Ingroup ambivalence and experienced affect: the moderating role of social identification

No previous work in the field of group‐related attitudes and emotions has investigated the possible affective consequences of ingroup ambivalence—that is, the consequences of having attitudes towards an ingroup that are simultaneously both positive and negative. The current study was designed to explore this issue. Ambivalent attitudes have been argued to be more psychologically salient to the individual than univalent ones. A linear increase in participants' experienced affect was therefore predicted as a function of their ambivalence toward the ingroup. However, consistent with the predictions of social identity theory, previous findings have shown that higher ingroup identifiers are more likely to be involved with the ingroup than lower identifiers. Accordingly, we predicted and found effects of ingroup ambivalence on affect for high but not low ingroup identifiers. Combining the findings of two distinct literatures, the initial evidence provided by this study exploratively traces the sources of the affective processes that are set in motion by the evaluation of one's own group in an intergroup context. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Group motives in threatening contexts: When a loyalty conflict paradoxically reduces the influence of an anti‐discrimination ingroup norm

The influence of pro‐ versus anti‐discrimination ingroup norms on Swiss nationals' attitudes towards foreigners was investigated as a function of national identification and perceived material ingroup threat. As predicted, results revealed a significant interaction between identification and threat: High identifiers showed a more negative attitude than low identifiers mainly when perceived threat was high. In other words, high identifiers conformed to the pro‐discrimination norm, but showed a counter‐conformity effect for the anti‐discrimination norm. Additional results revealed that high identifiers actually disagreed with the anti‐discrimination norm when perceived threat was high, but that they were more attached to the ingroup. These findings suggest that when the ingroup norm is not an appropriate response to an ingroup threat (i.e. anti‐discrimination norm), high identifiers find themselves in a loyalty conflict: they are unable to simultaneously conform to the group norm and protect the group. This conflict was resolved through a compensatory mechanism: High identifiers distanced themselves from the ingroup norm in order to protect the group (i.e. by increasing negative attitudes towards foreigners) but reinforced other ingroup ties (i.e. by increasing attachment to the ingroup values). Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cross-Community Contact, Perceived Status Differences, and Intergroup Attitudes in Northern Ireland: The Mediating Roles of Individual-level versus Group-level Threats and the Moderating Role of Social Identification

We tested a model which examined the relationship between contact quantity and quality, relative ingroup status, and intergroup attitudes in Northern Ireland. Intergroup anxiety was considered an individual-level mediator and realistic and symbolic threat as group-level mediators in the model. We examined the idea that the strength of ingroup identification moderates the predictive power of individual- versus group-level variables. Both contact and relative ingroup status predicted anxiety and perceived threats to the ingroup, which were significant mediators in the model. Our results also suggest that while anxiety predicts attitudes for low but not high identifiers, symbolic threats to the ingroup are more important for high than for low identifiers. There was also some evidence indicating that status perceptions moderate contact effects. We discuss these results in terms of their implications for intergroup relations in Northern Ireland.     

When and How Do High Status Group Members Offer Help: Effects of Social Dominance Orientation and Status Threat

The present study explored the implications of an intergroup perspective on individual difference and situational influences on helping, specifically, outgroup members. In particular, we examined the effects of social dominance orientation (SDO) and group status threat on the amount and kind of help offered by Jewish participants (n = 99) to Arab and Jewish students. Dependent measures were the likelihood of helping outgroup and ingroup members across various situations of need and, when help is given, the likelihood that it would be dependency‐oriented rather than autonomy‐oriented assistance. As expected, higher SDO individuals offered less help to outgroup (Arab) students, particularly when they experienced threat to group status, but not to ingroup members. In addition, higher SDO participants, when they did report that they would help, were more likely to offer dependency‐oriented help to outgroup than to ingroup members. The theoretical and applied implications are discussed.     

Attributions for the negative historical actions of a group

Two field studies examined the attributions made for the historically negative behaviour of a group as a whole, depending on whether the actions were committed by the ingroup or an outgroup. In the first study, Jewish people assigned more internal responsibility to Germans for their treatment of Jewish people during the Second World War than Germans assigned to their own group. In the second study, people attributed the negative historical actions of another nation more internally (and less externally) than similar negative historical actions committed by their own nation. This pattern of intergroup attributional bias was more pronounced among people who highly identified with their national ingroup. Outgroup homogeneity and perceptions of differences between the groups were also significantly predicted by ingroup identification. Links between social identity theory and the intergroup attribution bias are considered. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Suppressing the negative effect of devaluation on group identification: The role of intergroup differentiation and intragroup respect

We examined (N = 76) how social creativity strategies such as intergroup differentiation and intragroup respect suppress the negative impact of threat to an ingroup’s value on group identification. Threat was manipulated through false feedback concerning how other groups perceived an ingroup. Both intergroup differentiation and intragroup respect were higher when participants learned that the ingroup was devalued compared to when it was valued. Mediational analyses demonstrated that these factors suppressed the direct negative relationship between value threat and group identification. Discussion focused on the consequences of these social creativity strategies for group identification and collective action.     

Intergroup Distinctiveness and Discriminatory Immigration Attitudes: The Role of National Identification

We examined the moderating role of national identification in understanding when a focus on intergroup similarity versus difference on ingroup stereotypical traits—manipulated with scale anchors—leads to support for discriminatory immigration policies. In line with intergroup distinctiveness research, national identification moderated the similarity–difference manipulation effect. Low national identifiers supported discriminatory immigration policies more when intergroup difference rather than similarity was made salient, whereas the opposite pattern was found for high national identifiers: They trended toward being more discriminatory when similarity was made salient. The impact of assimilation expectations and national identity content on the findings is discussed.     

The other side of we: when outgroup members express common identity

Previous research on the common ingroup identity model has focused on how one's representations of members of the ingroup and outgroup influence intergroup attitudes. Two studies reported here investigated how learning how others, ingroup or outgroup members, conceive of the groups within a superordinate category affects intergroup bias and willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Across both studies, high school students who learned that other ingroup members categorized students at both schools within the common identity of "students" showed less intergroup bias in evaluations and greater willingness for contact. However, consistent with the hypothesized effects of identity threat, when participants read that outgroup members saw the groups within the superordinate category, they exhibited a relatively negative orientation, except when ingroup members also endorsed a superordinate identity (Study 1). This result occurred even when the relative status of the groups was manipulated (Study 2).     

Embracing Humanity in the Face of Death: Why Do Existential Concerns Moderate Ingroup Humanization?

People humanize their ingroup to address existential concerns about their mortality, but the reasons why they do so remain ambiguous. One explanation is that people humanize their ingroup to bolster their social identity in the face of their mortality. Alternatively, people might be motivated to see their ingroup as more uniquely human (UH) to distance themselves from their corporeal “animal” nature. These explanations were tested in Australia, where social identity is tied less to UH and more to human nature (HN) which does not distinguish humans from animals. Australians attributed more HN traits to the ingroup when mortality was salient, while the attribution of UH traits remained unchanged. This indicates that the mortality-buffering function of ingroup humanization lies in reinforcing the humanness of our social identity, rather than just distancing ourselves from our animal nature. Implications for (de)humanization in intergroup relations are discussed.     

Protecting threatened identity: sticking with the group by emphasizing ingroup heterogeneity

In two studies (Ns=163, 164), the authors tested the prediction that perceptions of group variability can steer and guide the way that loyalty is expressed in times of identity threat. In both studies, participants were classified as lower or higher identifiers on the basis of their scores on a group identification measure, and manipulations involved group variability perceptions (homogeneous ingroup vs. heterogeneous ingroup) and threat to the ingroup. Higher identifiers presented with a homogeneous ingroup perceived more ingroup homogeneity under threat than when there was no threat. In contrast, higher identifiers who perceived the ingroup initially as heterogeneous perceived more ingroup heterogeneity under threat than in no threat conditions. Lower identifiers perceived more ingroup heterogeneity under threat (vs. no threat) irrespective of manipulated group variability perceptions. Discussion focuses on different ways that group loyalty can be expressed in times of identity threat.     

Group identification and historical memory

Differences in ingroup identification can influence the accessibility of historical memories. In Study 1, the authors examined individual differences in identity; in Study 2 they experimentally manipulated identity. In Study 1, high identifiers recalled fewer incidents of ingroup violence and hatred than did low identifiers. High and low identifiers did not differ in their recall of ingroup suffering. In Study 2, participants in the high-identity condition recalled fewer incidents of violence and hatred by members of their group than did those in the low-identity condition but a similar number of good deeds. Control participants recalled more positive than negative group actions; this bias was exaggerated in the high-identity condition and eliminated in the low-identity condition. The authors interpret the results as indicating the effects of social identity on individual-level memory processes, especially schema-consistent recall. They evaluate other explanations of the bias, including collective censorship of negative histories.     

The influence of social consensus information on intergroup attitudes: the moderating effects of ingroup identification

Two studies examined the role of ingroup identification in the influence of social consensus information (information about others' beliefs) on intergroup attitudes. Research demonstrates that consensus information influences individuals' intergroup attitudes. However, the extent to which individuals identify with the group providing consensus information seems important to understanding consensus effects. In Study 1, 100 high or low ingroup identifiers received information that other ingroup members held favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward African Americans and then provided their own attitudes. In Study 2, 250 participants completed an ingroup identification manipulation (high, low, or control) before receiving favorable or no consensus information. Results of both studies demonstrated that ingroup identification moderated consensus effects, such that high identifiers were more susceptible to others' beliefs than individuals in the low identification and control conditions. In determining critical factors involved in consensus effects, we hope to create a useful method to promote favorable intergroup attitudes and behaviors.     

Meaning threat can promote peaceful,not only military‐based approaches to intergroup conflict: The moderating role of ingroup glorification

Most research on threat documents its negative consequences. Similarly, most research on intergroup contexts has emphasized their negative behavioral effects. Drawing on the Meaning Maintenance Model and recent perspectives on the potential for positivity in intergroup conflict, we predicted that meaning threat can produce both antisocial and prosocial responses to intergroup conflict, depending on people's preexisting meaning frameworks. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that under meaning threat, low ingroup glorifiers strengthened their support for peaceful conflict resolution, whereas high ingroup glorifiers strengthened their support for military‐based conflict resolution. In the context of the Israel–Palestinian conflict, Study 3 found that low glorification was associated with greater support for peace during “hot” (but not “cold”) conflict, because hot conflict reduced their meaning in life. These findings are consistent with the notion that when meaning is threatened, people affirm their preexisting values—whether prosocial or antisocial—even in the context of intergroup conflict.     

The Influence of Social Consensus Information on Intergroup Attitudes: The Moderating Effects of Ingroup Identification

ABSTRACT

Two studies examined the role of ingroup identification in the influence of social consensus information (information about others' beliefs) on intergroup attitudes. Research demonstrates that consensus information influences individuals' intergroup attitudes. However, the extent to which individuals identify with the group providing consensus information seems important to understanding consensus effects. In Study 1, 100 high or low ingroup identifiers received information that other ingroup members held favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward African Americans and then provided their own attitudes. In Study 2, 250 participants completed an ingroup identification manipulation (high, low, or control) before receiving favorable or no consensus information. Results of both studies demonstrated that ingroup identification moderated consensus effects, such that high identifiers were more susceptible to others' beliefs than individuals in the low identification and control conditions. In determining critical factors involved in consensus effects, we hope to create a useful method to promote favorable intergroup attitudes and behaviors.     

Intergroup Perceptions and Attitudes toward Immigrants in a Culturally Plural Society

The research examined perceptions of Chinese immigrants held by New Zealanders of European and Maori descent. The study (N = 318) adopted an intergroup perspective to test a predictive model of attitudes toward immigrants. It was based on a nation‐wide survey with prospective respondents randomly selected from the New Zealand Electoral rolls. Findings revealed that Maori differed from their European counterparts in predictable ways, reporting more relative deprivation and greater perceived threat, and holding more negative outgroup attitudes. Less contact and greater perceived threat predicted more negative attitudes toward immigrants; in addition, when intergroup boundaries were permeable, the link between perceived threat and negative attitudes was stronger in Maori than New Zealand Europeans. While intergroup relations are traditionally analysed in a dual group formation involving a privileged “dominant” ingroup and disadvantaged “minority” immigrant outgroup, the current research suggests the need to advance beyond this dichotomy to a more inclusive approach and to consider the interface between the historical and political milieux in specific national contexts.     

The effects of social context,source fairness,and perceived self‐source similarity on social influence: a self‐categorisation analysis

Based upon a self‐categorisation analysis of social influence (Turner, 1991), we predicted that individuals who self‐categorise with the source of a communication would align their own private attitudes more closely with the source when that source was distributively fair rather than unfair in an intragroup context. We expected this pattern to reverse in an intergroup context when the unfairness was ingroup favouring. These expectations were confirmed in a laboratory experiment (N=101). The data suggest that neither source similarity nor source fairness serve simply as persuasion cues to which individuals thoughtlessly conform. We argue, instead that, once self‐categorised, individuals: (1) actively attend to an ingroup member's behaviours and the context in which they occur, and (2) are influenced only by a source who provides some form of social identity enhancement, either by being fair in an intragroup context (Lind & Tyler, 1988) or ingroup favouring in an intergroup context (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Collective Narcissism: Political Consequences of Investing Self‐Worth in the Ingroup’s Image

This article proposes a new theoretical framework for the reviewed state‐of‐the‐art research on collective narcissism—the belief that the ingroup’s exceptionality is not sufficiently appreciated by others. Collective narcissism is motivated by the investment of an undermined sense of self‐esteem into the belief in the ingroup’s entitlement to privilege. Collective narcissism lies in the heart of populist rhetoric. The belief in ingroup’s exceptionality compensates the undermined sense of self‐worth, leaving collective narcissists hypervigilant to signs of threat to the ingroup’s position. People endorsing the collective narcissistic belief are prone to biased perceptions of intergroup situations and to conspiratorial thinking. They retaliate to imagined provocations against the ingroup but sometimes overlook real threats. They are prejudiced and hostile. Deficits in emotional regulation, hostile attribution bias, and vindictiveness lie behind the robust link between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility. Interventions that support the regulation of negative emotions, such as experiencing self‐transcendent emotions, decrease the link between collective narcissism and intergroup hostility and offer further insights into the nature of collective narcissism.     

Advantaged group's emotional reactions to intergroup inequality: the dynamics of pride, guilt, and sympathy

Three studies establish intergroup inequality to investigate how it is emotionally experienced by the advantaged. Studies 1 and 2 examine psychology students' emotional experience of their unequal job situation with worse-off pedagogy students. When inequality is ingroup focused and legitimate, participants experience more pride. However, when inequality is ingroup focused and illegitimate, participants experience more guilt. Sympathy is increased when inequality is outgroup focused and illegitimate. These emotions have particular effects on behavioral tendencies. In Study 2 group-based pride predicts greater ingroup favoritism in a resource distribution task, whereas group-based sympathy predicts less ingroup favoritism. Study 3 replicates these findings in the context of students' willingness to let young immigrants take part in a university sport. Pride predicts less willingness to let immigrants take part whereas sympathy predicts greater willingness. Guilt is a weak predictor of behavioral tendencies in all studies. This shows the specificity of emotions experienced about intergroup inequality.     

Social perception as induction and inference: an integrative model of intergroup differentiation, ingroup favoritism, and differential accuracy

Three general properties of social stereotypes are the perception of differences between ingroups and outgroups (intergroup differentiation), the perception of ingroups as having more desirable attributes than outgroups (ingroup favoritism), and the greater accuracy of ingroup perceptions (differential accuracy). We present and test an inductive-reasoning model that accounts for all 3 phenomena, and we explicate the relations among them. Based on empirical evidence, the model assumes that most people have a positive self-image, that they project these self-images more strongly to ingroups than to outgroups, and that their self-images are valid cues for judgments about social groups. Two minimal-group experiments using a crossed-categorization paradigm support the model and provide new evidence for underlying psychological processes.     

Intergroup threat,knowledge of the outgroup,and willingness to purchase ingroup and outgroup products: The mediating role of intergroup emotions

Established theories have acknowledged that intergroup threat is one of the key determinants of intergroup attitudes and behaviours, but how intergroup threat can affect consumer behaviour remains unclear. Here, four preregistered studies (total N = 988) examined the effect of intergroup threat (manipulated in terms of realistic and symbolic threats) on consumers’ willingness to purchase ingroup and outgroup products. In the context of China–West relations, we measured Chinese consumers’ willingness to purchase Chinese (ingroup) and Western (outgroup) products. These studies together revealed that realistic and symbolic threats (versus control) increased willingness to purchase ingroup products and decreased willingness to purchase outgroup products, regardless of the product category. Studies 3a and 3b also measured knowledge of the outgroup as a potential moderator, revealing that realistic threat (versus control) reduced willingness to purchase outgroup products only among individuals who had less knowledge of the outgroup. Furthermore, Study 3b showed that the intergroup threat manipulation indirectly influenced consumers’ willingness to purchase ingroup/outgroup products through increased anger and decreased hope. We discussed the contributions to the intergroup relations and consumer behaviour literature and the implications for transnational marketing practices, as well as the limitations of this research.