Intragroup differentiation in terms of ingroup and outgroup attributes

An experiment (n = 36) was conducted to test the hypothesis that attribute typicality moderates intragroup differentiation. The predicted reversal from perceived relative ingroup homogeneity on typical ingroup attributes to perceived relative outgroup homogeneity on typical outgroup attributes was confirmed for both homogeneity measures (standard deviation and probability of differentiation). But the ingroup homogeneity effects were more reliable than the outgroup homogeneity effects. Relative ingroup size (minority versus majority) was included in the experimental design as a between-subjects factor but did not qualify the reversal of perceived relative homogeneity.     

Ingroup identification moderates stereotype change in reaction to ingroup deviance

An experiment (N = 98) investigated the moderating effect of ingroup identification on reactions to deviant ingroup members. We measured psychology students' level of identification with the group ‘psychologists’ and presented them with information about either a normative or deviant psychologist. Participants completed an ingroup stereotype measure either before or after reading about and evaluating the target psychologist. High identifiers expressed a more positive stereotype of the ingroup after, compared to before, reading about a deviant ingroup member. High identifiers also expressed a more positive stereotype of the ingroup after reading about a deviant than after reading about a normative ingroup member. By contrast, low identifiers' stereotype judgements were relatively unaffected by the target information. The target evaluation ratings indicate that high identifiers were more positive than low identifiers towards the normative ingroup member, but were more negative than low identifiers towards the deviant. The results point to the greater motivational demands on high identifiers to maintain a positive image of the group. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Stereotype threat: the effect of expectancy on performance

The goal of this study was to investigate to role of expectancy as a potential mediator of performance deficits under stereotype threat. In Experiment 1, female students were assigned to one of three experimental conditions in which they were told that women perform worse (Negative information), equally (Control) or better (Positive information) than men in logical–mathematical tests. Later, they were given a difficult math test and asked to estimate their performance prior to taking the test. Consistent with predictions, participants who considered logical–mathematical abilities important and received negative information regarding the ingroup showed lower levels of expectations and a sharp decrease in performance compared to women in the positive and control conditions. Moreover, expectancy was found to partially mediate the effect of stereotype threat on performance. In Experiment 2, we tested the generalizability of these results to non‐stigmatized groups. A group of Black Americans living in Italy were provided with favorable or unfavorable information about either their minority (Blacks) or their majority (Americans) ingroup. Consistent with predictions, participants both in the minority and in the majority condition had lower expectations and under‐performed after negative information about the ingroup. However, the level of expectancy was found to mediate the decrease in performance for participants in the Black but not in the American condition. In the discussion of these results it is suggested that, although comparable performance deficits are found for minority and majority members, the underlying processes may be different. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism,stereotyping and overestimation of relative ingroup size

An experiment (n = 61) investigated the effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism, stereotyping and the overestimation of relative ingroup size. As predicted, outgroup homogeneity was conducive to ingroup favouritism. Ingroup homogeneity, however, failed to influence ingroup favouritism. Also unexpectedly, asymmetry in group homogeneity — irrespective of whether the ingroup or the outgroup was the more homogeneous group — led to pronounced stereotyping of both groups and to the overestimation of relative ingroup size.     

Urban district identity as a common ingroup identity: The different role of ingroup prototypicality for minority and majority groups

In this paper, we examined how identification with urban districts as a common ingroup identity and perceived ingroup prototypicality influence the attitudes of residents toward other ethnic groups in their neighborhood. The overall conclusion of two field studies (N = 214 and N = 98) is that for majority‐group members, there may be a positive relation between identification with an overarching identity and outgroup attitudes but only when they perceive their ingroup as low in prototypicality for the overarching group (Study 1 and 2). Conversely, for minority‐group members, there may be a positive relation between identification and outgroup attitudes but only when they perceive their ingroup as high in prototypicality for the overarching group (Study 2). Outgroup prototypicality did not moderate the relation between identification and outgroup attitudes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Hiring you makes me look bad: Social-identity based reversals of the ingroup favoritism effect

The current research attempts to explain reversals of ingroup favoritism in terms of one of the prevalent mechanisms generally used to account for positive ingroup bias: Tajfel’s social identity theory. We propose that individuals strategically evaluate ingroup targets in order to maximize their own self-esteem and to avoid costly errors. This strategic evaluation typically results in ingroup favoritism toward an ingroup target member. However, if a positive evaluation of the target poses a significant self-esteem threat, denigration of the target will result. Two studies examined how ingroup and outgroup targets were evaluated when applicants were qualified versus unqualified (Study 1), or when the ingroup target might confirm a negative ingroup stereotype (Study 2). Study 1 results indicated that participants showed ingroup favoritism only toward qualified applicants. Study 2 demonstrated that, when a marginally qualified ingroup applicant has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype, bias against the ingroup is observed. Results of both studies both confirm and provide explanations for ingroup denigration.     

Competitive victimhood as a response to accusations of ingroup harm doing

Accusations of unjust harm doing by the ingroup threaten the group's moral identity. One strategy for restoring ingroup moral identity after such a threat is competitive victimhood: claiming the ingroup has suffered compared with the harmed outgroup. Men accused of harming women were more likely to claim that men are discriminated against compared with women (Study 1), and women showed the same effect when accused of discriminating against men (Study 3). Undergraduates engaged in competitive victimhood with university staff after their group was accused of harming staff (Study 2). Study 4 showed that the effect of accusations on competitive victimhood among high-status group members is mediated by perceived stigma reversal: the expectation that one should feel guilty for being in a high-status group. Exposure to a competitive victimhood claim on behalf of one's ingroup reduced stigma reversal and collective guilt after an accusation of ingroup harm doing (Study 5).     

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.     

Self-stereotyping: the central role of an ingroup threatening identity

Self-stereotyping is a process by which people belonging to a stigmatized social group tend to describe themselves more with stereotypical traits as compared with traits irrelevant to the ingroup stereotype. The present work analyzes why especially members of low-status groups are more inclined to self-stereotype compared to members of high-status groups. We tested the hypothesis that belonging to a low-, rather than a high-status group, makes low-status members feel more threatened and motivates them to protect their self-perception by increasing their similarity with the ingroup. Specifically, we investigated the effects of an experimental manipulation that was conceived to either threaten or protect the natural group membership of participants from either a low- or a high-status group on the level of self-stereotyping. The findings supported the idea that only low-status group members protected themselves when their group identity was threatened through increased self-stereotyping.     

Stereotypic ingroup bias as self‐defense against relative deprivation: evidence from a longitudinal study of the German unification process

In a longitudinal questionnaire field study on psychological consequences of German unification, the intergroup situation between East and West Germans was investigated. Data were collected in 1996 and 1998. The sample consisted of 585 East Germans and 387 West Germans who had never lived in the other part of Germany. It was assumed that East Germans' social identity is threatened due to their fraternal deprivation in comparison with West Germans. It was predicted that East Germans would employ ingroup bias as an identity management strategy in order to protect their emotional well‐being against harmful consequences of fraternal deprivation. In line with this prediction, it was found that (a) East Germans feel fraternally deprived compared to West Germans on important quality of life dimensions, (b) they display ingroup bias vis‐à‐vis West Germans, (c) ingroup bias increases with increasing East German identity, (d) ingroup bias is determined longitudinally by relative deprivation, and (e) ingroup bias buffers the effect of relative deprivation on mental health over time. As expected, ingroup bias and the effects of ingroup bias were larger for the dimension of personal integrity than for the dimensions of sympathy and competence. Ingroup bias is interpreted as compensatory self‐enhancement. West Germans feel fraternally privileged compared to East Germans and consider their advantages to be undeserved. Unexpectedly, West Germans display outgroup bias on the stereotype dimensions of integrity. This bias is interpreted as an effort to appease the moral outrage of East Germans and to silence their own guilty conscience due to undeserved advantages. Copyright © 2002 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.     

Perceiving ingroup members who use stereotypes: implicit conformity and similarity

Previous studies have shown that people subtly conform more to ingroup members who use stereotype‐consistent rather than stereotype‐inconsistent information when describing an outgroup member (Castelli, Vanzetto, Sherman, & Arcuri, 2001 ). In the present article, we will address two important issues. First, we will examine whether this subtle conformity toward stereotypers is related to individuals' prejudice level (Study 1). Second, we will examine one of the processes that underlie the perception of ingroup members who use stereotype‐consistent information, hypothesizing that individuals implicitly feel more similar to such sources than to ingroup members who use stereotype‐inconsistent information (Study 2). Both hypotheses were confirmed and results are discussed in terms of the distinction between implicit and explicit attitudes and their implications in the maintenance of social stereotypes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The perception of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity: On the confounding of group size,level of abstractness and frame of reference. A reply to Bartsch and Judd

In this reply, I criticize Bartsch and Judd's (1993) article on several grounds. First, they under-utilize the efforts undertaken in prior work to rule out the possibility of an inverse relation between group size and perceived group homogeneity as an alternative explanation of the observed ingroup homogeneity effect. Secondly, Bartsch and Judd's design doubles and thus aggravates the confounding problem. By trying to avoid the target group size confound, they end up with two other confounds involving level of abstractness and frame of reference. Finally, I criticize Bartsch and Judd's methodological advice to avoid within-subjects comparisons of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity in minority–majority contexts. Quite on the contrary, I highlight the socialpsychological significance of these comparisons.     

We are the opposite of you! Mirroring of national,regional and ethnic stereotypes

The content of stereotypes can be shaped by multiple mechanisms, one of them possibly being the “mirroring effect.” Mirroring describes a phenomenon whereby people rate their ingroup characteristics as opposite to characteristics typical of a relevant outgroup. The aim of our study was to explore mirroring in three intergroup contexts—in national, regional, and ethnic stereotypes. In Study 1, 2,241 participants rated national ingroup stereotype and outgroup stereotypes of five Central European countries. In Study 2, 741 Czech participants rated regional ingroup and outgroup stereotypes of people living in two distinct parts of the Czech Republic. In Study 3, 463 majority and Hungarian minority participants in Slovakia rated ethnic ingroup and outgroup stereotypes. The results showed a clear presence of mirroring in all three contexts.     

Ingroup ambivalence and experienced discomfort: the moderating roles of affective versus cognitive attitudinal basis, group identification, as mediated by negative beliefs about the ingroup

Prior research has found individuals' reactions to vary depending on whether such associations are activated by emotions (an affective basis) or by beliefs (a cognitive basis) about the object's properties. Accordingly, this conceptual distinction should be relevant also for the discomfortive responses to one's ambivalent attitudes regarding fellow group members (or the ingroup). Findings from two studies support the argument that ambivalence-associated discomfort a) is a general tendency when it regards affect-based ambivalence towards fellow group members, while b) only holds for the more identified group members when ambivalence concerns beliefs about the ingroup, and for this latter group members c) this tendency is driven by the strength of their negative beliefs about the ingroup or fellow group members.     

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.     

Ingroup Versus Outgroup Perceptions of the Characteristics of High-Risk Youth: Negative Stereotyping1

Adolescents tend to categorize themselves and their peers into discrete ingroups and outgroups. A comparison of ingroup versus outgroup perceptions of the characteristics of high-risk youth was investigated. Based on current stereotype research, we examined the perspective that outgroup members would hold a more extreme stereotype of high-risk youth compared to the perceptions of ingroup members. A total of 955 7th- and 10th-grade southern California adolescents completed a questionnaire regarding the characteristics of their own peer group and a high-risk group. Support was obtained for an extremity of judgement effect. Outgroup youth perceived that their high-risk peers engaged in fewer school and nonschool low-risk activities, more high-risk activities, and greater drug use than did ingroup members. Outgroup members also held perceptions of high-risk youth as less likely to hold a white-collar job than did the ingroup members. The perceptions that adolescents have of these groups may play major roles in their own social behavior. The implications of these results for future tobacco use prevention programs are considered.     

Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model

This chapter summarises results from a research programme on the psychological basis of tolerance and discrimination in intergroup relations, with particular consideration of the role of superordinate identities. According to the ingroup projection model, a relevant superordinate group provides dimensions and norms for comparisons between ingroup and outgroup. Groups gain positive value or status when they are considered prototypical for the (positively valued) superordinate group. Group members tend to generalise (project) distinct ingroup characteristics onto the superordinate category, implying the relative prototypicality of their ingroup. To the extent that outgroup difference is regarded as a deviation from the ethnocentrically construed prototype it is evaluated negatively. Our research studied consequences and determinants of ingroup projection, as well as moderators of its implications. The findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the processes involved in intergroup discrimination and indicate new pathways for the reduction of prejudice, towards mutual intergroup appreciation and tolerance.     

Stereotypes: static abstractions or dynamic knowledge structures?

Stereotypes have been assumed to be long-lasting knowledge structures that persist even in the face of contrary evidence. However, there is almost no within-participant research relevant to this assumption. The authors describe 4 studies (N=267), the first 3 of which assessed within-participant stereotype stability over a few weeks with measures of stereotypic trait verification, typicality ratings of exemplar sets, and exemplar retrieval. In the 4th study, the authors manipulated context stability. Overall, results showed only low-to-moderate stereotype stability. The stability obtained was a function of the perceived centrality of traits or exemplars and of context constancy. The authors discuss the implications of these results for abstractionist, exemplar, mixed, and connectionist models and identify possible mechanisms that underlie within-participant stereotype instability.     

Status protection in high status minority groups

The present study investigated the conditions under which group members try to obtain membership in another group, or are motivated to protect their group membership when they risk losing it. One hundred and twenty-nine high school students participated as subjects in a laboratory experiment. Subjects were divided into two groups, allegedly on the basis of their problem solving style. The relative size (minority/majority) and status position (high/low) of the subject's group, as well as the permeability of group boundaries (permeable/impermeable) were manipulated as independent variables in a 2×2×2 factorial design. The main dependent variables were the extent to which individuals valued their group membership, and identified with their group. The main results are that membership in a group with high status is considered more attractive than membership in a low status group, This differential evaluation of high and low status groups is more extreme in minority groups than in groups of majority size. Furthermore, when group boundaries are permeable, members of high status minorities show relatively strong ingroup identification, indicating a strengthening of ties with their own group when an alternative (majority) group affiliation is possible. However, our expectation that permeable group boundaries would result in diminished ingroup identification in low status minorities was not confirmed. Some additional data suggest that unsatisfactory membership in a low status group is resolved in a different way.