Relations of self-esteem concerns, group identification, and self-stereotyping to in-group favoritism

In 2 studies, the author examined the effect of collective self-esteem (CSE; J. Crocker & R. Luhtanen, 1993) on people's willingness to display in-group favoritism. To test that self-esteem hypothesis, he measured public CSE, rather than private CSE, because the former parallels a threat to social identity, a state believed to motivate in-group favoritism. Furthermore, the author explored whether group identification and self-stereotyping moderated the effect of public CSE on in-group favoritism. The participants were 92 British and Dutch university employees. As expected, participants high in public CSE displayed more in-group favoritism than did those low in public CSE. Moreover, group identification and self-stereotyping appeared to moderate the effect of CSE.     

Being the same and different: A model explaining new product adoption

• The study suggests an alternative conceptualization for understanding adoption behavior over time, based on Optimal Distinctiveness Theory. This theory states that social identity derives from a fundamental tension between human needs for validation and similarity to others—the need for assimilation—and a countervailing need for uniqueness and individuation—the need for differentiation. The present study proposes that the effect of the size of the group of consumers who have already adopted a new product on an individual consumer's decision to adopt this product is contingent upon the consumer's two predispositions: the need for assimilation and the need for distinctiveness. Results of empirical research suggested that differently perceived subgroup sizes fulfill consumers' dual needs for distinctiveness and assimilation differently. The influence of the adopters' group size on a consumer's decision to adopt a new product varied among individuals with different levels of needs for distinctiveness and assimilation: when need for distinctiveness was low, the higher was the need for assimilation and the larger was the perceived group size, the higher was the probability of adopting the product. When the need for distinctiveness was high, the lower was the need for assimilation and the larger was the perceived group size, the lower was the probability of adopting the product. In addition, when the need for both distinctiveness and assimilation were high, the probability of adopting the product rose as the perceived group size increased. Implications for product variation, marketing communication, and target groups are discussed.

Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cultural Stereotypes and the Self: A Closer Examination of Implicit Self-Stereotyping

Recent research and theory on implicit self-stereotyping suggests that individuals nonconsciously incorporate stereotypes about their social groups into the self-concept; however, evidence as to whether this holds true for negative stereotypes remains limited. Using a subliminal priming measure, the current research found that women (Experiment 1) and White Americans (Experiment 2) implicitly associated the self with in-group stereotypic traits but not out-group stereotypic traits. Of importance, both groups implicitly self-stereotyped on negative in-group traits to a similar extent as they did on positive in-group traits. Moreover, exploratory analysis showed that the degree to which White Americans associated positive, but not negative, in-group stereotypes with the self was related to higher self-esteem. Implications of implicit self-stereotyping on self-esteem and stereotype-consistent behavior are discussed.     

Children's subjective identification with social groups: a self-stereotyping approach

We contend that previous work on children's identification with social groups has looked at the mere categorization of the self in group terms and not subjective identification properly conceived. Drawing upon self-categorization theory, the present research operationalizes identification as self-stereotyping (i.e. the ability to conceive of the self in group-relevant terms). Children's self-stereotyping was explored in two studies using gender as the relevant ingroup. Study 1 required 5-, 7- and 10-year-old children, on two separate occasions, to rate their similarity to, and difference from, same-sex peers. Relative to the control condition, when gender had been made salient, children perceived significantly greater similarity, and smaller difference, between themselves and same-sex peers, thus providing evidence of a capacity for self-stereotyping and, hence, for subjective identification with a social category. Similarly, Study 2 sought trait ratings of the self both when gender had been made salient and when it had not. Boys of all ages (though not girls) rated ingroup-stereotypical traits (such as bravery and strength) to be more characteristic of the self when gender was salient than when it was not. Together, these findings suggest that the capacity for subjective identification with social groups is present at least by the age of 5 years. Moreover, they demonstrate that children's self-conceptions are contextually variable.     

Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification

Recent research shows individuals' identification with in-groups to be psychologically important and socially consequential. However, there is little agreement about how identification should be conceptualized or measured. On the basis of previous work, the authors identified 5 specific components of in-group identification and offered a hierarchical 2-dimensional model within which these components are organized. Studies 1 and 2 used confirmatory factor analysis to validate the proposed model of self-definition (individual self-stereotyping, in-group homogeneity) and self-investment (solidarity, satisfaction, and centrality) dimensions, across 3 different group identities. Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated the construct validity of the 5 components by examining their (concurrent) correlations with established measures of in-group identification. Studies 5-7 demonstrated the predictive and discriminant validity of the 5 components by examining their (prospective) prediction of individuals' orientation to, and emotions about, real intergroup relations. Together, these studies illustrate the conceptual and empirical value of a hierarchical multicomponent model of in-group identification.     

I feel our pain: Antecedents and consequences of emotional self-stereotyping

According to Intergroup Emotions Theory people categorized as group members experience the emotions of their ingroup as a consequence of that membership. Four experiments showed that participants converged toward what they believed to be their specific ingroup’s distinct emotional experience when reporting emotions as group members, but not when reporting emotions as individuals. Such self-stereotyping of ingroup emotions occurred for an experimentally fabricated ingroup as well as a range of naturally occurring groups. Demonstrating the roots of this process in categorization, self-stereotyping was increased when motivations to affiliate were amplified and was moderated by ingroup identification. The adoption of ingroup emotions changed participants’ cognitive processing in a predictable way, demonstrating that emotional self-stereotyping involved the experience rather than merely the expression of group-based emotions. Self-stereotyping of ingroup emotions is thus one mechanism by which group-based emotions are shared and can be changed.     

Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities

This research examines self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities and shows that self-stereotyping is a function of stereotyped expectancies held in particular relationships. Participants reported how others evaluated their math and verbal ability and how they viewed their own ability when their gender or ethnicity was salient. Asian American women (Experiment 1) and European Americans (Experiment 2) exhibited knowledge of stereotyped social expectancies and corresponding self-stereotyping associated with their more salient identity. African Americans (Experiment 3) exhibited some knowledge of stereotyped social expectancies but no corresponding self-stereotyping. Correlational evidence and a 4th experiment suggest that self-stereotyping is mediated by the degree to which close others are perceived to endorse stereotypes as applicable to the self.     

Relations of Self-Esteem Concerns,Group Identification,and Self-Stereotyping to In-Group Favoritism

Abstract

In 2 studies, the author examined the effect of collective self-esteem (CSE; J. Crocker & R. Luhtanen, 1993) on people's willingness to display in-group favoritism. To test that self-esteem hypothesis, he measured public CSE, rather than private CSE, because the former parallels a threat to social identity, a state believed to motivate in-group favoritism. Furthermore, the author explored whether group identification and self-stereotyping moderated the effect of public CSE on in-group favoritism. The participants were 92 British and Dutch university employees. As expected, participants high in public CSE displayed more in-group favoritism than did those low in public CSE. Moreover, group identification and self-stereotyping appeared to moderate the effect of CSE.     

Overlapping mental representations of self, ingroup, and outgroup: unraveling self-stereotyping and self-anchoring

Smith and collaborators presented strong response time evidence for overlapping mental representations of the self and relevant ingroups, and they interpreted their findings as reflecting that people define themselves in terms of their ingroups. Besides on inferences from ingroup to self (self-stereotyping) however, self-ingroup overlap could also be based on inferences from the self to the ingroup (self-anchoring). The present research tackled this interpretational ambiguity and empirically distinguished self-anchoring versus self-stereotyping as processes possibly under-lying self-ingroup overlap. Results from three studies revealed stronger evidence for inferences from self to ingroup (selfanchoring) than the other way round (self-stereotyping).     

Identification with the neighborhood: Discrimination and neighborhood size

This paper analyzes the impact of a geographical social grouping (neighborhood) and its relative perceived size in the spontaneous group’s identification level and place satisfaction, as well as the intensity of and motives for discrimination against inhabitants of other places. Two studies are presented: an experimental one using the minimal group categorization paradigm and an onsite investigation of a city neighborhood. Consistent with the predictions, the results showed that smaller neighborhoods reported higher identification and satisfaction with the place of residence, as well as higher discrimination of other neighborhoods. In line with the optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT), the findings showed that the motivation for discrimination varies as a function of the in-group size. Thus, the members of larger groups discriminate by increasing the differentiation between the in-group and the out-group, whereas the members of smaller groups increased the value of the in-group. Furthermore, the results were consistent with a social identity theory and ODT explanation of diverse research that shows the non-trivial nature of geographical bounded social grouping and its importance in a diverse set of contexts and its impact in inter-neighborhood relationships.     

The importance of being we: human nature and intergroup relations

The author discusses the nature of in-group bias and the social motives that underlie ethnocentric attachment to one's own membership groups. Two common assumptions about in-group bias are challenged: that in-group positivity necessitates out-group derogation and that in-group bias is motivated by self-enhancement. A review of relevant theory and research on intergroup relations provides evidence for 3 alternative principles: (a) in-group attachment and positivity are primary and independent of out-groups, (b) security motives (belonging and distinctiveness) underlie universal in-group favoritism, and (c) attitudes toward out-groups vary as a function of intergroup relationships and associated threats to belonging and distinctiveness     

自主定向与依赖定向的群际帮助在动机与后果上的差异

群际帮助指施助者作为某个群体成员对另一群体成员的帮助, 分为自主定向和依赖定向的帮助两类。自主定向的群际帮助被施助者求同需要所驱动, 提供给受助者自己解决问题的方式方法, 会缩小受助者与施助者之间的差异; 而依赖定向的群际帮助被施助者差别化需要所驱动, 直接提供给受助者满足需求的物质, 会维持甚至扩大受助者与施助者之间的差异并使前者长期依赖后者。     

Methodological requirements to test a possible in-group advantage in judging emotions across cultures: comment on Elfenbein and Ambady (2002) and evidence

H. A. Elfenbein and N. Ambady's (2002) conclusions concerning a possible in-group advantage in judging emotions across cultures are unwarranted. The author discusses 2 methodological requirements for studies to test adequately the in-group advantage hypothesis and an additional requirement in reviewing multiple judgment studies and examining variance in judgment effects across those studies. The few studies that Elfenbein and Ambady reported that support the in-group advantage hypothesis need to be examined for whether they meet the criteria discussed; if they do not, their data cannot be used to support any contention of cultural differences in judgments, let alone the in-group advantage hypothesis. Furthermore, the role of signal clarity needs to be explored in possibly moderating effects across studies; however, this was not done.     

Social comparison, self-stereotyping, and gender differences in self-construals

Four studies examined gender differences in self-construals and the role of social comparison in generating these differences. Consistent with previous research, Study 1 (N=461) showed that women define themselves as higher in relational interdependence than men, and men define themselves as higher in independence/agency than women. Study 2 (N=301) showed that within-gender social comparison decreases gender differences in self-construals relative to a control condition, whereas between-genders comparison increases gender differences on both relational interdependence and independence/agency. Studies 3 (N=169) and 4 (N=278) confirmed these findings and showed that changing self-construal changes gender differences in social dominance orientation. Across the 4 studies, strong evidence for the role of in-group stereotyping as mediator of the effect of gender on self-construal was observed on the relational dimension but not on the agentic dimension.     

"I am us": negative stereotypes as collective threats

Collective threat is the fear that an in-group member's behavior might reinforce a negative stereotype of one's group. In a field study, self-reported collective threat was higher in stereotyped minorities than in Whites and was linked to lower self-esteem in both groups. In 3 experimental studies, a potentially poor performance by an in-group member on a stereotype-relevant task proved threatening, as evidenced by lower self-esteem among minority students in 2 experiments and women in a 3rd experiment. The latter study demonstrated the generality of collective threat. Collective threat also undermined academic performance and affected self-stereotyping, stereotype activation, and physical distancing from the in-group member. Results further suggest that group identification plays a role in whether people use an avoidance or challenge strategy in coping with collective threat. Implications for theories of social identity and stigmatization are discussed.     

自我刻板化及其影响因素与效果

自我刻板化是指个体自认为某群体的成员时,把伴随此种身份的刻板印象加诸于自己身上的过程。该文首先简要介绍了自我刻板化的理论基础——自我归类理论,然后从自我刻板化的行为效应、态度效应以及影响自我刻板化的因素等方面对以往的相关研究进行了回顾。最后,指出未来的研究还有必要加强对自我刻板化的应用研究等五方面问题的探讨     

Negational categorization and intergroup behavior

Individuals define themselves, at times, as who they are (e.g., a psychologist) and, at other times, as who they are not (e.g., not an economist). Drawing on social identity, optimal distinctiveness, and balance theories, four studies examined the nature of negational identity relative to affirmational identity. One study explored the conditions that increase negational identification and found that activating the need for distinctiveness increased the accessibility of negational identities. Three additional studies revealed that negational categorization increased outgroup derogation relative to affirmational categorization and the authors argue that this effect is at least partially due to a focus on contrasting the self from the outgroup under negational categorization. Consistent with this argument, outgroup derogation following negational categorization was mitigated when connections to similar others were highlighted. By distinguishing negational identity from affirmational identity, a more complete picture of collective identity and intergroup behavior can start to emerge.     

群体独特性对群际偏差的影响

群体独特性影响群体认同,较高或较低的群体独特性都可能引发群际偏差,分别称为“反射式独特性假说”与“反应式独特性假说”.调节作用研究揭示,在较低群体认同或上位群体分类凸显时,群体独特性越高越易引发群际偏差;而在较高群体认同时,独特性越低越易引发群际偏差.动机作用的研究表明,在具有群际竞争目标时,这两种过程分别受工具性动机与认同性动机的驱动.情绪与认知的中介作用研究显示,在低独特性条件下,社会身份复杂性与焦虑情绪可起中介作用引发群际偏差.     

Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: The role of collective narcissism

Integrating psychoanalytic ideas of group idealisation with social identity and categorisation theories, this article discusses the distinction between secure and defensive in-group positivity. Narcissistic in-group positivity captures a belief in in-group greatness that is contingent on external validation. It reflects defensive in-group positivity, insofar as it stems from the frustration of individual needs, and predicts increased sensitivity to threats as well as undesirable consequences for out-groups and the in-group. Secure in-group positivity—that is, in-group positivity without the narcissistic component—is a confidently held positive evaluation of one’s in-group that is independent of the recognition of the group in the eyes of others. It stems from the satisfaction of individual needs, is resilient to threats and has positive consequences for the in-group and out-groups. I review evidence for these two distinct ways people relate to their social groups and discuss theoretical and practical implications for understanding intra- and intergroup relations.