An information search model of evaluative concerns in intergroup interaction

In an information search model, evaluative concerns during intergroup interaction are conceptualized as a joint function of uncertainty regarding and importance attached to out-group members' views of oneself. High uncertainty generally fosters evaluative concerns during intergroup exchanges. Importance depends on whether out-group members' evaluations are perceived as diagnostic of one's social standing and outcomes. Perceived diagnosticity can arise from the out-group's control over resources (contingency) and/or ability to provide accurate assessments (expertise) and is a function of the relative status of one's group and the perceived legitimacy of the group status difference. Evaluative concerns trigger information search efforts and forms of uncertainty reduction that have a variety of negative downstream effects. Implications for efforts to improve intergroup relations are discussed.     

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.     

双向偏见引发冲突情境下自我归类对民族社会化觉察的影响——来自景颇族、傣族和汉族初中生的证据

采用情境实验法和故事补全任务,考察双向偏见引发冲突情境下的自我归类对景颇族、傣族与汉族初中生的民族社会化觉察的影响。结果表明,作为冲突事件的当事者,景颇族学生和傣族学生觉察到的促进和睦、文化社会化及促使不信任等民族社会化信息存在差异;景颇族、傣族和汉族学生的自我归类存在差异;自我归类对促进和睦、文化社会化与报告权威等信息的觉察的影响亦存在民族差异。在双向偏见冲突情境下,三族学生的自我归类与民族社会化觉察有一定关系:无论是做当事者/内群体归类、旁观者/外群体归类,还是做调解者/群际归类,被试对促进和睦的觉察均最多。偏见准备主要与当事者归类有关,而进行调解者归类的被试更容易觉察到"报告权威"。     

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.     

A multimethod investigation of depressive symptoms,perceived understanding,and relationship quality

This research examines whether people who are experiencing more depressive symptoms perceive their partners as less able to understand their thoughts and feelings. Results showed that depressive symptoms (Studies 1 and 3) and depressive mood (Study 2) were negatively associated with perceived understanding in general (Study 1), in daily life (Study 2), and during a conflict conversation (Study 3). Partners of people who were more depressed actually were less empathically accurate during the conflict conversation in Study 3, although they did not recognize that they were being less understanding. Moreover, perceived understanding helped explain the link between depressive symptoms and relationship quality in all three studies, and these effects held when controlling for self‐reported understanding and perceived partner hostility.     

Organizational Culture and Similarity Among Team Members' Salience of Multiple Diversity Characteristics

Research often has focused on the presence of individuals' demographic differences, rather than the perception of such differences. We examined how organizational culture relates to similarity among individuals' salience of their team members' diversity characteristics. Moreover, we introduced a new approach to studying multiple diversity characteristics simultaneously. Team members who perceive their organizational culture as emphasizing respect for people were found to be unlikely to hold convergent views of their team members' demographics. Also, high-performing team members were found to view the salience of demographic characteristics similarly to other team members. Our findings suggest that an organizational culture emphasizing respect for people may be associated with unexpected barriers among team members that pose a threat to effective team functioning.     

Salient Intergroup Ideology and Intergroup Interaction

ABSTRACT— Two experiments examined how rendering different intergroup ideologies salient affects dominant- and minority-group members' behavior during, and experience of, intergroup interactions. We hypothesized that ideologies that encourage an outward focus on appreciating out-group members' distinctive qualities (multiculturalism) would have more positive implications than ideologies that encourage a self-control focus on ignoring social categories and avoiding inappropriate behavior (color blindness and antiracism). As predicted, in both ostensible ( Study 1 ) and actual face-to-face ( Study 2 ) intergroup interactions, the multicultural ideological prompt led dominant- and minority-group members to adopt a more outward focus and hence to direct more positive other-directed comments to an interaction partner who was a member of an out-group. In contrast, the color-blind prompt fostered a prevention orientation in dominant-group members that led them to express negative affect toward their out-group interaction partner. The antiracist prompt had no consistent effects. Implications for efforts to improve intergroup relations are discussed.     

Concern for the in-group and opposition to affirmative action

The present experiments suggest that the desire to benefit the in-group drives dominant-group members' policy preferences, independent of concern for out-groups' outcomes. In Experiment 1, the effect of a manipulation of affirmative action procedures on policy support was mediated by how Whites expected the policy to affect fellow Whites, but not by the expected effect on minorities. In Experiments 2 and 3, when focused on losses for the White in-group, Whites' racial identity was negatively related to support for affirmative action. However, when focused on gains for the Black out-group or when participants were told that Whites were not affected by the policy, racial identity did not predict attitudes toward the policy. In Experiments 2 and 3, perceived fairness mediated these effects.     

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.     

Agents of Prosociality: Agency Affirmation Promotes Mutual Prosocial Tendencies and Behavior Among Conflicting Groups

Members of conflicting groups are motivated to restore their ingroup's agency, leading to antisocial tendencies against the outgroup. The present research tested the hypothesis that affirming conflicting groups' agency would increase their members' mutual prosociality. The effectiveness of agency affirmation was demonstrated in three contexts of conflict between groups: Switzerland and the EU following the 2014 referendum (Study 1), Israelis and Palestinians (Study 2), and Israeli rightists and leftists (Study 3). Study 1 found that in a nonconflictual context Swiss participants prioritized their moral (prosocial) over agentic goals, yet in the context of conflict with the EU, they prioritized their agentic over moral goals. This “primacy‐of‐agency” effect, however, was eliminated once their ingroup's agency was affirmed. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated the positive effect of agency affirmation on prosociality among Israelis referring to Palestinians and Israeli rightists and leftists referring to the adversarial political camp. This effect was mediated by group members' readiness to relinquish some power for the sake of morality. Pointing to the importance of the affirmation's specific content, Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that morality affirmation failed to increase prosociality. As such, the present research puts forward a promising strategy to reduce hostility and promote prosociality between conflicting groups.     

Pro‐peace or anti‐war: The effect of emotions primed by protest songs on emotions toward in‐group and out‐group in conflict

Members of societies in conflict hold stable positive and negative views, and emotions of the in‐group and out‐group, respectively. Music is a potent tool to express and evoke emotions. It is a social product created within a social and political context, reflecting, and commenting it. Protest songs aim to change views and attitudes toward ongoing conflicts. Their message may be expressed positively (pro‐peace songs) or negatively (anti‐war songs). Previous research has shown that evoking emotions such as guilt toward the in‐group or empathy toward the out‐group may influence attitudes toward reconciliation. The present research, conducted in Israel, presents three studies investigating whether emotions evoked by positive or negative protest songs may influence in‐group members' guilt toward the in‐group (Israeli Jews) and empathy toward the out‐group (Palestinians). Studies 1 and 2 show that negative emotions evoked by negative protests songs predicted both empathy and guilt when the out‐group is considered as a whole (Study 1) or as a particular individual (Study 2). Study 2 in addition showed that empathy predicts an altruistic decision regarding an out‐group member. Emotions evoked by lyrics alone (Study 3) did not contribute to explained variance in either guilt or empathy, nor the altruistic decision. Results suggest that negative emotions expressed by negative protest songs, focused on the in‐group, are more effective in influencing attitudes toward out‐groups. Results are discussed in the context of group emotions in conflict and the role of protest songs in intergroup relations.     

Intergroup contact and pluralistic ignorance

The present work examined the relationship between people's own interpretations of why they avoid intergroup contact and their interpretations of why out-groups avoid intergroup contact. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that Whites and Blacks would like to have more contact with the out-group but believe the out-group does not want to have contact with them. Studies 3-5 show that Whites and Blacks make divergent explanations about their own and their potential out-group partner's failure to initiate contact. Specifically, individuals explained their own inaction in terms of their fear of being rejected because of their race but attributed the out-group members' inaction to their lack of interest. Study 6 examined the behavioral consequences of this self-other bias. Finally, Study 7 applied theoretical work on the extended contact hypothesis to explore a means to reduce this self- other bias. The implications of these studies for improving intergroup interactions 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.     

Status-based asymmetry in intergroup responses: Implications for intergroup reconciliation

We studied intergroup responses as a function of relative intergroup status and familiarity. In Study 1, 34 African Americans and 34 European Americans interacted with two members of the out-group in separate, 20-min dyadic interactions. Intergroup perception, affect, and behavior were asymmetric; Blacks differentiated the traits of and the quality of interactions with Whites, whereas Whites did not make these differentiations. Blacks and Whites predicted that different out-group partners perceived them similarly. Study 2 showed that the failure to differentiate an out-group member is due to intergroup status differences. Asymmetric intergroup responses pose a barrier to intergroup reconciliation and explain, in part, why increased interracial contact has not eradicated disparities in life outcomes for Black Americans.     

More than skin deep: visceral states are not projected onto dissimilar others

What people feel shapes their perceptions of others. In the studies reported here, we examined the assimilative influence of visceral states on social judgment. Replicating prior research, we found that participants who were outside during winter overestimated the extent to which other people were bothered by cold (Study 1), and participants who ate salty snacks without water thought other people were overly bothered by thirst (Study 2). However, in both studies, this effect evaporated when participants believed that the other people under consideration held political views opposing their own. Participants who judged these dissimilar others were unaffected by their own strong visceral-drive states, a finding that highlights the power of dissimilarity in social judgment. Dissimilarity may thus represent a boundary condition for embodied cognition and inhibit an empathic understanding of shared out-group pain. Our findings reveal the need for a better understanding of how people's internal experiences influence their perceptions of the feelings and experiences of those who may hold values different from their own.     

Beyond anti-Muslim sentiment: opposing the Ground Zero mosque as a means to pursuing a stronger America

Americans' opposition toward building an Islamic community center at Ground Zero has been attributed solely to a general anti-Muslim sentiment. We hypothesized that some Americans' negative reaction was also due to their motivation to symbolically pursue a positive U.S. group identity, which had suffered from a concurrent economic and political downturn. Indeed, when participants perceived that the United States was suffering from lowered international status, those who identified strongly with the country, as evidenced especially by a high respect or deference for group symbols, reported a stronger opposition to the "Ground Zero mosque" than participants who identified weakly with the country did. Furthermore, participants who identified strongly with the country also showed a greater preference for buildings that were symbolically congruent than for buildings that were symbolically incongruent with the significance of Ground Zero, and they represented Ground Zero with a larger symbolic size. These findings suggest that identifying group members' underlying motivations provides unusual insights for understanding intergroup conflict.     

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.     

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.     

Intergroup aggression: its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias

Investigated predictors of intergroup aggression and its relations to in-group bias. In a questionnaire, 156 Israeli adults reported perceptions of their own religious group and of the ultraorthodox Jewish out-group and expressed aggression toward the ultraorthodox (opposing institutions that serve their needs, supporting acts harmful to them, and opposing interaction with them). Respondents showed in-group favoritism in trait evaluations, but this bias was unrelated to aggression. Perceived inter-group conflict of interests, the postulated motivator of aggression, predicted it strongly. The effects of conflict on aggression were partially mediated by 2 indexes of dehumanizing the out-group (perceived value dissimilarity and trait inhumanity) and by 1 index of probable empathy with it (perceived in-group-out-group boundary permeability). These variables related to aggression more strongly among persons who identified highly with their in-group. The variables also mediated the effects of religious group affiliation on aggression. The value dissimilarity finding supports derivations from belief congruence theory.     

Intergroup conflict, out-group derogation, and self-directed negative affect among Italian South Tyroleans

In South Tyrol, a multiethnic Italian province, the authors examined the self-directed negative affect that members of an Italian group experienced after they evaluated members of the German and Albanian groups. The authors examined the affect as a function of out-group derogation. The authors argued that to the extent that out-group derogation may run counter to norms toward intergroup fairness, such normative nonconformity will elicit negative affect directed at the self as a function of perceived intergroup conflict. The findings support the authors' line of reasoning: among Italian South Tyroleans, those who expressed greater out-group derogation were led to experience stronger negative self-directed affect when they rated a low-conflict out-group, but not when they rated a high-conflict out-group, compared to participants whose out-group derogation was less.