved the activation of specific individuating knowledge about the self. In particular, knowledge indicating that the self is similar to the judged target was rendered accessible. As a consequence, subsequent self-evaluations that were based on the implications of accessible self-knowledge were assimilated toward in-group targets. Spontaneous comparisons with out-group members, however, primarily involved the activation of more general category knowledge about the self. Specifically, knowledge about judges' membership in a group that distinguished them from the target was rendered accessible. Consequently, self-evaluations were contrasted away from out-group targets.     

Selective self-categorization: meaningful categorization and the in-group persuasion effect

Research stemming from self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987) has demonstrated that individuals are typically more persuaded by messages from their in-group than by messages from the out-group. The present research investigated the role of issue relevance in moderating these effects. In particular, it was predicted that in-groups would only be more persuasive when the dimension on which group membership was defined was meaningful or relevant to the attitude issue. In two studies, participants were presented with persuasive arguments from either an in-group source or an out-group source, where the basis of the in-group/out-group distinction was either relevant or irrelevant to the attitude issue. Participants' attitudes toward the issue were then measured. The results supported the predictions: Participants were more persuaded by in-group sources than out-group sources when the basis for defining the group was relevant to the attitude issue. However, when the defining characteristic of the group was irrelevant to the attitude issue, participants were equally persuaded by in-group and out-group sources. These results support the hypothesis that the fit between group membership and domain is an important moderator of self-categorization effects.     

New knowledge for old credences: Asymmetric information search about in-group and out-group members

Three experiments examined how people gather information on in-group and out-group members. Previous studies have revealed that category-based expectancies bias the hypothesis-testing process towards confirmation through the use of asymmetric-confirming questions (which are queries where the replies supporting the prior expectancies are more informative than those falsifying them). However, to date there is no empirical investigation of the use of such a question-asking strategy in an intergroup context. In the present studies, participants were asked to produce (Study 1) or to choose (Studies 2 and 3) questions in order to investigate the presence of various traits in an in-group or an out-group member. Traits were manipulated by valence and typicality. The results revealed that category-based expectancies do not always lead to asymmetric-confirming testing: whereas participants tended to ask questions that confirmed positive in-group and negative out-group stereotypical attributes, they used a more symmetric strategy when testing for the presence of negative in-group or positive out-group traits. Moreover, Study 3 also revealed a moderation effect of in-group identification. The findings point to the role played by motivational factors associated with preserving a positive social identity. Possible consequences of these hypothesis-testing processes in preserving a positive social identity for intergroup relations are discussed.     

Working harder with the out-group: The impact of social category diversity on motivation gains

This paper examines the influence that social category diversity (i.e., working with an in-group or out-group member) has on individual levels of motivation. The results of two experiments provide evidence that individuals increase their effort more when being outperformed by an out-group instead of an in-group member (Experiment 1), but only when the potential for social comparison is present (Experiment 2). We discuss the implications of this research for understanding how and why social category diversity may impact individual levels of motivation.     

Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception to the rule

Three studies examined the role of the perceived typicalness of an out-group member on her effectiveness in improving evaluations of her group. Subjects were students at two adjacent colleges. In the first study they interacted with a member of the out-group college. The interaction was either pleasant or unpleasant, and the contact person either confirmed or disconfirmed several stereotypes of the out-group (typicalness manipulation). Subjects evaluated the out-group most favorably when they interacted with the typical-pleasant member of the out-group. The second study demonstrated that contact with a highly typical member is not beneficial if her typicalness is based on stereotypes that reflect negatively on the subject's in-group. Several explanations of the typicalness findings were considered in a third study. Support was found for the hypothesis that the more typical member is perceived to be more predictive of the personality and actions of other out-group members.     

Not quite human: infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing

The present research examines how awareness of violence perpetrated against an out-group by one's in-group can intensify the infrahumanization of the out-group, as measured by a reduced tendency to accord uniquely human emotions to out-groups. Across 3 experiments that used different in-groups (humans, British, White Americans) and out-groups (aliens, Australian Aborigines, and Native Americans), when participants were made aware of the in-group's mass killing of the out-group, they infrahumanized the victims more. The perception of collective responsibility, not just the knowledge that the out-group members had died in great numbers, was shown to be necessary for this effect. Infrahumanization also occurred concurrently with increased collective guilt but was unrelated to it. It is proposed that infrahumanization may be a strategy for people to reestablish psychological equanimity when confronted with a self-threatening situation and that such a strategy may occur concomitantly with other strategies, such as providing reparations to the out-group.     

Contagion or restitution? When bad apples can motivate ethical behavior

When there is a “bad apple” in the group, are we more likely to follow the example or compensate for their sins? Three experiments showed that whether a group member’s unethical actions lead to contagion or restitution depends on the presence of out-group observers. In Experiment 1, participants were more likely to compensate for the transgression of an in-group member than an out-group member when there were out-group observers. Experiment 2 varied the presence of out-group observers and showed that such compensatory behaviors occur only in the presence of out-group members. We suggest that the presence of out-group observers trigger a self-categorization process that induces guilt in individuals for their group members’ transgressions. Indeed, associated guilt mediated the relationship between in-group member’s unethical behavior and participants’ compensatory behavior (Experiment 3). These results suggest that norms implied by others’ behavior and group categorization are important determinants of ethical behavior.     

Justice motive effects in ageism: The effects of a victim's age on observer perceptions of injustice and punishment judgments

Drawing on just-world theory and research showing that older persons are generally assigned a devalued status in society, we examined the impact of an innocent victim's age on observer perceptions of injustice and punishment reactions. In three experiments, we demonstrated that observers perceived the suffering of an older (vs. younger) person as less unfair, which, in turn, reduced their willingness to punish the harm doer. In Study 1, participants rated a car accident as less unfair and consequently punished the harm doer less when the victim was older. In Study 2, participants recommended punishing a harm doer less when the victim was older (vs. younger) when the need to believe in a just world was threatened (i.e., only when the victim was innocent). In Study 3, only participants higher in ageism perceived the suffering of an older (vs. younger) victim as less unfair and, consequently, recommended less punishment for the harm doer.     

Keeping Your Distance: Group Membership,Personal Space,and Requests for Small Favors1

The effects of group membership and interpersonal distance on interpersonal anxiety and compliance with a small request were explored. In a field experiment, people seated alone in the public eating area or a shopping mall were approached by one of two female confederates: an in-group member or an out-group member. Three different interpersonal distances were assumed by the confederates: near, medium, and far. The “medium” distance was the normative distance for interactions between strangers in the experimental situation. Although the out-group confederate aroused greater anxiety and obtained less compliance than the in-group confederate overall, these differences completely disappeared in the far-distance condition. It is suggested that one reason why out-group members are less likely to elicit compliance with a small request is that they arouse interpersonal anxiety on the part of potential helpers. The results of the present experiment indicate that this anxiety can be reduced (and compliance thereby increased) if the out-group member assumes a somewhat greater distance than is normally deemed appropriate for interactions between strangers.