Self-esteem and in-group bias among members of a religious social category

In a sample of New Zealand university students, the author extended earlier research into the relationship between self-esteem and intergroup discrimination. He found no support for the hypothesis that social-category members (i.e., Christians) experience an elevation in the domain of self-esteem (i.e., religious self-esteem) judged as more relevant to the in-group after evaluations favoring the in-group. Regardless of whether the evaluation targets behaved positively or negatively, the respondents in the experimental condition evaluated in-group (Christian) targets more highly than out-group (Atheist) targets. After evaluations favoring the in-group, the respondents did not experience an elevation of religious self-esteem, global self-esteem, or mathematical self-esteem (judged as less relevant to the in-group).     

Implications for the self determine benevolence and self-protection in intergroup relations

People often favor groups they belong to over those beyond the in-group boundary. Yet, in-group favoritism does not always occur, and people will sometimes favor an out-group over the in-group. We delineate theoretically when in-group favoritism (i.e., self-protection) and out-group favoritism (i.e., benevolence) should occur. In two experiments, groups’ relative status and competence stereotypes were manipulated; groups’ outcomes were non-contingent in Experiment 1 and contingent in Experiment 2. When allocating reward, members of a low-status group were self-protective, favoring the in-group over the out-group under both non-contingent and contingent outcomes. Those with high status benevolently favored the out-group when outcomes were non-contingent, but were self-protective with contingent outcomes. People were willing to engage in social activities with an out-group member regardless of competence. However, when task collaboration had implications for the self, those with low status preferred competent over less competent out-group members. Traits of high status targets were differentiated by those with low status in both experiments, whereas those with high status differentiated low-status members’ traits only when outcomes were contingent. A general principle fits the data: The implications of intergroup responses for the self determine benevolence and self-protection.     

Effects of experimentally induced peer-group rejection and out-group ethnicity on children's anxiety,self-esteem,and in-group and out-group attitudes

A minimal group study examined the effect of peer-group rejection on children's state anxiety and self-esteem, as well as their attitudes towards the rejecting group and an out-group that had the same or different ethnicity to the participants. Anglo-Australian children (n = 104) 7 and 9 years of age were randomly assigned to an Anglo-Australian team for an intergroup drawing competition. The competitor team had children with the same (i.e., Anglo-Australian) or different (i.e., Pacific Islander) ethnicity as their own team. The children then role-played that they had been accepted or rejected by their team members. Children's subsequent ratings indicated that peer-group rejection caused a decrease in self-esteem and an increase in anxiety, dislike for the rejecting in-group, but greater liking for the out-group, regardless of its ethnicity. Results also indicated that, regardless of peer status, children expressed greater liking for the in-group when there was a different versus same ethnicity out-group, and greater liking for the same versus different ethnicity out-group. The implications of the findings for peer-group rejection research are discussed.     

Self-Esteem and In-Group Bias Among Members of a Religious Social Category

Abstract

In a sample of New Zealand university students, the author extended earlier research into the relationship between self-esteem and intergroup discrimination. He found no support for the hypothesis that social-category members (i.e., Christians) experience an elevation in the domain of self-esteem (i.e., religious self-esteem) judged as more relevant to the in-group after evaluations favoring the in-group. Regardless of whether the evaluation targets behaved positively or negatively, the respondents in the experimental condition evaluated in-group (Christian) targets more highly than out-group (Atheist) targets. After evaluations favoring the in-group, the respondents did not experience an elevation of religious self-esteem, global self-esteem, or mathematical self-esteem (judged as less relevant to the in-group).     

Attributional biases about the origins of attitudes: externality,emotionality, and rationality

Pilot work and 3 studies investigated the ways people explain the origins of attitudes. Study I examined the use of 3 dimensions (externality, rationality, emotionality) to explain the origin of people's own, in-group, and out-group attitudes. Attributions for own attitudes were the least externally and emotionally based and the most rationally based. By comparison with the out-group, less externality, less emotionality, and more rationality also were attributed to in-group attitudes. Studies 2 and 3 examined the effects of intergroup threat on attributions for in- and out-group attitude positions. Under high threat, more externality and emotionality but less rationality were attributed to out-group attitudes than under low threat. Intergroup differentiation mediated the difference between out-group attributions under high and low threat.     

Uncertainty orientation in the group context: categorization effects on persuasive message processing

Persuasive messages often originate from in-group or out-group sources. Theoretically, in-group categories could facilitate heuristic-based message processing (because of the attractiveness of in-groups and their social reality cues) or systematic-based processing (because of high personal relevance of the message). The authors expected individual differences in uncertainty orientation and socially based expectancy congruence to be important variables in understanding these processes. Participants were exposed to strong or weak, in-group or out-group messages that were either expectancy congruent (in-group agreement, out-group disagreement) or expectancy incongruent (in-group disagreement, out-group agreement). As predicted, uncertainty-oriented participants increased systematic information processing under incongruent conditions relative to congruent (i.e., relatively certain) conditions; certainty-oriented individuals processed systematically only under congruent conditions. These findings suggest that uncertainty that has been created through social-categorization conflicts is treated differently by people of different personality styles.     

Uncertainty Orientation in the Group Context: Categorization Effects on Persuasive Message Processing

Abstract

Persuasive messages often originate from in-group or out-group sources. Theoretically, in-group categories could facilitate heuristic-based message processing (because of the attractiveness of in-groups and their social reality cues) or systematic-based processing (because of high personal relevance of the message). The authors expected individual differences in uncertainty orientation and socially based expectancy congruence to be important variables in understanding these processes. Participants were exposed to strong or weak, in-group or out-group messages that were either expectancy congruent (in-group agreement, out-group disagreement) or expectancy incongruent (in-group disagreement, out-group agreement). As predicted, uncertainty-oriented participants increased systematic information processing under incongruent conditions relative to congruent (i.e., relatively certain) conditions; certainty-oriented individuals processed systematically only under congruent conditions. These findings suggest that uncertainty that has been created through social-categorization conflicts is treated differently by people of different personality styles.     

Working harder with the out-group: The impact of social category diversity on motivation gains

This paper examines the influence that social category diversity (i.e., working with an in-group or out-group member) has on individual levels of motivation. The results of two experiments provide evidence that individuals increase their effort more when being outperformed by an out-group instead of an in-group member (Experiment 1), but only when the potential for social comparison is present (Experiment 2). We discuss the implications of this research for understanding how and why social category diversity may impact individual levels of motivation.     

Social Identification and a Solution to Social Dilemmas

The study explored whether cooperation could be promoted by identification with an in-group. A game was used to create two groups independent of each other. Thirty-six Japanese undergraduate students participated in the game, followed by a social dilemma game. Analysis revealed a two-factor structure of social identification: identification with the group and identification with its members. As predicted from social identity theory, subjects showed a significantly higher level of cooperation when the dilemma game was played with in-group members than with out-group members. Furthermore, identification with the group affected both in-group bias and cooperative behavior in the social dilemma game, but this effect was not found for identification with members.     

When “different” means “worse”: In-group prototypicality in changing intergroup contexts

An experiment with 213 participants provided evidence for in-group projection—the generalization of distinctive in-group attributes to a superordinate category. The frame of reference for in-group (German) judgments was manipulated by presenting either Italians or the British as an out-group. Results showed that attributes on which Germans differed from each out-group were accentuated not only in in-group judgments but also when judging Europeans. By adapting features of the superordinate category to those of the in-group, the in-group's similarity to, and the out-group's deviation from, the prototype of the superordinate category were maintained, if not emphasized. Further, higher in-group prototypicality—compared to out-group prototypicality—for the superordinate category was related to negative out-group attitudes. In-group projection was reduced when a complex representation of the superordinate category was primed.     

The Impact of In-Group and Out-Group Homogeneity/Heterogeneity Upon Intergroup Relations

This study explores the effect of experimentally manipulated in-group and out-group homogeneity/heterogeneity upon subsequent intergroup discrimination. In order to do this, homogeneity/heterogeneity of the in-group as well as of the out-group was experimentally manipulated. Seventy-two boys and 72 girls, ages 12 to 14, participated in the experiment. On the presumed basis of a perceptual task, they were randomly allocated to minimal social categories, whose variability was manipulated. After performing a perceptual estimation task, they were asked to evaluate the performance of the in-group and out-group in this task. The results indicated that a manipulation of in-group homogeneity/heterogeneity produced not much of an effect: Although a heterogeneous in-group discriminated more than a homogenous one, this difference was not significant. The manipulation of out-group homogeneity/heterogeneity had a much stronger effect: Although subjects discriminated significantly against a homogenous out-group, this discrimination disappeared when the out-group was heterogenous. The theoretical implications of the data are discussed.     

Holistic processing is tuned for in-group faces

Past research has found that mere in-group/out-group categorizations are sufficient to elicit biases in face memory. The current research yields novel evidence that mere social categorization is also sufficient to modulate processes underlying face perception, even for faces for which we have strong perceptual expertise: same-race (SR) faces. Using the composite face paradigm, we find that SR faces categorized as in-group members (i.e., fellow university students) are processed more holistically than are SR faces categorized as out-group members (i.e., students at another university). Hence, holding perceptual expertise with faces constant, categorizing an SR target as an out-group member debilitates the strong holistic processing typically observed for SR faces.     

Diversity in in-group bias: structural factors, situational features, and social functions

Four experiments addressed the different forms and functions of in-group bias in different contexts. The authors proposed 2 functions: an identity-expressive function and an instrumental function (or promotion of positive social change). The authors manipulated status differentials, the stability of these differences, and the communication context (intra- vs. intergroup) and measured in-group bias and both functions. As predicted, identity expression via in-group bias on symbolic measures was most important for stable, high-status groups. By contrast, material in-group bias for instrumental motives was most prevalent in unstable, low-status groups but only when communicating with in-group members. This latter effect illustrates the strategic adaptation of group behavior to audience (i.e., displaying in-group bias may provoke the out-group and be counterproductive in instrumental terms). Stable, low-status groups displayed more extreme forms of in-group bias for instrumental reasons regardless of communication context (i.e., they had nothing to lose). Results are discussed in terms of a contextual-functional approach to in-group bias.     

The Black-Sheep Effect: How Positive and Negative Advertisements Affect Voters' Perceptions of the Sponsor of the Advertisement1

Participants read a positive or negative (mock) political advertisement that was sponsored by either an in-group (subject and sponsor were members of the same political party) or an out-group (subject and sponsor were members of different political parties) member. The results found support for a black-sheep effect. An in-group sponsor of a positive advertisement was evaluated more positively than any out-group member, regardless of advertisement type, or an in-group member who sponsored a negative advertisement. However, an in-group sponsor of a negative advertisement was evaluated more negatively than either an in-group sponsor of a positive advertisement. or an out-group sponsor. regardless of advertisement type. The results are discussed in terms of social identity theory.     

Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability

The accuracy of in-group and out-group variability judgments was examined by comparing those judgments with the variability of self-ratings provided by random samples of group members. Following Park and Judd (1990), perceptions of both group dispersion and group stereotypicality were examined. Accuracy was examined both by within-subject sensitivity correlations and by simple discrepancies between perceived and actual variability estimates. In-group-out-group differences in sensitivity were shown, particularly for judgments of stereotypicality. These differences were related to differences in the degree to which out-group variability is underestimated relative to in-group variability (i.e., the out-group homogeneity effect). Out-group stereotypicality judgments were overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. Whether dispersion judgments were over- or underestimated depended on their measurement.     

Length of Group Membership, Assumed Similarity, and Opinion Certainty: The Dividend for Veteran Members

Newcomer and veteran fraternity members indicated their own attitudinal position on each of 10 issues and then estimated the positions of either prospective or full in-group members or they received no opportunity to project. All subjects then rated their certainty about their own position on each issue. As expected. both newcomers and veterans assumed greater attitudinal similarity to in-group members than to prospective members. Moreover, projection onto in-group members only increased the opinion certainty of veteran members. Their certainty correlated with the percentage of their friends who were in-group members. Newcomers' certainty increased only after projection onto the lower status recruits. Membership tenure and social identity are discussed in relation to attitudinal projection and the goals of social comparison.     

The emergence of ethnic and racial attitudes in preschool-aged children

The author assessed preschool-aged children's attitudes (N = 70) toward their own and 2 ethnic or racial out-groups using traditional forced-choice measures and a new method that assessed children's out-group attitudes independently of their attitudes toward their own group. When required to assign positive and negative traits to either their own group or an ethnic or racial out-group, children evaluated their own group favorably relative to the out-group in question. However, when not forced to choose between groups, children evaluated out-groups positively, indicating that own-group preference relative to ethnic and racial out-groups was not equated with out-group rejection. Children's positive out-group evaluations did vary with the out-group being considered and were reflective of the local social context, suggesting the influence of social learning. The results indicate that young children's positive feelings toward their own group do not necessarily involve or cause negative out-group attitudes and that various factors might differentially influence in-group and out-group attitudes.     

New knowledge for old credences: Asymmetric information search about in-group and out-group members

Three experiments examined how people gather information on in-group and out-group members. Previous studies have revealed that category-based expectancies bias the hypothesis-testing process towards confirmation through the use of asymmetric-confirming questions (which are queries where the replies supporting the prior expectancies are more informative than those falsifying them). However, to date there is no empirical investigation of the use of such a question-asking strategy in an intergroup context. In the present studies, participants were asked to produce (Study 1) or to choose (Studies 2 and 3) questions in order to investigate the presence of various traits in an in-group or an out-group member. Traits were manipulated by valence and typicality. The results revealed that category-based expectancies do not always lead to asymmetric-confirming testing: whereas participants tended to ask questions that confirmed positive in-group and negative out-group stereotypical attributes, they used a more symmetric strategy when testing for the presence of negative in-group or positive out-group traits. Moreover, Study 3 also revealed a moderation effect of in-group identification. The findings point to the role played by motivational factors associated with preserving a positive social identity. Possible consequences of these hypothesis-testing processes in preserving a positive social identity for intergroup relations are discussed.     

Upward Social Projection and Attitude Certainty

Predicting the attitudes of a powerful out-group can influence attitude strength and the perceived status of in-group members. American farmers indicated their own attitude positions on eight issues relevant to conflict with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and then estimated the positions either of their in-group, the EPA, a control out-group, or participated in a no-estimation control condition. The estimation of attitude disagreement with EPA agents elicited negative thoughts about their power and control which mediated a decrease in self-certainty. Assumed attitude contrast also diminished the perceived status of farmers. Discussion focuses on relational and instrumental sub-group connections.