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.     

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.     

回族儿童族群偏爱态度的形成与发展

以回族儿童为被试,从发展心理学的视角,两个研究分别考察了回族儿童族群偏爱态度的形成及其发展特点。研究1借鉴经典的学前儿童种族族态度测验法,发现儿童在4岁时开始具有民族类别意识,并产生内群（回族）偏爱态度;研究2运用内隐联想测验范式以及自我报告法,发现无论内隐态度还是外显态度,儿童均表现出强劲的内群（外群体为汉族）偏爱态度,并且内隐偏爱态度随年龄增长而增强,外显态度随年龄增长趋于稳定。最后讨论了本研究与国外研究结果差异的原因,并展望了未来研究的方向。     

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.     

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.     

Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups

This article examines moral identity and reactions to out-groups during intergroup conflict Four studies suggest that a highly self-important moral identity is associated with an expansive circle of moral regard toward out-group members (Study 1) and more favorable attitudes toward relief efforts to aid out-group members (Study 2). Study 3 examines moral identity and national identity influences on the provision of financial assistance to out-groups. Study 4 investigates the relationship between moral identity and (a) the willingness to harm innocent out-group members not involved in the conflict and (b) moral judgments of revenge and forgiveness toward out-group members directly responsible for transgressions against the in-group. Results are discussed in terms of self-regulatory mechanisms that mitigate in-group favoritism and out-group hostility.     

Trait ratings of the in-group and out-group with minimal acquaintance: Differentiation and out-group favorability

Malloy et al. (2011) studied trait judgments and behavior of Black and White men during face-to-face interactions at zero-acquaintance and found that intergroup responses were asymmetric. The present research extends that work. In Study 1 Black and White men observed two dyadic interactions from the Malloy et al (2011) study and rated in-group targets’ traits. In Study 2, using the type generation paradigm, Black and White males and females generated types of persons from their racial in-group or out-group and rated their traits. Blacks differentiated the unique traits of Whites to a greater extent than Whites differentiated the unique traits of Blacks. Blacks and Whites judged out-group targets’ traits more positively than those of in-group members, and both differentiated the unique traits of in-group members more than out-group members.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

使用加工分离程序对低地位群体内\外群体偏爱的研究

使用加工分离程序（PDP）,以50名农村籍大学生为被试, 采用2（群体：外群体、内群体）×2（特质词效价：积极、消极）×2（加工：意识加工、无意识加工）混合设计,研究了低地位群体对内群体以及高地位外群体偏爱的内隐特征。在本研究情境中发现：农村大学生在提取城市群体积极特质词比消极特质词时的无意识加工更显著;而提取农村群体的积极和消极特质词时,无意识加工的贡献没有显著差异。说明低地位群体成员对外群体有内隐偏爱,对内群体却不存在内隐偏爱。     

群体关系与问责对信息共享意愿及谈判行为的影响研究

本研究就国人的群体关系与问责对谈判者行为及信息共享意愿进行考察,试图探讨文化对谈判者的影响。通过对128名在校大学生的模拟谈判实验,发现谈判者在群内谈判比在群际谈判时有更高的信息共享意愿和更少的强硬行为,群体关系和问责对信息共享意愿及主观利益冲突有交互效应。具体而言,高度问责时,谈判者在群内谈判比群际谈判时有更多的信息共享意愿;低度问责时,谈判者在群内谈判比群际谈判时有更少的主观利益冲突。     

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.     

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.     

Collective self and individual choice: The effects of inter-group comparative context on environmental values and behaviour

Self-categorization theory suggests that inter-group comparisons inform individual behaviour by affecting perceived in-group stereotypes that are internalized by group members. The present paper provides evidence for this chain of effects in the domain of environmental behaviour. In two studies, inter-group comparative context was manipulated. Study 1 found that the perceived in-group stereotype, self-stereotype (as represented by the reported value centrality), and behavioural intentions shifted away from a comparison out-group (irrespective of whether this was an upward or downward comparison). Study 1 also revealed that the effect of comparative context on individual environmental intentions was mediated by the perceived in-group stereotype and by changes in personal values. Study 2 extrapolated the observed effect on actual behavioural choices. The findings demonstrate the utility of a self-categorization approach to individual behaviour change.     

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.     

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.     

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).     

“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.