Rights for me but not for thee: Restriction of human rights based on group membership and threat perceptions

Policies aimed at limiting border crossing and influencing other cultural values have been enacted domestically and internationally in the name of security. However, do these decisions concerning such tradeoffs resonate equally across all groups? In two studies, we probe the moderating impact of intergroup threat on the inclination to restrict human rights. In Study 1, we employ a unique economic tradeoff model to directly compare the value of security with the rights of either citizens or non-citizens. In Study 2, we broaden these findings by examining whether support for infringements on the right to privacy varies among diverse groups. Across both studies, our results consistently show that an increase in intergroup threat corresponds to heightened restriction of rights, but only when contemplating individuals who are not citizens, such as non-citizens, residents, or foreigners. We propose future research directions that include promoting the concept of a global community and exploring altruistic behaviours associated with rights protection.     

The unexpectedly positive consequences of confronting sexism

Majority-group members expect to dislike those who confront them for prejudiced behavior. Yet if majority-group members are susceptible to the same social constraints as minority-group members, then their public responses to confrontation should be similarly inhibited. A tempered response to confrontation could smooth a potentially problematic social interaction, thereby producing an outcome that is better than expected. Female confederates confronted men during an interpersonal interaction and then had a second conversation. When interpersonally confronted, men reported equally positive evaluations of a sexist and gender-neutral confronter and confrontational interaction. Additionally, after the sexist confrontation, men's compensatory efforts increased mutual liking and this mutual liking then reduced men's use of sexist language. Thus, social forces also constrain those who are confronted as prejudiced, thereby positively influencing intergroup relations.     

Choosing the best means to an end: The influence of ingroup goals on the selection of representatives in intergroup negotiations

According to Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead (2006), instrumental goals refer to the maximization of profit whereas identity goals are associated with the attainment of a positive social identity. In two experiments, we show that when negotiations are purely instrumental individuals prefer pro-outgroup deviants as representatives (Experiments 1 and 2). In contrast, when negotiations are identity-related, group members increase their preference for normative (Experiments 1 and 2) and pro-ingroup deviants (Experiment 1). Furthermore, these goals also impact perceptions of typicality of group members. Taken together, these results suggest strategic acceptance of deviance when the goal is to bring the other party to concede and increased preference for normativity when identity is the group's main preoccupation. We discuss implications of these results for research on negotiation as well as on the influence of the intergroup context on intragroup dynamics.     

Automatic and controlled cognitive responses to intergroup threat as assessed using the process dissociation procedure: a study of a low-status group from China

Xiang, L. & Zhao, Y. (2012). Automatic and controlled cognitive responses to intergroup threat as assessed using the process dissociation procedure: A study of a low-status group from China. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 53, 280-285. Explicit and implicit methods are typically employed to investigate the respective controlled and automatic cognitive responses to intergroup threat. However, these may not be "process pure" measures of automatic or controlled responses. The present study used the process dissociation procedure to investigate the relative contributions of automatic and controlled cognitive responses to intergroup threat. Following exposure to a threat/no threat manipulation, fifty Chinese rural undergraduates who were regarded as low-status group members completed a recognition memory task, in which they were asked to identify all or select "old" (previously presented) trait words relating to an urban outgroup. The results showed that compared to the non-threat group, when rural members perceived threat from an urban group, their automatic response was a decrease in favoritism for this outgroup, but was not derogative, whereas the controlled response was neither positive nor negative. These findings are inconsistent with previous research using explicit and implicit methods. The reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.     

Dual identities in intergroup contact: Group status and size moderate the generalization of positive attitude change

To explore the effects of various categorization strategies on intergroup bias within and beyond a contact situation, two experiments were conducted involving groups of different size and/or status that worked together on a cooperative task. Three categorization strategies (decategorization, recategorization, and dual identity) were compared, and bias was measured through symbolic reward allocations to people who were and were not actually encountered. In Experiment 1 (N = 129), we varied group size (minority or majority) and found that it affected bias within the contact situation—minority groups were more biased than majority groups. All of the categorization strategies limited bias and they did so equally well. Outside the contact situation, however, only the recategorization and dual identity strategies limited bias. In Experiment 2 (N = 156), we varied both group status (low or high) and group size. Both of these variables affected bias within the contact situation—high status groups were more biased than low status groups, and minority groups were again more biased than majority groups. Once again, all three categorization strategies limited bias and they did so equally well. Outside the contact situation, however, an interaction among the independent variables was observed. For minority groups, only the dual identity strategy limited bias, but none of the categorization strategies limited bias for majority groups.     

Embedding social dilemmas in intergroup competition reduces free-riding

We study a class of multi-level collective actions, in which each individual is simultaneously engaged in an intragroup conflict and intergroup competition. The intragroup conflict is modeled as an n-person Prisoner’s Dilemma game, in which the dominant strategy is to contribute nothing. The intergroup competition is for an exogenous and commonly known prize shared by members of the winning group. We focus on the effects on the level of contribution of the two most common sharing rules for dividing the prize, equal and proportional. Our results show that (1) embedding the intragroup conflict in intergroup competition markedly reduces free riding; (2) the proportional profit sharing rule significantly outperforms the egalitarian rule, and the difference between the two increases with experience; (3) under egalitarian but not under proportional sharing, there is over-contribution compared to theoretical predictions, and (4) a simple reinforcement-based learning model accounts for the aggregate results of all five experimental conditions.     

Entitativity and prejudice: Examining their relationship and the moderating effect of attitude certainty

Previous research suggests that perceived entitativity, which represents the degree to which groups are perceived to possess unity, coherence, and organization, predicts intergroup stereotyping and bias. The present research yielded complementary evidence that prejudice (toward Muslims in Study 1 and toward South Asians in Study 2) can also predict groups’ perceived entitativity. In particular, Study 1 found that the relationships of two predictors, intergroup contact and social dominance orientation, with perceived entitativity were mediated by prejudice. Study 2 demonstrated, as predicted, that this set of relationships occurred primarily for intergroup attitudes of relatively high certainty. Neither study found support for models in which entitativity mediated the relationships of the predictors with prejudice. Conceptual and analytical factors that may account for evidence of the potential bi-directionality of the bias-entitativity relationship are considered.     

Social antecedents of children's implicit prejudice: Direct contact,extended contact,explicit and implicit teachers' prejudice

Recent research has shown that children display implicit prejudice at least by age six (Baron & Banaji, 2006). In the present study, we investigated some potential antecedents of children's implicit intergroup attitudes: direct contact, extended contact, explicit and implicit racial attitudes of children's favourite teacher. Participants were Italian elementary school students. Results showed that, unexpectedly, direct contact increased negative implicit attitudes toward immigrants; extended contact reduced implicit prejudice only among those with less direct contact experiences. In addition, teachers' implicit (but not explicit) prejudice predicted children's implicit prejudice. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed, together with the importance of the social environment in the formation of children's implicit intergroup attitudes.     

Shame expressions reduce the recipient’s insult from outgroup reparations

Despite a growing literature on the consequences of group-based guilt and shame, little work has examined how expressions of self-conscious emotions are received by targets of collective wrongdoing. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that when an outgroup member offers apologies accompanied by reparations, the recipients are likely to take insult unless the outgroup member expresses the self-abasing emotion of shame rather than guilt. Experiment 1 showed that when reparations were offered, participants were less insulted by shame than guilt expressed by an outgroup member, rather than an ingroup member. Experiment 2 improved Experiment 1 by manipulating the culprit’s action (reparation vs. withdrawal), and this experiment replicated Experiment 1’s interaction on a measure of insult, but only when reparations were offered. These interactions on insult were not explained by the emotion’s perceived intensity or surprisingness. Our results indicate a possible functional aspect of expressions of shame in an intergroup context. Self-abasement, as opposed to a mere admission of culpability and regret, can reduce the insult taken from an outgroup’s reparations.