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.     

Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups.

Five aspects of the complexity of the knowledge representation of business and engineering majors were examined to see whether these differed by group membership and whether these differences were related to differences in perceived variability. Significantly more subgroups were generated when describing the in-group than the out-group; this difference predicted the relative tendency to see the in-group as more variable, and when controlled for statistically, out-group homogeneity effects were eliminated. Familiarity, redundancy, number of attributes used to describe the group, and the deviance of the subgroups from the larger group generally showed differences for in-group and out-group but did not show consistent evidence of mediation. In a 2nd study, Ss who were asked to sort group members into meaningful subgroups perceived greater variability relative to those who did not perform the sorting task.     

Anticipated outgroup evaluations and intergroup bias

A study is reported that tests the hypothesis that group members exhibit intergroup bias in response to the belief that outsiders will discriminate against them. To this end, two experimental conditions are included in which subjects anticipate either biased evaluations or fair evaluations respectively. In a control condition, subjects do not expect to be evaluated from an external source. Results indicated, as expected, that those who anticipated biased evaluations from an outgroup exhibited bias themselves, while those who anticipated fair evaluations exhibited outgroup favouritism. The fact that control subjects exhibited the same degree of bias as those who anticipated biased evaluations from the outgroup poses some difficulties for the hypothesized connection between anticipated discrimination and intergoup bias. Thus, it appears that intergroup bias is the rule and not the exception in an intergroup context. Nevertheless, it is clear that anticipated evaluations of outgroup members can effect intergroup bias.     

Attachment theory and intergroup bias: evidence that priming the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups

Five studies examined the effects of priming the secure base schema on intergroup bias. In addition, Studies 1-2 examined the effects of dispositional attachment style, Studies 2-5 examined a mood interpretation, Study 3 examined the mediating role of threat appraisal, and Studies 4-5 examined the effects of secure base priming while inducing a threat to self-esteem or cultural worldview. Secure base priming led to less negative evaluative reactions toward out-groups than positive affect and neutral control conditions. In addition, whereas the effects of secure base priming did not depend on attachment style and were not explained by mood induction, they were mediated by threat appraisal and occurred even when self-esteem or cultural worldview was threatened. The discussion emphasizes the relevance of attachment theory for understanding intergroup attitudes.     

On helping lower status out-groups: The nature of the help and the stability of the intergroup status hierarchy

The current research expanded upon previous theoretical and empirical arguments regarding the nature of intergroup helping. In doing so, we considered the role of relative in-group status, the stability of this status, and the type of help provided. In a scenario study, we observed that members of a relatively high status group more strongly supported the provision of assistance to in-group members than members of a lower status out-group when the assistance was empowering in nature and when the high in-group status was unstable. When the intergroup status differences were stable, however, support for empowerment help to members of a lower status out-group was not significantly lower than support for such help to in-group members. We discuss these data with reference to realistic intergroup conflict theory and social identity theory.     

Bridging the gap on Facebook: assessing intergroup contact and its effects for intergroup relations

In line with Allport's contact hypothesis, previous research showed that direct intergroup contact can reduce prejudices. However, establishing face-to-face contact is not always feasible. We postulate that Facebook-groups are a setting where direct and observed intergroup contact can develop, reducing prejudices and increasing mutual acceptance. Analyzing the comments of nine Facebook-groups with the destructive and constructive conflict scale, our results indicated that the expression of prejudices decreased and that of mutual acceptance increased over time, both for in- and outgroup members of the Facebook-groups. Only the expression of less prejudices, but not that of more mutual acceptance was predicted by intergroup contact. The influence of group-based motivations on the engagement in intergroup contact is discussed, and the overall findings are integrated in Steele and Brown's process model of media practices.     

Religion insulates ingroup evaluations: the development of intergroup attitudes in India

Research on the development of implicit intergroup attitudes has placed heavy emphasis on race, leaving open how social categories that are prominent in other cultures might operate. We investigate two of India's primary means of social distinction, caste and religion, and explore the development of implicit and explicit attitudes towards these groups in minority‐status Muslim children and majority‐status Hindu children, the latter drawn from various positions in the Hindu caste system. Results from two tests of implicit attitudes find that caste attitudes parallel previous findings for race: higher‐caste children as well as lower‐caste children have robust high‐caste preferences. However, results for religion were strikingly different: both lower‐status Muslim children and higher‐status Hindu children show strong implicit ingroup preferences. We suggest that religion may play a protective role in insulating children from the internalization of stigma.     

Crossed categorization versus simple categorization and intergroup evaluations: a meta‐analysis

Crossed categorization typically refers to the crossing of two dichotomous social dimensions, resulting in four groups (double‐ingroup, two mixed groups, and double‐outgroup). This paper reports the results of a meta‐analysis comparing the effects of crossed categorization on intergroup evaluations with the effects of simple categorization on intergroup evaluations. The crossed categorization paradigm is shown to increase or decrease ingroup bias, depending on how ingroup bias is defined in the crossed categorization paradigm. Moreover, just as in simple categorization, ingroup bias in crossed categorization is shown to be greater when the proportionate size of the ingroup is smaller. However, contrary to the patterns established in simple categorization, the reality of the group categorizations does not increase ingroup bias in crossed categorization. We discuss the implications of these results for future research on intergroup evaluations. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Immunizing against prejudice: effects of disease protection on attitudes toward out-groups

Contemporary interpersonal biases are partially derived from psychological mechanisms that evolved to protect people against the threat of contagious disease. This behavioral immune system effectively promotes disease avoidance but also results in an overgeneralized prejudice toward people who are not legitimate carriers of disease. In three studies, we tested whether experiences with two modern forms of disease protection (vaccination and hand washing) attenuate the relationship between concerns about disease and prejudice against out-groups. Study 1 demonstrated that when threatened with disease, vaccinated participants exhibited less prejudice toward immigrants than unvaccinated participants did. In Study 2, we found that framing vaccination messages in terms of immunity eliminated the relationship between chronic germ aversion and prejudice. In Study 3, we directly manipulated participants' protection from disease by having some participants wash their hands and found that this intervention significantly influenced participants' perceptions of out-group members. Our research suggests that public-health interventions can benefit society in areas beyond immediate health-related domains by informing novel, modern remedies for prejudice.     

Perceptions of relative group size and group status: Effects on intergroup discrimination in negative evaluations

The positive–negative asymmetry in social discrimination proposes a threshold for ingroup favouritism within the negative domain: in contrast to comparable studies dealing with in- and outgroup evaluations on positive attributes, ingroup favouritism does not occur when negative attributes are used. The present study focuses on two aspects of this threshold: it investigates processes, which may influence the absence of ingroup favouritism in the negative domain, and it tests ‘aggravating’ variables, which seem to be suficient to elicit ingroup favouritism even in the negative domain. Results show that ingroup favouritism occurred within the negative domain when several aggravating conditions were included, namely high salience of size- and status- similarity between groups and high ingroup identification. Furthermore, subjects under minimal conditions tended to overestimate relative size as well as relative status of their ingroup. The perception of group members to belong to a high status majority is interpreted as a sufficient condition counteracting tendencies towards ingroup favouritism within the negative domain.     

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.     

Intragroup effects on intergroup negotiation

The article is introduced by an analysis of how the effects of a negotiator's intragroup status (leader versus non-leader) on his negotiation performance (in particular, toughness) may be modified by such factors as the source of the status assignment (e.g., election versus imposition) and the presence and timing of position formation in the group. The accountability experienced by a negotiator vis à-vis his group is proposed as the central intervening variable mediating status effects on negotiation. In a series of (previously published) experiments, all using the same procedural paradigm — a prenegotiation, intragroup phase followed by intergroup negotiation among equal-status group delegates, the issues requiring a choice between higher and lower risk levels — some of the above variables and additional ones, were investigated. Overall, there was evidence of greater toughness among group-elected leaders (relative to non-leaders) and among subordinates (relative to imposed, ?dictatorial' leaders). The latter effect obtained only when the negotiators were being continuously monitored by, and had to consult, their respective group partners during the negotiations. Results concerning risky shift (enhancement of risk acceptance through the negotiation discussions) are considered in the light of relevant theory.     

Group evaluations as self-group distancing: Ingroup typicality moderates evaluative intergroup bias in stigmatized groups

Outgroup favoritism among members of stigmatized groups can be seen as a form of self-group distancing. We examined how intergroup evaluations in stigmatized groups vary as a function of ingroup typicality. In Studies 1 and 2, Black participants (N = 125,915; N = 766) more strongly preferred light-skinned or White relative to dark-skinned or Black individuals the lighter their own skin tone. In Study 3, overweight participants (N = 147,540) more strongly preferred normal-weight relative to overweight individuals the lower their own body weight. In Study 4, participants with disabilities (N = 35,058) more strongly preferred non-disabled relative to disabled individuals the less visible they judged their own disability. Relationships between ingroup typicality and intergroup evaluations were at least partially mediated by ingroup identification (Studies 2 and 3). A meta-analysis across studies yielded an average effect size of r = .12. Furthermore, higher ingroup typicality was related to both ingroup and outgroup evaluations. We discuss ingroup typicality as an individual constraint to self-group distancing among stigmatized group members and its relation to intergroup evaluations.     

Self-motivated behaviour: Its influence on intergroup contact for intergroup harmony

We investigated the role of self-motivated behaviour in promoting intergroup member contact for intergroup harmony. A multi-ethnic group of 68 freshmen students attending a Nigerian state university were participants (female = 43.8%; Mean age = 22.15 years, SD = 2.35 years; Igbo = 45.6%, Hausa/Fulani = 20.4%, Yoruba = 24.5%, and others = 9.5%). By religious affiliation, the students comprised Christians (62%) and Muslims (38%). The students took part in an intergroup contact learning assignment designed for them to interact with others outside their class cohort and from a different ethnic group to themselves. They completed measures of self-motivated behaviours defined by self-efficacy, self-interest, learning predisposition, as well as intergoup harmony. Tests of mediation revealed significant positive indirect effects of intergroup member contact on intergroup harmony through self-efficacy, self-interest, and learning behaviour. Self-motivated behaviour fully mediated the relationship between intergroup contact and intergroup harmony among students in Nigerian multi-ethnic settings. Self-motivated behaviour may facilitate peace-building and intergroup harmony, for management of intergroup relations, among Nigerian major ethnic groups premised on intergroup contact.     

Longitudinal effects of contact on intergroup relations: The role of majority and minority group membership and intergroup emotions

A field study was conducted in the Italian context to examine the longitudinal effects of contact on improved intergroup relations, and to test whether the effects were different for majority and minority group members. Furthermore, we examined the processes underlying contact effects. Participants were 68 Italian (majority) and 31 immigrant (minority) secondary school students, who completed a questionnaire at two time points. The results of regression analyses showed that, consistent with the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954 ), quantity and quality of contact longitudinally improved outgroup evaluation and increased the attribution of positive stereotypes to the outgroup; the reverse paths were non‐significant. Notably, whereas quantity of contact improved intergroup attitudes and stereotypes for both majority and minority participants, quality of contact had reliable effects only for the majority group. Intergroup anxiety and empathy mediated the longitudinal effects of quantity of contact for both Italians and immigrants; the cross‐lagged effects of contact quality on criterion variables for the Italian group were mediated by intergroup empathy. The theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Toward a diversity hypothesis: Multidimensional effects of intergroup contact

The long-standing and important contributions of the contact hypothesis in reducing prejudice in intergroup situations is augmented by the introduction of the diversity hypothesis. The diversity hypothesis argues that the positive consequences of diversity will occur when the following four conditions are met: (a) full participation occurs across all levels of society for membres of diverse ethnic, racial, and cultural groups; (b) the degree of participation approximates an appropriate index of representation for racial and ethnic groups; (c) common purpose across these levels of diversity is created; and (d) cultural identity is valued. The empirical evidence for these conditions and implications for the organizational advantages of diversity are discussed.     

Toward a diversity hypothesis: Multidimensional effects of intergroup contact

The long-standing and important contributions of the contact hypothesis in reducing prejudice in intergroup situations is augmented by the introduction of the diversity hypothesis. The diversity hypothesis argues that the positive consequences of diversity will occur when the following four conditions are met: (a) full participation occurs across all levels of society for membres of diverse ethnic, racial, and cultural groups; (b) the degree of participation approximates an appropriate index of representation for racial and ethnic groups; (c) common purpose across these levels of diversity is created; and (d) cultural identity is valued. The empirical evidence for these conditions and implications for the organizational advantages of diversity are discussed.     

Reducing intergroup bias: elements of intergroup cooperation

The authors examined the potentially separable contributions of 2 elements of intergroup cooperation, interaction and common fate, and the processes through which they can operate. The manipulation of interaction reduced bias in evaluative ratings, which supports the idea that these components are separable, whereas the manipulation of common fate when the groups were interacting was associated with lower bias in nonverbal facial reactions in response to contributions by in-group and out-group members. Whereas interaction activated several processes that can lead to reduced bias, including decategorization, consistent with the common in-group identity model (S. L. Gaertner, J. F. Dovidio, P. A. Anastasio, B. A. Bachman, & M. C. Rust, 1993) as well as M. Hewstone and R. J. Brown's (1986) group differentiation model, the primary set of mediators involved participants' representations of the memberships as 2 subgroups within a superordinate entity.     

Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality: combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem

The combined influence on ingroup bias of threat to group distinctiveness and prototypicality as a group member was examined in two studies. It was predicted, in line with social identity theory, that threat to group distinctiveness would lead to more ingroup bias. In addition, on the basis of self-categorization theory it was predicted that protypical and peripheral group members would react differently to a threat to their group distinctiveness. Only group members who define themselves as prototypical group members should be motivated to defend their threatened distinctiveness by engaging in increased ingroup bias. This hypothesis was first supported in a modified minimal group setting in which threat was operationalized as overlapping group boundaries. These results were then replicated in a second study, using better-established groups, for whom distinctiveness threat was manipulated in terms of intergroup similarity. Moreover, some support was found in Study 2 for the prediction that the opportunity to engage in intergroup differentiation can, under restricted conditions, enhance group-related self-esteem. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Differential effects of intergroup contact for authoritarians and social dominators: a dual process model perspective

Intergroup contact is among the most effective ways to improve intergroup attitudes. Research examining whether the effects of contact are contingent on individual differences is limited, however. The authors test a dual process model perspective of individual differences in contact and prejudice. Their model predicts that intergroup contact should be particularly effective for people high in right-wing authoritarianism, but not those high in social dominance orientation, because these ideological attitudes are driven by different underlying motivational goals. The authors confirm these hypotheses in longitudinal (N = 805) and cross-sectional (N = 1,343) national probability samples. They also isolate perceived social threat, but not competitive threat, as a mediator for the interaction of right-wing authoritarianism and contact on prejudice. The authors elaborate on the individual difference mechanisms that facilitate and inhibit the effects of intergroup contact on prejudice and discuss how these relations may depend on contextual factors and the varying functions of prejudice.