The effect of subject's race and other's race on judgments of causality for success and failure

This study examined the proposition that blacks and whites make dispositional attributions for an in-group's positive behaviors and an out-group's negative behaviors. The study also examined whether this positive in-group bias was caused by dislike of the out-group or belief in a stereotype. Thus, blacks and whites made attributions to black and white others who succeeded or failed on tasks for which there was either no stereotype or a more negative stereotype of whites than of blacks. An out-group other's failure on both tasks was attributed to lack of ability more than was an in-group other's failure. This finding suggests that the in-group bias is caused by dislike of the out-group. Furthermore, in success conditions subjects' attributions to the in-group or out-group other did not differ. It was suggested that these attributions may result from a combination of an in-group bias and a polarized appraisal.     

Dating Violence Attributions: Do They Differ for In-Group and Out-Group Members Who Have a History of Dating Violence?

In this research we examined the influence of in-group bias and dating violence history on dating violence attributions. Participants were 113 college students (97 women and 16 men; age M=21.9). They read a vignette that depicted dating violence and then completed a questionnaire concerning the assault. The couple was described as either part of the participants' in-group or the participants' out-group. The dating violence was described as either a first-time event for the couple or a repeated act of violence. Participants formed more lenient attributions for the in-group assailant than for the out-group assailant, but only if he was a first-time assailant rather than a repeat assailant. In addition, participants attributed less blame to the in-group victim than to the out-group victim, but only if she was a repeat victim of dating violence. These findings are examined in relation to in-group bias.     

Explanations for positive and negative behavior: the intergroup attribution bias in achieved groups

Previous research into intergroup attribution has addressed mainly the behavior of groups to which members are ascribed (e.g. gender, race). The attribution processes of groups of which membership is achieved (e.g. friendship groups) is less well understood, and the current study sought to address this. Fifty-five undergraduate participants were asked to explain the positive and negative behavior of a member of the in-group and a member of the out-group. As predicted, the participants attributed an in-group member's positive behavior more, and their negative behavior less, to internal, global, and specific causes than they did the corresponding behavior of an out-group member. There was also evidence that the participants employed a strategy of out-group derogation in their attributions: they made a higher intemality rating for an out-group member's negative behavior than they did for that person's positive behavior. It is proposed that the current study's use of achieved groups maximized participants' levels of group identification, and that this in turn motivated behavioral strategies aimed at protecting that identity.     

Explanations for positive and negative behavior: the intergroup attribution bias in achieved groups

Previous research into intergroup attribution has addressed mainly the behavior of groups to which members are ascribed (e.g. gender, race). The attribution processes of groups of which membership is achieved (e.g. friendship groups) is less well understood, and the current study sought to address this. Fifty-five undergraduate participants were asked to explain the positive and negative behavior of a member of the in-group and a member of the out-group. As predicted, the participants attributed an in-group member's positive behavior more, and their negative behavior less, to internal, global, and specific causes than they did the corresponding behavior of an out-group member. There was also evidence that the participants employed a strategy of out-group derogation in their attributions: they made a higher intemality rating for an out-group member's negative behavior than they did for that person's positive behavior. It is proposed that the current study's use of achieved groups maximized participants' levels of group identification, and that this in turn motivated behavioral strategies aimed at protecting that identity.     

In my mind, we all smile: A case of in-group favoritism

The goal of the present study was to examine whether a highly valued social behavior—the smile—is attributed more frequently to in-group than to out-group members. For this, participants were asked to read a vignette describing a protagonist in a non-emotional situation, and to choose a facial expression that would be appropriate to the context. For Study 1 the vignette depicted a potentially social context, whereas for Study 2, the context was strictly non-social. In both studies, participants of European descent attributed smiles more often to members of their in-group, whereas they attributed a larger number of neutral faces to out-group members. In a third study the same pattern of attributions was found for recent immigrants from French speaking African countries and from Asian countries. These results suggest the presence of an in-group bias in the attribution of smiles.     

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.     

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。     

Decoupling Children’s Gender-based In-Group Positivity from Out-Group Negativity

In the current study we attempted to determine whether children’s gender-based intergroup biases reflect positive attitudes toward the in-group and/or negative attitudes toward the out-group. Third through fifth grade children were asked to determine whether positive and negative traits described boys, girls, both genders, or nobody. This methodology allowed for separate evaluation of in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Girls and children who perceived their gender as important viewed their in-group as having more positive than negative attributes and more positive and less negative attributes than the out-group. Boys and children who viewed gender as less important viewed both genders as having more positive than negative attributes. These results support Brewer’s (Journal of Social Issues 55:429–444, 1999) claim that in-group love and out-group hate are not reciprocally related.     

Inclusion in a superordinate category, in-group prototypicality, and attitudes towards out-groups

We hypothesized that group members’ attitudes towards an out-group are negatively related to the in-group’s perceived relative prototypicality for a superordinate category, but only if both the in-group and out-group are included in this superordinate category. In Experiment 1 (N=40), Germans’ attitudes towards Poles were negatively correlated with the relative prototypicality of Germans when “Europe” (including Poles), but not when “West-Europe” (excluding Poles), was the superordinate category. In Experiment 2 (N=63), female single parents’ attitudes about the competence of single parents to raise children depended on the in-group’s relative prototypicality for “single parents” (including fathers), but not on their relative similarity to “mothers” (excluding fathers). Both experiments showed that inclusion in a superordinate category had a more negative influence on attitudes towards the out-group when relative in-group prototypicality is high rather than low.     

The emergence of ethnic and racial attitudes in preschool-aged children

The author assessed preschool-aged children's attitudes (N = 70) toward their own and 2 ethnic or racial out-groups using traditional forced-choice measures and a new method that assessed children's out-group attitudes independently of their attitudes toward their own group. When required to assign positive and negative traits to either their own group or an ethnic or racial out-group, children evaluated their own group favorably relative to the out-group in question. However, when not forced to choose between groups, children evaluated out-groups positively, indicating that own-group preference relative to ethnic and racial out-groups was not equated with out-group rejection. Children's positive out-group evaluations did vary with the out-group being considered and were reflective of the local social context, suggesting the influence of social learning. The results indicate that young children's positive feelings toward their own group do not necessarily involve or cause negative out-group attitudes and that various factors might differentially influence in-group and out-group attitudes.     

Explaining the Belief in God for Self, In–Group, and Out–Group Targets

Previous work suggests that people perceive their attitudes and beliefs as deriving from an internal, rational thought process, but not from an emotional process or from external sources. This work has examined explanations for the belief in God using such an attributional approach. The current study examines the explanations individuals give for why (1) they themselves, (2) the group of those who hold the same belief position, or (3) the group of those who hold the opposite position, believe (or not) in God. The attributional dimensions of internality, externality, emotionality, and rationality are used to assess explanations for belief or nonbelief. Believers reported arriving at their own belief position because of an internal, rational process despite the average characterization of the belief in God as less rational and more emotional.     

Evaluations of the in-group and of out-groups among Portuguese children

The current research examined in-group/out-group attitudes among Portuguese children. The sample consisted of 366 children (183 boys and 183 girls) aged 5, 6, 10 and 11. Children were interviewed about attitudes of the Portuguese in-group and of two out-groups (Cape Verdeans and Brazilians). Three measures were used: a trait attribution task including positive and negative personality traits, and an overall affective evaluation of in-group and out-group members. Results revealed: (a) Portuguese children ascribed more positive attitudes (i.e., assigned more positive and less negative features, and greater positivity and affective evaluation) towards the Portuguese in-group than towards two out-groups; (b) developmental differences in attitudes towards the national groups; (c) an absence of gender differences on any of the variables considered. The findings are discussed in light of past empirical research and theoretical views.     

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.     

Nonsmokers' Attributions for the Outcomes of Smokers: Some Potential Consequences of the Stigmatization of Smokers1

The current research examines intergroup attributional biases made by nonsmokers for the outcomes of smokers. Nonsmokers were asked to make attributions for either the success or failure of either an in-group member (a nonsmoker) or an out-group member (a smoker). Overall, subjects attributed the preponderance of cause for the outcomes to external or unstable (approximately 80%) rather than internal (approximately 20%) factors. However, results confirmed the expected in-group protective and in-group enhancing attributions on the part of nonsmokers. Specifically, nonsmokers attributed a significantly higher proportion of success to external factors and a lower proportion of success to internal factors when the target was a smoker compared to when the target was a nonsmoker. The implications of these results for smokers and smoking policy are discussed.     

Social categorization, self-esteem, and the estimated musical preferences of male adolescents.

The authors investigated the intergroup processes of male adolescents within the context of social identity theory (SIT; H. Tajfel, 1978; H. Tajfel & J. C. Turner, 1979). The participants were English male adolescents (age = 14-15 years). They estimated in-group and out-group musical preferences and evaluated the in-group and out-group along a series of scales. The results showed in-group favoritism effects along the musical preference and evaluative dimensions. The participants reported greater liking for the in-group. Compared with the out-group, they associated the in-group more with positively stereotyped music and less with negatively stereotyped music. Compared with the out-group, they rated the in-group as more fun, more masculine, more sporty, less boring, less snobbish, and less weird. The participants with lower levels of self-esteem showed greater differentiation between groups and greater derogation of the out-group. The results supported the predictions of SIT and demonstrated the applicability of SIT for the study of adolescent behavior.     

Ability to take an out-group's perspective in explaining positive and negative behaviors

A total of 251 Latvian and Russian schoolteachers explained positive and negative behaviours from their own perspective and from the perspective of an ethnic out-group. The results were in line with the attributional pattern usually found in studies using Hewstone's direct perspective of judgement, when participants are asked to take the perspective of an ethnic out-group. That is, there was an outcome effect in causal attributions for in-group actors and a categorization effect for negative behaviour from the imagined (out-group's) perspective. The attributions from the direct perspective only partly replicated the commonly found pattern. The results support Montgomery's perspective theory.     

Memory for in-group and out-group information in a minimal group context: the self as an informational base

The authors argue that persons derive in-group expectancies from self-knowledge. This implies that perceivers process information about novel in-groups on the basis of the self-congruency of this information and not simply its valence. In Experiment 1, participants recalled more negative self-discrepant behaviors about an in-group than about an out-group. Experiment 2 replicated this effect under low cognitive load but not under high load. Experiment 3 replicated the effect using an idiographic procedure. These findings suggest that perceivers engage in elaborative inconsistency processing when they encounter negative self-discrepant information about an in-group but not when they encounter negative self-congruent information. Participants were also more likely to attribute self-congruent information to the in-group than to the out-group, regardless of information valence. Implications for models of social memory and self-categorization theory are discussed.     

Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups

Participants evaluated other individuals who deviated in either an anti- or pro-normative direction relative to normative members. In Study 1, in-group gender-normative members were rated more positively than deviant members. The pro-norm deviant was viewed as more attractive than the anti-norm deviant. In Study 2 anti-norm in-group deviants were evaluated more negatively than anti-norm out-group deviants even though both held identical attitudes. In both studies, despite objective equivalence, pro-norm deviance was perceived as less "atypical" than anti-norm deviance. Judgments and reactions to deviance depend on group membership and the direction of deviance, not just its magnitude. Evaluations of deviants are also related to perceivers' identification with their own group. These findings are consistent with our model of subjective group dynamics.     

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.     

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.