Negational racial identity and presidential voting preferences

Previous research suggests that narrow identification with one’s own racial group impedes coalition building among minorities. Consistent with this research, the 2008 Democratic primary was marked by racial differences in voting preferences: Black voters overwhelmingly preferred Barack Obama, a Black candidate, and Latinos and Asians largely favored Hillary Clinton, a White candidate. We investigated one approach to overcoming this divide: highlighting one’s negational identity. In two experiments simulating primary polling procedures, Asians and Latinos randomly assigned to think of and categorize themselves in negational terms (i.e., being non-White) were more likely to vote for Obama than participants focused on their affirmational identity (i.e, being Asian or Latino), who showed the typical preference for Clinton. This shift in voting preference was partially mediated by warmer attitudes towards other minority groups. These results suggest that negational identity is a meaningful source of social identity and demonstrate that whether one thinks about “who one is” versus “who one is not” has far-reaching impact for real-world decisions.     

When differences matter: intergroup distinctiveness and the evaluation of impostors

The present study examined the effect of intergroup distinctiveness and group membership on evaluations of impostors. We predicted that ingroup members would be harsher than outgroup members on an impostor and that perceptions of intergroup distinctiveness would further moderate these evaluations. Specifically, we tested the social identity theory prediction that low intergroup distinctiveness would lead to greater derogation of the impostor (the ‘reactive distinctiveness’ hypothesis) against the self‐categorization hypothesis that high intergroup distinctiveness would instigate more derogation of an impostor (the ‘reflective distinctiveness’ hypothesis). In this study, vegetarians (ingroup members) and meat eaters (outgroup members) were presented with a target claiming to be vegetarian, but caught indulging in a meat dish. We found that ingroup members derogated the impostor more and felt less pleased about discovering the impostor behaviour than did outgroup members. In line with the reflective distinctiveness hypothesis, the heightened derogation displayed by ingroup members only emerged when intergroup distinctiveness was high, an effect that was mediated by ratings of group identification. The discussion focuses on the different responses intergroup distinctiveness may evoke. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial

A structural equation model tested the role of degree of identification with a group (Americans) and level of collective self-esteem as determinants of outgroup derogation under identity-threatening and non-threatening conditions. High identification and reductions in collective self-esteem following a threat to that identity lead to outgroup derogation, but level of collective self-esteem did not predict outgroup derogation in the no-threat condition. The consequences of derogating both threat-relevant (Russians) and threat-irrelevant nationalities for subsequent self-esteem were assessed. As predicted by social identity theory, higher amounts of derogation of the threat-relevant outgroup in the identity-threatened condition elevated subsequent collective self-esteem. Derogation of threat-irrelevant outgroups did not have this positive esteem consequence; in fact, increased derogation of irrelevant outgroups reduced subsequent self-esteem. In the no-threat condition, amount of derogation directed towards either type of outgroup did not significantly influence subsequent self-esteem, with the overall pattern being opposite to what was observed in the threat condition. Implications for theories concerning self-processes as instigators of outgroup derogation and the consequences of intergroup comparisons for collective self-esteem are discussed.     

Managing one's social identity: Successful and unsuccessful identity management

This work explores the motivational dynamics of social identity management. Following social identity theory, we hypothesized that a threat to a positive social identity elicits specific negative emotions (i.e., outgroup‐directed anger) and motivates identity management. Successful identity management restores a positive social identity and decreases outgroup‐directed anger. However, when a successful identity management is blocked (e.g., because of limited cognitive resources), identity management will be unsuccessful and outgroup‐directed anger will remain at a higher level. This effect of unsuccessful identity management on outgroup‐directed anger should be particularly strong for group members who highly value their group (i.e., high group‐based self‐esteem). A negative comparison outcome is discrepant with these group members' positive view of the ingroup, and therefore, unsuccessful identity management should especially elicit negative emotions (i.e., anger) towards the threatening outgroup. Two studies tested these predictions. Study 1 (N = 110) showed that participants' outgroup‐directed anger increased when threatened under cognitive load. Study 2 (N = 99) demonstrated that this was particularly true for participants high in group‐based self‐esteem. The results' implications for research on the motivational processes underlying social identity management are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Social Categorization in Intergroup Contexts: Three Kinds of Self‐Categorization

In reviewing self‐categorization theory and the literature upon which it is based, we conclude that individuals' attempts to form social categories could lead to three kinds of self‐categorization. We label them intergroup categorization, ingroup categorization, and outgroup categorization. We review literature supporting these three types and argue that they can help to explain and organize the existing evidence. Moreover, we conclude that distinguishing these three kinds of self‐categorization lead to novel predictions regarding social identity, social cognition, and groups. We offer some of those predictions by discussing their potential causes (building from optimal distinctiveness and security seeking literatures) and implications (on topics including prototype complexity, self‐stereotyping, stereotype formation, intergroup behavior, dual identity, conformity, and the psychological implications of perceiving uncategorized collections of people). This paper offers a platform from which to build theoretical and empirical advances in social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations.     

Political tolerance and coming to psychological closure following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks: an integrative approach

This study tested hypotheses generated from an integrative model of political tolerance that derived hypotheses from a number of different social psychological theories (e.g., appraisal tendency theory, intergroup emotion theory, and value protection models) to explain political tolerance following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A national field study (N = 550) found that immediate post attack anger and fear had different implications for political tolerance 4 months later. The effects of anger on political tolerance were mediated through moral outrage and outgroup derogation, whereas the effects of fear on political tolerance were mediated through personal threat, ingroup enhancement, and value affirmation. Value affirmation led to increased political tolerance, whereas moral outrage, outgroup derogation, ingroup enhancement, and personal threat led to decreased political tolerance. Value affirmation, moral outrage, and outgroup derogation also facilitated post-9/11 psychological closure and increased psychological closure led to greater political tolerance.     

The promise and peril of self-affirmation in de-escalation of commitment

Drawing on the motivated cognition literature, we examine how self-affirmation processes influence self-justification needs and escalation decisions. Study 1 found that individuals with a larger pool of affirmational resources (high self-esteem) reduced their escalation compared to those with fewer affirmational resources (low self-esteem). Study 2 extended these findings by demonstrating that individuals also de-escalated their commitments when they were provided an opportunity to affirm on an important value. Finally, Study 3 found that affirming on traits that were of low relevance (e.g., creativity) to an initial decision reduced escalation, but affirming on decision-relevant traits (e.g., decision-making ability) ironically increased escalation. Across three studies, using three instantiations of self-affirmations and two measures of escalation, the results highlight the potential benefits and costs of using self-affirmation as a vehicle to de-escalate commitment.     

外群体一定贬损吗：来自蒙古族和汉族群体的证据

本研究采用单一复述法考察了我国非冲突性、地位平等的蒙古族和汉族群体,在面对面传递彼此不同效价的民族刻板印象信息时的群体效应。实验1证明了蒙古族和汉族间表现出的并非“外群体贬损”,而是“外群体偏爱”。实验2通过考察人际敏感性和群际态度两个变量验证了蒙汉间外群体偏爱的真实性,但这一效应在群际态度消极的高敏感汉族中表现出了人为增益性;而且发现了蒙汉族际沟通中的不同信息传递模式,蒙古族同时着眼于积极和消极信息,而汉族更偏重于积极信息。由此可知,外群体并不一定引发贬损,群体性质兹事体大。     

Group polarization and choice‐dilemmas: how important is self‐categorization?

Self‐categorization proponents (e.g., Turner, 1991 ) assume that group polarization occurs because discussants wish to differentiate themselves from outgroup positions and implicitly think of such groups even when they are not specifically mentioned. Ingroup/outgroup salience is thought to heighten such effects. To examine this view, we had participants discuss Choice Dilemma items either with or without explicit knowledge of outgroup positions. Contrary to a self‐categorization account, this manipulation of outgroup salience did not affect the degree of group polarization. In addition, rating measures revealed little spontaneous consideration of outgroup positions on the part of participants, nor was consideration of outgroup positions related to degree of polarization. Group members did show evidence of ingroup identification, but this identification was unrelated to participants' post‐discussion conformity to the group consensus. Taken as a whole, these results suggest distinct limits to the self‐categorization interpretation of group polarization involving Choice Dilemmas. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Positive distinctiveness and social discrimination: An old couple living in divorce

The paper highlights the relation between positive distinctiveness and social discrimination as key concepts in Social Identity Theory. The often replicated finding of mere categorization leading to ingroup favouritism and outgroup discrimination plays a major role in supporting the view that discrimination is functional for a positive social identity. The paper confronts the mere categorization effect with recent findings which throw severe doubts on its robustness. Particularly the failure to extrapolate categorization effects to intergroup behaviour involving aversive stimuli (the positive–negative–asymmetry of social discrimination) lead to the plea for further specifications of SIT and its validity.     

The Process of Group Differentiation in a Dynamic Intergroup Setting

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the social categorization processes of between-group differentiation and within-group similarity in a dynamic intergroup setting. Traditionally, these processes have generally been examined in static settings, and it was hypothesized that they may not operate in the same way when group members are in a dynamic intergroup setting. Spectators at four collegiate hockey games were tested throughout the games in order to examine ingroup (home team) versus outgroup (visiting team) perceptions. The traditional effect of ingroup favoritism was found with respect to between-group differentiation, but this effect was influenced by objective measures of performance (i.e., goals). For negative characteristics, ingroup favoritism prevailed regardless of the ingroup's relative performance. The results also demonstrated that a distinction could be made between ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination. Although the results pertaining to within-group similarity were only suggestive, they indicated that the outgroup homogeneity effect was not operating in this dynamic context.     

Collective self-esteem, personal self-esteem, and collective efficacy in in-group and outgroup evaluations

In assessing the relationship between self-esteem and in-group/outgroup evaluations, this study examined whether self-esteem is better measured at a collective (collective self-esteem [CSE]) than a personal level (personal self-esteem [PSE]). It was expected that subjects high in CSE would engage in more in-group favoritism (measured by in-group evaluations), whereas those low in CSE would engage in more outgroup derogation (measured by outgroup evaluations). No effect for PSE was predicted. Furthermore, the study explored whether perceptions of collective efficacy may underlie this relationship. Subjects played a public goods task. The in-group's outcome was compared to the outcome of other relevant outgroups, enhancing pressures towards intergroup differentiation. Consistent with the predictions, subjects high in CSE evaluated in-group members more positively than those in low CSE (i.e., in-group favoritism), whereas subjects low in CSE evaluated outgroup members more negatively than those high in CSE (i.e., outgroup derogation). Also in line with our predictions, no effect for PSE was found. Perceptions of collective efficacy appeared to be a mediator of the effect of CSE.     

Collective self-esteem, personal self-esteem, and collective efficacy in in-group and outgroup evaluations

In assessing the relationship between self-esteem and in-group/outgroup evaluations, this study examined whether self-esteem is better measured at a collective (collective self-esteem [CSE]) than a personal level (personal self-esteem [PSE]). It was expected that subjects high in CSE would engage in more in-group favoritism (measured by in-group evaluations), whereas those low in CSE would engage in more outgroup derogation (measured by outgroup evaluations). No effect for PSE was predicted. Furthermore, the study explored whether perceptions of collective efficacy may underlie this relationship. Subjects played a public goods task. The in-group's outcome was compared to the outcome of other relevant outgroups, enhancing pressures towards intergroup differentiation. Consistent with the predictions, subjects high in CSE evaluated in-group members more positively than those in low CSE (i.e., in-group favoritism), whereas subjects low in CSE evaluated outgroup members more negatively than those high in CSE (i.e., outgroup derogation). Also in line with our predictions, no effect for PSE was found. Perceptions of collective efficacy appeared to be a mediator of the effect of CSE.     

Dr. Angry and Mr. Smile: when categorization flexibly modifies the perception of faces in rapid visual presentations

Are categorization and visual processing independent, with categorization operating late, on an already perceived input, or are they intertwined, with the act of categorization flexibly changing (i.e. cognitively penetrating) the early perception of the stimulus? We examined this issue in three experiments by applying different categorization tasks (gender, expressive or not, which expression and identity) to identical face stimuli. Stimuli were hybrids: they combined a man or a woman with a particular expression at a coarse spatial scale with a face of the opposite gender with a different expression at the fine spatial scale. Results suggested that the categorization task changes the spatial scales preferentially used and perceived for rapid recognition. A perceptual set effect is shown whereby the scale preference of an important categorization (e.g. identity) transfers to resolve other face categorizations (e.g. expressive or not, which expression). Together, the results suggest that categorization can be closely bound to perception.     

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).     

Unfairness begets unfairness: Victim derogation bias in employee ratings

This research investigated criterion contamination in human resource evaluations, specifically victim derogation in which third parties (e.g., managers, co-workers) systematically undervalue the performance and potential of individuals who have previously suffered organizational injustices. A policy capturing design (Study 1) found that managers rated job applicants who had been treated unfairly by their previous employers as less suitable than fairly treated applicants, after objective performance information was controlled. In Study 2, the effect of unfair treatment on job applicant ratings was found to be moderated by managers’ just world beliefs, with applicant ratings reflecting more derogation among managers with higher (vs. lower) Belief in a Just World. In Study 3, the pattern of results from Study 2 was replicated in a performance evaluation context using peers as raters. Moreover, in Study 3 an intervention that activated raters’ moral identity was found to attenuate victim derogation bias.     

Residential mobility reduces ingroup favouritism in prosocial behaviour

People sometimes prioritize helping ingroup members over outgroup members, but sometimes they do not. The current research investigated whether residential mobility, a socioecological factor, would reduce ingroup favouritism in prosocial behaviour. In three studies, we found evidence supporting the causal role of residential mobility in reducing ingroup favouritism in prosocial behaviour. First, we found that participants in the residentially stable condition had stronger intentions to help ingroups than outgroups whereas this tendency was eliminated in the residentially mobile condition (Study 1). We replicated these findings by examining participants' money allocation in a dictator game and their actual helping behaviour in an additional request (Study 2). Furthermore, we explored the underlying mechanisms of the effect of residential mobility on ingroup favouritism in prosocial behaviour (Study 3). We found that the differentiation component of individual identity (i.e., distinctiveness and uniqueness from other people) explained the relation between individuals' moving history and ingroup favouritism in prosocial behaviour (Study 3), in which frequent moves increased differentiation, which in turn reduced ingroup favouritism in prosocial behaviour. Taken together, these studies indicate that residential mobility is powerful in shaping people's behaviour toward ingroups and outgroups, which advances the understanding of intergroup processes from a socioecological approach.     

Identity salience and the influence of differential activation of the social self-schema on advertising response

The authors examined how identity primes and social distinctiveness influence identity salience (i.e., the activation of a social identity within an individual's social self-schema) and subsequent responses to targeted advertising. Across 2 studies, individuals who were exposed to an identity prime (an ad element that directs attention to the individual's social identity) and who were socially distinctive (minorities in the immediate social context) expressed systematically different evaluations of spokespersons and the advertisements that featured them. Specifically, Asian (Caucasian) participants responded most positively (negatively) to Asian spokespeople and Asian-targeted advertising when the participants were both primed and socially distinctive. No main effects of identity primes or social distinctiveness were found. The implications of these findings for identity theory, advertising practice, and intervention communications are discussed.     

On the asymmetry in the cognitive construal of ingroup and outgroup: A model of egocentric social categorization

A model of egocentric social categorization (ESC-model) is presented. It predicts an asymmetry in the cognitive construal of ingroups and outgroups which is traced back to an egocentrism in the cognitive differentiation of the social world. The more specific assumptions are: (1) At the most basic level of cognitive differentiation, the perceiver distinguishes between the categories ME and NOT-ME. (2) This basic level categorization predicates an asymmetry in the cognitive construal of ingroup and out-group as social categories: The ingroup is construed as a heterogeneous aggregate of separate entities and the outgroup as a homogeneous social category. (3) Egocentric social categorization thus facilitates self-definition in terms of personal identity relative to self-definition in terms of social identity. The ESC-model is highly relevant to research on perceived ingroup and outgroup homogeneity. Moreover, it alerts researchers to the possibility of ‘quasi-intergroup’ situations in which the outgroup, but not the ingroup, is a salient entity. This article also discusses the relationship between the ESC-model and self-categorization theory and points out some prospects for future research.     

Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: a meta-analytic integration

The authors examined the relation between perceptions of intergroup distinctiveness and intergroup differentiation in a meta-analysis. They tested the social identity theory prediction that low intergroup distinctiveness underlies differentiation (the "reactive distinctiveness" hypothesis) for effects on behavioral and judgmental differentiation. In addition, they examined the moderating power of 4 variables that H. Tajfel and J. C. Turner (1979) predicted would influence differentiation (group identification, relevance of the dimension of comparison, relevance of the outgroup. and nature of intergroup relations). Analysis of 60 tests revealed that the overall effect of distinctiveness on differentiation was not significantly different from 0, but reactive distinctiveness was found on behavioral differentiation measures, whereas reflective distinctiveness was found on judgmental differentiation measures. Only group identification was a reliable moderator. High identifiers showed reactive distinctiveness, whereas low identifiers showed reflective distinctiveness.