The importance of being we: human nature and intergroup relations

The author discusses the nature of in-group bias and the social motives that underlie ethnocentric attachment to one's own membership groups. Two common assumptions about in-group bias are challenged: that in-group positivity necessitates out-group derogation and that in-group bias is motivated by self-enhancement. A review of relevant theory and research on intergroup relations provides evidence for 3 alternative principles: (a) in-group attachment and positivity are primary and independent of out-groups, (b) security motives (belonging and distinctiveness) underlie universal in-group favoritism, and (c) attitudes toward out-groups vary as a function of intergroup relationships and associated threats to belonging and distinctiveness     

The effects of status differences,favoured treatment and equity on intergroup comparisons

Studied the effects of status and treatment differentials on in-group bias in an intergroup comparison experiment. The status differential conditions were formed by alleged differences in performance on a prior task between in and out-group. The treatment differential conditions were formed by experimenter's manipulation of a points differential between the in and out-groups. One hundred and fourteen undergraduates were each assigned to one of nine conditions in a 3 × 3 design of high equal low status and favour no favour disfavour. Results indicate a significant status effect (p < 0.01), with in-group bias increasing with status, and a significant favour effect (p < 0.01), with in-group bias decreasing with favour. There is no significant interaction (F < 1). Particular conjunctions of status and treatment represented three conditions oft equity, inequitable advantage, inequitable disadvantage. Contrary to predictions from equity theory, but in accord with predictions from social comparison theory, results indicate in-group bias in all three conditions.     

The Janus face of power in intergroup contexts: a further exploration of the noblesse oblige effect

The authors examined the impact of power on in-group bias by manipulating group members' power over the in-group and power over the out-group as orthogonal factors. Each factor had 3 levels: 0%, 50%, and 100%. Participants were 216 male pupils (12-13 years old). Participants showed no in-group bias when they had 0% control over the in-group, strong in-group bias with 50% control, but less in-group bias with 100% control. Participants showed more in-group bias when they had 0% control over the out-group than when they had 50% or 100% control. The combination of these 2 main effects resulted in the noblesse oblige effect: Group members with complete control over both in-group and out-group expressed less in-group bias than did group members who shared control with an out-group.     

Linguistic intergroup bias in political communication

The Linguistic Intergroup Bias (LIB) illustrates the disposition to communicate positive in-group and negative out-group behaviors more abstractly than negative in-group and positive out-group behaviors. The present research examined the function of language in reinforcing this bias in political communication. To illustrate the LIB, the Linguistic Category Model (LCM) was used, including a nouns category. Because social stereotypes are usually conveyed by nominal terms, the aim was to observe the relationship between stereotypes and language in political communication. Moreover, we were interested in analyzing the psychological processes that drive the LIB. Therefore, we verified whether the LIB is more related to language abstractness than to agent-patient causality. Several political debates and interviews, which took place before the latest Italian provincial elections, were analyzed. Results suggested that the language politicians use in communicating about political groups are conceptualized as stereotypes rather than as trait-based categories. Moreover, it seems that the LIB could not be explained only at a lexical level. Social implications of the present findings in interpersonal relations and causal attribution were discussed.     

Conditions of contact, common in-group identity, and in-group bias toward contingent workers

In a survey-based field study of 111 permanent Finnish restaurant employees, the authors investigated intergroup relations between permanent and contingent workers. On the basis of the common in-group identity model, the authors hypothesized that the conditions of contact (supportive norms and perceived intergroup competition) would be related to common in-group identity, which in turn would be negatively related to intergroup bias. The present results indicated that perceived competition and institutional support were related to in-group bias only through their influence on the common in-group identity, as the model predicted.     

Being better by being right: subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined

The authors predicted that derogation of group deviants depends on the extent to which in-group norms or values are validated or undermined in a social context. In Experiment 1 participants were less tolerant and derogated in-group deviants more when other in-group members opposed the norm. In Experiment 2 participants derogated in-group deviants more than out-group deviants and than noncategorized individuals, but only when normative in-group members lacked uniformity. In Experiment 3 participants derogated in-group deviants more when there was uncertainty about in-group superiority. These results are consistent with previous research on the black sheep effect (J. M. Marques, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & J. -P. Leyens, 1988) and with the model of subjective group dynamics (D. Abrams, J. M. Marques, N. J. Bown, & M. Henson, 2000; J. M. Marques, D. Abrams, D. Paez, & C. Martinez-Taboada, 1998).     

Status conferral in intergroup social dilemmas: behavioral antecedents and consequences of prestige and dominance

Bridging the literatures on social dilemmas, intergroup conflict, and social hierarchy, the authors systematically varied the intergroup context in which social dilemmas were embedded to investigate how costly contributions to public goods influence status conferral. They predicted that contribution behavior would have opposite effects on 2 forms of status-prestige and dominance-depending on its consequences for the self, in-group and out-group members. When the only way to benefit in-group members was by harming out-group members (Study 1), contributions increased prestige and decreased dominance, compared with free-riding. Adding the option of benefitting in-group members without harming out-group members (Study 2) decreased the prestige and increased the dominance of those who chose to benefit in-group members via intergroup competition. Finally, sharing resources with both in-group and out-group members decreased perceptions of both prestige and dominance, compared with sharing them with in-group members only (Study 3). Prestige and dominance differentially mediated the effects of contribution behavior on leader election, exclusion from the group, and choices of a group representative for an intergroup competition. Taken together, these findings show that the well-established relationship between contribution and status is moderated by both the intergroup context and the conceptualization of status.     

Implicit associations as the seeds of intergroup bias: how easily do they take root?

Three experiments provided evidence that intergroup bias occurs automatically under minimal conditions, using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In Experiment 1, participants more readily paired in-group names with pleasant words and out-group names with unpleasant words, even when they were experienced only with the in-group and had no preconceptions about the out-group. Participants in Experiment 2 likewise showed an automatic bias favoring the in-group, even when in-group/out-group exemplars were completely unfamiliar and identifiable only with the use of a heuristic. In Experiment 3, participants displayed a pro-in-group IAT bias following a minimal group manipulation. Taken together, the results demonstrate the ease with which intergroup bias emerges even in unlikely conditions.     

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.     

Effects of intergroup and interpersonal context, and individuals' appraisal of their in-group on the intragroup comparison process

The present study examined whether individuals' endorsement of intergroup context moderates the social comparison process not only in the intergroup upward comparison condition, but also in the downward comparison condition, by experimentally manipulating the direction of intergroup comparison and interpersonal comparison for participants who appraise their in-group as high or low. As predicted, participants who appraise their in-group as high showed reflection processes in the intergroup upward comparison condition, but comparison processes in the intergroup downward comparison condition because of their endorsement of their in-group position. In contrast, participants who appraised their in-group as low showed comparison processes in the intergroup upward comparison condition, but reflection processes in the intergroup downward comparison condition. These results imply that the interplay between intergroup context and individuals' internal factors affect intragroup comparison processes.     

"In-group love" and "out-group hate" as motives for individual participation in intergroup conflict: a new game paradigm

What motivates individual self-sacrificial behavior in intergroup conflicts? Is it the altruistic desire to help the in-group or the aggressive drive to hurt the out-group? This article introduces a new game paradigm, the intergroup prisoner's dilemma-maximizing difference (IPD-MD) game, designed specifically to distinguish between these two motives. The game involves two groups. Each group member is given a monetary endowment and can decide how much of it to contribute. Contribution can be made to either of two pools, one that benefits the in-group at a personal cost and another that, in addition, harms the out-group. An experiment demonstrated that contributions in the IPD-MD game are made almost exclusively to the cooperative, within-group pool. Moreover, preplay intragroup communication increases intragroup cooperation, but not intergroup competition. These results are compared with those observed in the intergroup prisoner's dilemma game, in which group members' contributions are restricted to the competitive, between-group pool.     

When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts

An experiment with 213 participants provided evidence for in-group projection—the generalization of distinctive in-group attributes to a superordinate category. The frame of reference for in-group (German) judgments was manipulated by presenting either Italians or the British as an out-group. Results showed that attributes on which Germans differed from each out-group were accentuated not only in in-group judgments but also when judging Europeans. By adapting features of the superordinate category to those of the in-group, the in-group's similarity to, and the out-group's deviation from, the prototype of the superordinate category were maintained, if not emphasized. Further, higher in-group prototypicality—compared to out-group prototypicality—for the superordinate category was related to negative out-group attitudes. In-group projection was reduced when a complex representation of the superordinate category was primed.     

Biased evaluations of in-group and out-group spectator behavior at sporting events: the importance of team identification and threats to social identity

Previous researchers have demonstrated that sport fans often exhibit in-group bias by reporting more positive evaluations of fellow in-group fans than of rival out-group fans. The authors designed the present investigation to extend previous research by replicating past efforts in a field setting and to advance our understanding of the impact of social identity threat. The present authors hypothesized that, in addition to the base-level in-group bias effect, the bias effect would be most pronounced in situations involving a threat to one's social identity. The authors believed that fans of a losing team and fans of a home team would experience threats to their identity and, consequently, exhibit particularly high levels of in-group favoritism. Further, because past researchers had shown that one's level of group identification plays a vital role in social perception, the present authors predicted an interaction in which the greatest amount of bias would be exhibited by highly identified fans rooting for a home team that had lost. Data gathered from spectators (N = 148) at 2 North American college basketball games confirmed the authors' expectations, with the exception that the supporters of the winning team reported higher levels of bias. The authors discussed the factors underlying the unexpected game outcome effect and the use of in-group bias as a coping strategy.     

A normative perspective on the linguistic intergroup bias: How intragroup approval of ingroup members who use the linguistic intergroup bias perpetuates explicit intergroup bias

The present research examined from a normative perspective how intragroup normative processes regulate the consequences of the linguistic intergroup bias (LIB). Results of three studies supported our hypothesis that intragroup approval of an ingroup member who uses the LIB plays a key role in perpetuating pro-ingroup bias. In Study 1, ingroup members who used pro-ingroup (vs. pro-outgroup) LIB elicited more intragroup approval and this effect was mediated by the perception of the speaker as being biased in favor of the ingroup. In Studies 2 and 3, intragroup approval (vs. disapproval) of an ingroup member who used the LIB enhanced the expression of pro-ingroup bias. By providing the first demonstration of how the LIB relates to intragroup normative processes, our studies highlight a new path by which the LIB helps perpetuate intergroup bias.     

Pronorm and antinorm deviants: a test of the subjective group dynamics model

The authors replicated the study by D. Abrams, J. M. Marques, N. Bown, and M. Henson (2000, Study 2), performed to test the subjective group dynamics model (J. M. Marques, D. Abrams, D. Paez, & C. Martinez-Taboada, 1998). Participants were students enrolled in the psychology department at an Italian university. The present study considered the relationship between students and professors, and the attitude object was limited enrollment for admission to the department. Participants evaluated either in-group or out-group members. Findings replicated those of Abrams et al., except the in-group pronorm deviant was perceived to be less typical and evaluated less positively than the normative members. This finding suggests that, during an intergroup conflict, perception of the typicality of deviants exaggerating the in-group norms--and thus their evaluations--may increase as long as deviance is not perceived to be too accentuated.     

Considering multiple criteria for social categorization can reduce intergroup bias

Two experiments tested the notion that considering multiple criteria for social categorization can reduce intergroup bias. In both experiments, participants were required to consider alternative ways in which people could be classified, other than an initially salient intergroup dichotomy. In Experiment 1, the authors found that generating alternative social classifications that were unrelated to an initial target dichotomy reduced intergroup bias compared to a control condition. In Experiment 2, this effect was replicated and the authors found that unrelated, but not related, categorizations were necessary to reduce bias. This article adds support to the view that increasing categorical complexity is a useful tool in bias reduction. These findings are discussed in the context of a developing model of multiple categorization effects.     

Can people feel happy and sad at the same time?

The authors investigated whether people can feel happy and sad at the same time. J. A. Russell and J. M. Carroll's (1999) circumplex model holds that happiness and sadness are polar opposites and, thus, mutually exclusive. In contrast, the evaluative space model (J. T. Cacioppo & G. G. Berntson, 1994) proposes that positive and negative affect are separable and that mixed feelings of happiness and sadness can co-occur. The authors both replicated and extended past research by showing that whereas most participants surveyed in typical situations felt either happy or sad, many participants surveyed immediately after watching the film Life Is Beautiful, moving out of their dormitories, or graduating from college felt both happy and sad. Results suggest that although affective experience may typically be bipolar, the underlying processes, and occasionally the resulting experience of emotion, are better characterized as bivariate.     

Implications for the self determine benevolence and self-protection in intergroup relations

People often favor groups they belong to over those beyond the in-group boundary. Yet, in-group favoritism does not always occur, and people will sometimes favor an out-group over the in-group. We delineate theoretically when in-group favoritism (i.e., self-protection) and out-group favoritism (i.e., benevolence) should occur. In two experiments, groups’ relative status and competence stereotypes were manipulated; groups’ outcomes were non-contingent in Experiment 1 and contingent in Experiment 2. When allocating reward, members of a low-status group were self-protective, favoring the in-group over the out-group under both non-contingent and contingent outcomes. Those with high status benevolently favored the out-group when outcomes were non-contingent, but were self-protective with contingent outcomes. People were willing to engage in social activities with an out-group member regardless of competence. However, when task collaboration had implications for the self, those with low status preferred competent over less competent out-group members. Traits of high status targets were differentiated by those with low status in both experiments, whereas those with high status differentiated low-status members’ traits only when outcomes were contingent. A general principle fits the data: The implications of intergroup responses for the self determine benevolence and self-protection.     

Bias and regulation of bias in intergroup interactions: Implicit attitudes toward Muslims and interaction quality

Previous research suggests that automatically activated bias manifests itself in behavior that can jeopardize the quality of intergroup interactions. However, regulation of automatic associations has the potential to attenuate their influence on intergroup interaction. To test this possibility, 46 non-Muslim White participants interacted with a Muslim confederate and completed an implicit measure of attitudes toward Muslims. The Quadruple Process model [Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., Gonsalkorale, K., Hugenberg, K., Allen, T. J., & Groom, C. J. (2008). The self-regulation of automatic associations and behavioral impulses. Psychological Review, 115, 314-335] was applied to the implicit measure to estimate participants’ strength of negative associations with Muslims and their ability to overcome those negative associations. The confederate’s ratings of how much he liked the participants were predicted by an interaction between automatic negative associations and the ability to overcome them. Specifically, when the strength of participants’ negative associations with Muslims was low, participants’ level of overcoming bias was unrelated to the confederate’s ratings. In contrast, the ability to regulate automatic negative associations predicted greater liking when those associations were strong.