Group Distinctiveness,Political Identification,and the Third-Person Effect: Perceptions of a Political Campaign in the 2004 Greek National Election

The present study examined the effects of political identification and group distinctiveness on perceptions of media influence during an election campaign. Participants estimated the effect of political communication on self and on voters of two large, nondistinctive political parties and two small, distinctive political parties. Nondistinctive party members showed an ingroup bias (i.e., greater perceived media influence on the outgroup) irrespective of strength of identification compared to the nondistinctive outgroups, whereas they did not show any bias (high identifiers) or even reverse bias (low identifiers) toward the distinctive outgroups. Distinctive party members showed an ingroup bias (irrespective of strength of identification) against the nondistinctive outgroups and an ingroup bias (high identifiers) or no bias (low identifiers) toward the distinctive outgroups. Ingroup assimilation (i.e., lack of difference in perceived influence between self and ingroup) was evident for distinctive party members, but not for nondistinctive party members. Results highlight the importance of group distinctiveness and identification in third-person perceptions.     

The Perceived Influence of AIDS Advertising: Third-Person Effects in the Context of Positive Media Content

Although there is consistent evidence indicating that people perceive themselves to be less influenced than others by negative media content and persuasive communications with negative intent (viz., a third-person effect), much less is known about the perceived impact of positive media content and public service advertisements. This study investigated the perceived impact of 11 AIDS advertisements promoting a common message for safe sex, in an attempt to clarify the conditions in which people might judge themselves as more, rather than less, influenced than others. Results indicated that student respondents perceived themselves as less vulnerable than others to low-quality AIDS advertisements, but as more influenced than others by high-quality AIDS advertisements. Respondents who believed strongly that it is good to be influenced by AIDS campaigns saw themselves as relatively vulnerable to such messages, whereas other respondents did not distinguish between the level of impact on self and other. Results are consistent with motivational accounts that emphasize the ego-enhancing function of social comparisons.     

Perceptions of social influence when messages favour ‘us’ versus ‘them’: A closer look at the social distance effect

The third‐person effect (TPE) is the tendency for individuals to assume that persuasive communications have a stronger effect on other people than on themselves. In turn the social distance effect (SDE) is the tendency for this TPE to increase with the psychological distance between self and comparator. Two experiments showed that the SDE is moderated by whether the message favours the ingroup or the outgroup, holding all other content constant. In Study 1, male and female participants read a message arguing that either women were better drivers than men or vice versa, and then indicated how much they thought themselves, ingroup members, outgroup members and society would be influenced. The results indicate that for the pro‐outgroup message the SDE was found. However, for the pro‐ingroup message the SDE was reversed with ingroup members perceived as more influenced than all other targets, including the self. Study 2 replicated this finding using minimal groups, which eliminated the effects of prior stereotypes about male and female drivers. Across both studies the self was perceived as relatively invulnerable to influence regardless of message bias. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The two faces of dominance: The differential effect of ingroup superiority and outgroup inferiority on dominant-group identity and group esteem

The present paper provides evidence that dominant-group members distinguish dominance framed as ingroup superiority from dominance framed as outgroup inferiority, and that ingroup superiority enhances esteem for, and thus identification with, the group more than outgroup inferiority. In Experiment 1, Democrats report higher levels of party identification after being told that Democrats won an election than after being told that Republicans lost the election. These effects are attenuated among dominant group members whose values are in conflict with how dominance was achieved. In Experiments 2a and 2b, unearned dominance framed as ingroup superiority resulted in higher levels of White identification than unearned dominance framed as outgroup inferiority among Whites who did not value meritocracy. In contrast, Whites who valued meritocracy did not increase their levels of identification with the group. In Experiment 2b, this interactive effect on racial identification was mediated by esteem for the group.     

On being more than just a part of the whole: Regional identity and social distinctiveness

This article reports the results of a questionnaire study that examined the relationship between regional identification and perceptual accentuation of ingroup distinctiveness in a natural field setting. Respondents were male inhabitants of the Saarland which is a small German state. Half the respondents were members of the leading political party of the Saarland, while the other respondents were members of the major opposition party. As expected, the former showed more pronounced regional identification than the latter. Our main prediction was that a higher level of regional identification would be accompanied by stronger accentuation of positive distinctiveness of the regional ingroup relative to the national ingroup. The prediction was confirmed, both in terms of intergroup differentiation and perceived group homogeneity. Additional results suggest that, depending on the level of social identification, perceived group homogeneity may be either positively or negatively related to familiarity with the ingroup. Finally, we discuss the applicability of social identity theory to social contexts comprising differentially inclusive ingroups instead of mutually exclusive ingroups and outgroups.     

Enlisting the Influence of Others: Alternative Strategies for Persuasive Media Campaigns

This study investigated an Australian antidrug campaign that targeted adolescents directly and indirectly via recruiting parents into drug prevention. Eighty-six parent–child dyads completed surveys measuring campaign evaluations, discussions about drugs, and beliefs about risks to self (own child) and to the average young Australian. Adolescents were optimistic about risks, and media impact was evident only in perceptions of risk to others. Parents were less optimistic, and perceptions of campaign quality predicted perceived risk to own child and discussion about drugs. However, this was moderated by negative affect associated with the campaign. There was some evidence that discussions influenced adolescents' perceptions of personal risk. This demonstrates the importance of individual responses and communication processes in determining the impact of persuasive media messages.     

The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third person effect

Communication scholars describe a pervasive ‘third person effect’ wherein people see mass media as more likely to affect other people than themselves. Two experiments are reported demonstrating that this effect is not a universal response to the issue of social influence, but occurs in specific social comparative contexts. In Experiment I respondents judged the impact on self and other of three types of media content-negative content, positive content, and public service campaigns. Comparison others varied on two dimensions, vagueness and closeness. A third person effect was found for both negative and positive content, but was more pronounced for negative content. The effect was also more pronounced in comparisons with vague and distant others. In contrast, respondents saw themselves as relatively vulnerable to influence from public service campaigns. Moreover, the direction of perceived self-other differences varied with respondents' perceptions of the desirability of the intended influence. In Experiment 2 respondents judged the impact on self and other of media violence and drink-driving campaigns. Results confirmed a perception of relative invulnerability to negative content and indicated that comparisons with vague others, and particularly with vague-distant others like ‘the average person’, facilitate such perceptions. Perceived self-other differences on the issue of drink-driving were less evident and varied with the perceived desirability of the intended influence. Results are discussed in terms of the ego-defensive and self-enhancing functions of social comparisons.     

Judging scandal: Standards or bias in politics

As the number of political scandals rises, we examined the circumstances that might influence how a politician would be judged as a result of a scandal. Specifically, we hypothesized that ingroup bias theory and shifting standards theory would produce different patterns of judgements. In two studies, we found support for the ingroup bias theory, such that participants rated the fictitious politician’s public approval and perceived character as higher if the politician was a member of their own political party (i.e. their ingroup) than if the politician was a member of the another political party (i.e. their outgroup). These results may explain, in part, why people may judge politicians involved in scandal more or less harshly depending on whether they are an ingroup member or outgroup member.     

How context-independent is the outgroup homogeneity effect? A response to Bartsch and Judd

Bartsch and Judd (1993) argue that outgroup homogeneity effects occur independently of any tendency for members of minority groups to see their ingroup as more homogeneous than the majority outgroup. This argument is based on evidence of an underlying outgroup homogeneity effect in a study which purports to unconfound the roles of judged group size and ingroup–outgroup judgement by presenting subjects first with a small or large ingroup (or outgroup) and then a small comparison outgroup (or ingroup). However, from the perspective of self-categorization theory (SCT), such a procedure actually introduces a confound as SCT predicts that when an ingroup is judged first it should be perceived as relatively heterogeneous due to the intragroup nature of this judgemental context. Close examination of Bartsch and Judd's data bears this point out: the tendency to see the ingroup as less homogeneous than the outgroup when the ingroup was judged first was extinguished when the ingroup was judged second even when the judged groups were of equal size. Consistent with SCT, this re-analysis suggests that manifestations of outgroup homogeneity are not independent of contextual factors which determine the relative appropriateness of category-based perception of ingroup and outgroup.     

Majority — minority status and perceived ingroup variability revisited

Social identity theory predicts that ingroup members should see their group as more homogeneous when confronted by a large and presumably dominant outgroup. This prediction has been supported in a series of recent studies, all of which purport to show that the usual ingroup—outgroup difference in perceived variability, i.e. outgroup homogeneity, is reversed when the ingroup is in a minority position. In all of these studies, however, the ingroup—outgroup distinction has been confounded with the size of the target group judged. The present study was conducted to overcome this confound. Subjects judged both the ingroup and outgroup, under one of two different orders, and the first group judged varied in size across subjects while the size of the second group was held constant. This permitted comparisons of the perceived variability of the second judged group (be it the ingroup or outgroup) when it followed the judgment of either a larger or equal size first group. Consistent with social identity theory, ingroups were judged as less variable when judged after a large outgroup than after a small one. This was true, however, only on measures of perceived dispersion and not on measures of perceived stereotypicality. On both sorts of measures, however, overall outgroup homogeneity was found, over and above the difference due to the comparison of the ingroup with a large or small outgroup.     

Downward Social Comparison in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Test of a Self-Enhancement Interpretation1

We tested some implications of Wills' (1981) downward comparison interpretation of ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup paradigm. Based on a self-enhancement interpretation of ingroup bias, we predicted that subjects who expected to succeed on a task for dispositional reasons and subsequently failed would be most threatened by the feedback and hence, would engage in downward social comparison strategies. The results did not support the self-enhancement interpretation, but a number of interesting findings emerged. First, downward social comparison involving favorable comparisons of the ingroup relative to the outgroup was pervasive and not mediated by self-esteem. Second, ingroup bias was greatest when individuals' outcomes were consistent with their expectations; ingroup bias was mitigated when subjects received feedback that was inconsistent with their expectations. Third, although low self-esteem subjects rated members of the outgroup more negatively than did high self-esteem subjects, high self-esteem subjects engaged in more downward social comparison by enhancing the self relative to both members of the outgroup and their own ingroup. Finally, self-enhancement strategies were affected by performance expectations, attributions, and chronic self-esteem: People who expected to perform well because of stable, dispositional reasons and who were high in self-esteem showed the greatest tendency to engage in self-enhancing comparisons with others. This was true regardless of whether subjects ultimately succeeded or failed on the important task and regardless of whether the comparison others were members of the outgroup or the ingroup.     

Making sides and taking sides: an analysis of salient images and category constructions for pro- and anti-Gulf War respondents

This paper reports supportive evidence for a modified self-categorisation model of mass social influence, whereby category definitions are determined rhetorically and the character of collective action is shaped through category arguments. The study was conducted shortly after the Gulf War and was concerned with the respective constructions of pro- and anti-war respondents. Respondents were first asked to recall the images of the war which had most impact on them. They were then shown 29 images of the war and asked to rate the impact of each one as well as explain why they had given such impact ratings. Finally, they were asked to select the five images which had most impact on them. The results indicated that different subjects indicated very different views of the categories opposing each other despite the fact that they were characterising the same event. Moreover, the constructions of pro- and anti-war subjects matched those previously having been shown to characterise the rhetoric of pro- and anti-war leaders. Thus pro-war subjects recalled and rated highly those images that were consistent with a construction of the war as opposing the civilised world (ingroup) to Saddam Hussein (outgroup). Anti-war subjects recalled and rated highly those images that were consistent with a construction of the war as opposing ordinary people (ingroup) to business and political leaders prosecuting the war (outgroup). Copyright © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The loyal member effect: on the preference for ingroup members who engage in exclusive relations with the ingroup

The goal of this article was to investigate an indirect form of intergroup differentiation in children in the context of racial attitudes: the preference for ingroup members who interact positively with other ingroup members rather than with outgroup members. Study 1 confirmed this general hypothesis with preschool and 1st-grade children, demonstrating that respondents preferred the ingroup member who played only with other ingroup members, evaluated this child more positively, and felt more similar to him or her. Studies 2 and 3 tested the boundary conditions of the phenomenon. Study 4 analyzed developmental changes demonstrating that the effect is no longer observed among 9- to 11-year-old children. Overall, these studies suggest that engaging in positive interactions with the outgroup might have its costs in terms of a relative devaluation and rejection by one's peers. Results are discussed by stressing the importance of intragroup processes for the regulation of intergroup relations among very young children.     

Evaluations of moral and conventional intergroup transgressions

To investigate children's understanding of intergroup transgressions, children (3–8 years, N = 84) evaluated moral and conventional transgressions that occurred among members of the same gender group (ingroup) or members of different gender groups (outgroup). All participants judged moral transgressions to be more wrong than conventional transgressions. However, when asked to make a judgment after being told an authority figure did not see the transgression, younger participants still judged that moral violations were less acceptable than conventional transgressions, but judged both moral and conventional transgressions with an outgroup victim as more acceptable than the corresponding transgressions with an ingroup victim. Older children did not demonstrate the same ingroup bias; rather they focused only on the domain of the transgressions. The results demonstrate the impact intergroup information has on children's evaluations about both moral and conventional transgressions.     

Including others in the self

We propose that to some extent, people treat the resources, perspectives, and identities of close others as their own. This proposal is supported by allocation, attribution, response time, and memory experiments. Recently, we have applied this idea to deepening understanding of feeling “too close” (including too much of the other in the self leading to feeling controlled or a loss of identity), the effects of relationship loss (it is distressing to the extent that the former partner was included in the self, liberating to the extent that the former partner was preventing self-expansion), ingroup identification (including ingroup in the self), and the effect of outgroup friendships on outgroup attitudes (including outgroup member in the self entails including outgroup member's identity in the self).     

Intergroup helping during the coronavirus crisis: Effects of group identification,ingroup blame and third party outgroup blame

Two studies tested predictors of helping across national boundaries. British participants reported blame attributions for the coronavirus crisis, either to the British government (ingroup blame), or to the Chinese government (third party outgroup blame), and it was tested whether this was associated with intentions to donate money to help outgroup members suffering from effects of the coronavirus crisis in the world's poorer countries. It was hypothesized that strength of identification with the national ingroup would be negatively associated with blame attributions to the ingroup, and that it would be positively associated with blame attributions to a third party outgroup. Blame attributions were predicted in turn to be related to outgroup helping, with ingroup blame being positively associated with helping intentions, and third party outgroup blame being negatively associated with helping intentions. Support for these predictions were found in one exploratory (N = 100) and one confirmatory (N = 250) study.     

The role of perceived vulnerability to disease in political polarization on climate change

Climate change presents a serious threat to the planet. Previous research reveals an ingroup–outgroup effect in support for climate policies, with greater support by U.S. participants for policies ostensibly endorsed by their own political party, despite acceptance of climate change among most Republicans and Democrats. We investigated moderation of this effect by the behavioral immune system (BIS), a suite of psychological mechanisms that cause individuals to avoid pathogens. This system has been linked to more negative responses to outgroup members. We extended previous research examining effects on group polarization to political polarization. We predicted that support for climate change policies would show stronger effects of own-versus other-party endorsement among people higher in BIS, as indexed by perceived vulnerability to disease (PVD). We found that the ingroup–outgroup endorsement effect on policy support was moderated by PVD. However, the effect was opposite to prediction. Whereas low PVD participants showed less support for climate policies endorsed by the other party than their own, high PVD participants supported climate policies regardless of endorser. This unexpected result may be construed as consistent with high PVD individuals feeling heightened vulnerability to environmental threats, which fosters support for protective policies, regardless of endorser. We also found less support for climate policies among Republican than Democrat low PVD participants, but no party effect among high PVD participants. This suggests that feeling vulnerable to environmental threats may lead Republicans to deviate from the party norm in their support for climate policies.     

On the immediate consequences of intergroup categorization: activation of approach and avoidance motor behavior toward ingroup and outgroup members

The present research argues that intergroup categorization has immediate behavioral consequences. Specifically, intergroup categorization is hypothesized to prepare the organism to respond differently to ingroup and outgroup members so that approach-like motor movements should be faster toward ingroup- versus outgroup-related stimuli. In contrast, avoidance-like behavior should be facilitated when reacting to outgroup versus ingroup members. Studies 1 and 2 test the basic hypothesis in relation to ethnic, national, age, and political categorization. Study 3 uses a minimal group paradigm to test the hypothesis in relation to newly formed groups. Across these experiments, participants were generally faster in performing approach-like motor movements toward ingroup members or avoidance behaviors toward outgroup members. The evolutionary function and the cognitive underpinnings of this state of "physical readiness" to approach ingroup and avoid outgroup members are discussed.     

‘They will not control us’: Ingroup positivity and belief in intergroup conspiracies

This research examined the role of different forms of positive regard for the ingroup in predicting beliefs in intergroup conspiracies. Collective narcissism reflects a belief in ingroup greatness contingent on others’ recognition. We hypothesized that collective narcissism should be especially likely to foster outgroup conspiracy beliefs. Non‐narcissistic ingroup positivity, on the other hand, should predict a weaker tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. In Study 1, the endorsement of conspiratorial explanations of outgroup actions was positively predicted by collective narcissism but negatively by non‐narcissistic ingroup positivity. Study 2 showed that the opposite effects of collective narcissism and non‐narcissistic ingroup positivity on conspiracy beliefs were mediated via differential perceptions of threat. Study 3 manipulated whether conspiracy theories implicated ingroup or outgroup members. Collective narcissism predicted belief in outgroup conspiracies but not in ingroup conspiracies, while non‐narcissistic ingroup positivity predicted lower conspiracy beliefs, regardless of them being ascribed to the ingroup or the outgroup.     

Striving for success in outgroup settings: effects of contextually emphasizing ingroup dimensions on stigmatized group members' social identity and performance styles

For members of stigmatized groups, being confronted with highstatus outgroup members threatens social identity and undermines performance on status-relevant dimensions. Two experiments examined whether the negative effects of outgroup contexts are alleviated when value is expressed for a dimension on which the stigmatized ingroup excels. Specifically, the authors assessed whether ingroup versus outgroup context and contextual value for ingroup dimensions affects group members' reactions to failure on status-relevant dimensions and subsequent performance. Experiment 1 showed that in comparison to ingroup contexts, outgroup contexts induce stigmatized group members to protect social identity and to feel more agitated following negative performance feedback. Experiment 2 showed that when others in the context emphasize the importance of a dimension on which the ingroup excels, the negative effects of outgroup contexts are alleviated, stigmatized group members feel more cheerful concerning an upcoming task, and task performance is characterized by a focus on success.