Punishing Individuals for Their Infirmities: Effects of Personal Responsibility, Just-World Beliefs, and In-Group/Out-Group Status

This research examined how derogation of cancer victims was moderated by (a) the perceived responsibility of the victim, (b) individual differences in just-world beliefs, and (c) whether the victim was an in-group versus out-group member. Participants formed an impression of an in-group or an out-group member who was known to have a terminal case of cancer. Half of the participants were informed that the target person was partially responsible for this medical condition, whereas the remaining participants were not given this information. Results showed that blaming judgments of high versus low responsibility targets were moderated by just-world beliefs, but this was only true when the person being judged was an out-group member. The implications of these results for research and theory on differential processing of in-group versus out-group members are discussed.     

Repulsion or attraction? Group membership and assumed attitude similarity

Three studies investigated group membership effects on similarity-attraction and dissimilarity-repulsion. Membership in an in-group versus out-group was expected to create initially different levels of assumed attitude similarity. In 3 studies, ratings made after participants learned about the target's attitudes were compared with initial attraction based only on knowing target's group membership. Group membership was based on political affiliation in Study 1 and on sexual orientation in Study 2. Study 3 crossed political affiliation with target's obnoxiousness. Attitude dissimilarity produced stronger repulsion effects for in-group than for out-group members in all studies. Attitude similarity produced greater increments in attraction for political out-group members but not for targets with a stigmatic sexual orientation or personality characteristic.     

Helpful Only in the Abstract?

ABSTRACT— This study tested the hypothesis that empathizing with out-group members is beneficial outside of, but not within, intergroup-contact situations. We predicted that in the context of intergroup interaction, the potential for evaluation would lead individuals' perspective-taking efforts to take on an egocentric and counterproductive flavor. As predicted, when empathy was instantiated during an intergroup exchange, it failed to exert its usual positive effect on intergroup attitudes and led higher-prejudice individuals to derogate an out-group member who was an interaction partner; empathy also blocked the prejudice-reducing influence of intergroup contact. Mediation analyses indicated that activation of negative metastereotypes regarding the out-group's view of the in-group accounted for these effects. The findings, which demonstrate ironic effects of empathy in intergroup interaction, indicate that interventions based on studies of individuals' reactions to out-group members in the abstract might have dramatically different consequences when put into practice in real exchanges between members of different groups.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Empathy and humanitarianism predict preferential moral responsiveness to in-groups and out-groups

ABSTRACT

The current research tests whether empathy—sharing others’ emotions—and humanitarianism—recognizing the moral worth of all people—each predict moral responsiveness toward others but in ways that favor in-groups and out-groups, respectively. In Studies 1 and 2, empathy and humanitarianism differentially predicted preferential moral concern for in-groups and out-groups. In Study 3, humanitarianism predicted lower in-group-targeted prosociality and greater out-group prosociality. In Study 4, empathy and humanitarianism predicted perceived moral obligation to in-groups and out-groups respectively. In Study 5, out-group obligation mediated between humanitarianism and allocations to out-group charities, and in-group obligation mediated between empathy and one of two in-group charities. In sum, empathy and humanitarianism are associated with preferential morality via group-based obligation, suggesting that morality could be extended by altering empathy, humanitarianism, or group processes.     

Intergroup perception as a compromise between in-group bias and fair-mindedness

Previously, perceived competence of and attraction toward targets categorized by race showed in-group bias and no bias, respectively. Consequently, previous investigators regarded intergroup perception as a compromise between the norms of in-group bias and fair-mindedness. An alternative hypothesis for such findings is that attraction is not as relevant a dimension for intergroup discrimination as is competence. To test contrasting predictions of these hypotheses, the present authors asked participants from the majority and minority groups in Singapore (ns = 320) to evaluate either competence of or attraction toward one of the five targets. Consistent with the hypothesis that intergroup perception is a compromise, both dimensions yielded a uniform but weak in-group bias. The participants' equating of the in-group with one out-group further illustrated fair-mindedness. The authors discussed implications of the findings.     

Majority group children expect that ethnic out-group peers feel fewer positive but more negative emotions than in-group peers

Across two studies majority group children’s (8–13 years) perception of positive and negative emotions in ethnic in-group and disadvantaged ethnic out-group peers was examined. Study 1 (N?=?302) showed that children expected in-group peers to feel better in a positive situation compared to out-group peers. Whereas, in a negative situation, children expected in-group peers to feel less bad compared to out-group peers, particularly when they evaluated the in-group as very positive. Study 2 (N?=?201) replicates these findings across multiple positive and negative situations, and additionally shows that in very negative situations children expect in-group and out-group peers to feel equally bad. These results suggest that children’s perception of emotions in others is influenced by ethnic group membership.     

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.     

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.     

On the behavioral consequences of infrahumanization: the implicit role of uniquely human emotions in intergroup relations

Four experiments confirmed the hypothesis that people discriminate the out-group on the basis of the expression of uniquely human emotions. In Study 1, using a lost e-mail paradigm, the expression of a uniquely human emotion resulted in "nicer" replies when the sender was an in-group compared with an out-group member. The same pattern of results was obtained in Studies 2 and 3 using a conformity paradigm. In addition, perceived similarity was measured and proposed as a potential underlying mechanism (Study 3). Finally, using an approach-avoidance procedure, Study 4 showed that people not only deprive the out-group of positive consequences as in the former studies but that people also act against the out-group. The role of infrahumanization underlying prejudice and discrimination is discussed.     

On the automatic evaluation of social exemplars

The present article focuses on the automatic evaluation of exemplars whose category membership has been learned in the past. Studies 1 and 2 confirmed the hypothesis that once an exemplar has been encoded as a member of a given group, at a later encounter the evaluation associated with the group will be unintentionally retrieved from memory, even when no perceptual cue indicates the exemplar's category membership. Study 3 extended the results to the domain of in-group/out-group differentiation. In addition. Studies 4 and 5 confirmed the hypothesis that stored evaluations can be retrieved and affect responses even when the semantic information on which the evaluations were originally based is no longer available for retrieval. Finally, Study 6 investigated spontaneous approach-avoidance behavior tendencies. Overall, results demonstrate the pervasive effects of person-based representations, and they are discussed in terms of recent models of person perception and out-group discrimination.     

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.     

"I help because I want to, not because you tell me to": empathy increases autonomously motivated helping

Empathetic arousal has been found to be a strong predictor of helping behavior. However, research has neglected the motivational mechanisms whereby empathetic concern elicits help giving. Three studies examined the extent to which autonomous and controlled motives for helping mediated the relationship between empathy and helping. Study 1 found that state empathy predicted willingness to offer time and money to help a person in need, with this relationship mediated by autonomous motivation for helping. Study 2 demonstrated that dispositional, empathetic concern predicted prosocial intentions and behavior via the mediation of autonomous motivation. Study 3 revealed that participants who focused on the emotions of another person in distress reported greater willingness to help than did participants who remained emotionally detached, with this effect mediated by autonomous motivation to help. Controlled motivation had no positive effects on helping in any of the studies. The results suggest that empathy encourages prosocial behavior by increasing autonomous motivation to help.     

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.     

Perceptual asymmetry in consensus estimates of majority and minority members

Three experiments revealed a consistent pattern of consensus estimates. Numerical status and group growth or decline were manipulated between subjects. Growth was manipulated orthogonally to a 3rd variable: focus. Focus was manipulated by describing growth information with respect either to the in-group or the out-group (e.g., in-group growth and out-group decline). A Numerical Status X Focus interaction emerged in Study 1. Numerical minority members' consensus estimates for an opinion issue increased when growth information was out-group focused, whereas majority members' estimates did not differ as a function of the focus variable. Study 2 replicated these effects across other opinion dimensions. Study 3 confirmed the importance of the growth and focus variables in the absence of numerical status manipulations.     

Devaluing domains in response to threatening intergroup comparisons: perceived legitimacy and the status value asymmetry

Group status and status legitimacy were tested as moderators of devaluing in response to threatening intergroup comparisons. In 3 experiments, participants received feedback comparing their in-group (based on school or gender) to a higher or lower status out-group. When the legitimacy of group status differences was assumed (Studies 1 and 2) or manipulated (Study 3), participants devalued the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a lower status out-group but did not devalue the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a higher status out-group. In Study 3, this status value asymmetry was eliminated when status differences were delegitimized. Mediational analyses suggested that the status value asymmetry was explained by the perceived utility of the domain for gaining status-relevant rewards.     

The cross-category effect: mere social categorization is sufficient to elicit an own-group bias in face recognition

Although the cross-race effect (CRE) is a well-established phenomenon, both perceptual-expertise and social-categorization models have been proposed to explain the effect. The two studies reported here investigated the extent to which categorizing other people as in-group versus out-group members is sufficient to elicit a pattern of face recognition analogous to that of the CRE, even when perceptual expertise with the stimuli is held constant. In Study 1, targets were categorized as members of real-life in-groups and out-groups (based on university affiliation), whereas in Study 2, targets were categorized into experimentally created minimal groups. In both studies, recognition performance was better for targets categorized as in-group members, despite the fact that perceptual expertise was equivalent for in-group and out-group faces. These results suggest that social-cognitive mechanisms of in-group and out-group categorization are sufficient to elicit performance differences for in-group and out-group face recognition.     

The Impact of In-Group and Out-Group Homogeneity/Heterogeneity Upon Intergroup Relations

This study explores the effect of experimentally manipulated in-group and out-group homogeneity/heterogeneity upon subsequent intergroup discrimination. In order to do this, homogeneity/heterogeneity of the in-group as well as of the out-group was experimentally manipulated. Seventy-two boys and 72 girls, ages 12 to 14, participated in the experiment. On the presumed basis of a perceptual task, they were randomly allocated to minimal social categories, whose variability was manipulated. After performing a perceptual estimation task, they were asked to evaluate the performance of the in-group and out-group in this task. The results indicated that a manipulation of in-group homogeneity/heterogeneity produced not much of an effect: Although a heterogeneous in-group discriminated more than a homogenous one, this difference was not significant. The manipulation of out-group homogeneity/heterogeneity had a much stronger effect: Although subjects discriminated significantly against a homogenous out-group, this discrimination disappeared when the out-group was heterogenous. The theoretical implications of the data are discussed.