The Impact of Group Norms and Generalization of Risks across Groups on Judgments of War Behavior

This paper investigates the effects of war experiences across three different levels (individuals, groups, and contexts) on moral judgments related to violations of humanitarian norms. Competing hypotheses derived from different theoretical perspectives are empirically evaluated. Social psychological studies of war traditionally highlight a reversal of morality and group norms justifying violence against outgroups. Rationalistic models insist on the importance of realistic costs on the choice of individuals. As a complement to these traditions, we suggest that situations in which risks are generalized across group boundaries tend to provoke a strengthening of principles, such as humanitarian norms, that enable the protection of the material and symbolic integrity of a community. Multilevel analyses of the international People on War survey dataset (N = 8,121) show that support for the ingroup's struggle, at both individual and group levels, predicts stronger justification of violence. Simultaneously, at the context level, generalization of war‐related risks predicts stronger condemnation of violations of humanitarian principles. These findings are consistent with a collective vulnerability model and, only in part, with the intractable conflict model.     

Towards tolerance: Representations of superordinate categories and perceived ingroup prototypicality

According to Mummendey and Wenzel (1999), group members tend to perceive their ingroup, relative to an outgroup, as more prototypical of the superordinate category encompassing both groups. Hence, they tend to regard the outgroup as deviating from the norms of the superordinate category. Factors that inhibit perception of relative ingroup prototypicality should thus promote intergroup tolerance. In two experiments, the representation of the superordinate category was manipulated. Both an undefinable prototype (Experiment 1; N=63) and a complex representation (Experiment 2; N=88) led to a decrease in relative ingroup prototypicality. Dual identification with the ingroup and the superordinate category increased relative ingroup prototypicality, which was negatively correlated with positive attitudes towards the outgroup. The findings supported Mummendey and Wenzel’s assumptions about the conditions that lead to intergroup tolerance.     

Negative incidental affect and mood congruency in crossed categorization

Examined the effects of incidental sadness and anger on affiliative responses to crossed categorization targets. Affect manipulations included an anger-provoking frustration (Study 1), a sad film clip (Study 2), and autobiographical essays about sad or anger-provoking topics (Studies 3 and 4). By comparison with a neutral mood, anger (Study 1) reduced affiliative tendencies toward persons possessing an out-group membership but not toward those possessing only in-group memberships. Study 2 showed a similar pattern for sadness. Studies 3 and 4 replicated these effects in designs including both types of negative mood. Meta-analytic integration showed the pattern of greater rejection of targets with an out-group membership to be stronger under anger than sadness. Study 4 also showed that despite yielding a consistent pattern for affiliation, sadness and anger differentially elicited aggressive tendencies toward the same targets.     

Specific emotions as mediators of the effect of intergroup contact on prejudice: findings across multiple participant and target groups

Emotions are increasingly being recognised as important aspects of prejudice and intergroup behaviour. Specifically, emotional mediators play a key role in the process by which intergroup contact reduces prejudice towards outgroups. However, which particular emotions are most important for prejudice reduction, as well as the consistency and generality of emotion–prejudice relations across different in-group–out-group relations, remain uncertain. To address these issues, in Study 1 we examined six distinct positive and negative emotions as mediators of the contact–prejudice relations using representative samples of U.S. White, Black, and Asian American respondents (N?=?639). Admiration and anger (but not other emotions) were significant mediators of the effects of previous contact on prejudice, consistently across different perceiver and target ethnic groups. Study 2 examined the same relations with student participants and gay men as the out-group. Admiration and disgust mediated the effect of past contact on attitude. The findings confirm that not only negative emotions (anger or disgust, based on the specific types of threat perceived to be posed by an out-group), but also positive, status- and esteem-related emotions (admiration) mediate effects of contact on prejudice, robustly across several different respondent and target groups.     

The pathway to accepting derogatory ingroup norms: The roles of compartmentalization and legitimacy

ObjectivesThe current experiment was conducted among ice hockey fans, and brings together theories of intergroup relations and self and identity literature. It investigated if perceiving strong norms in favor of derogating against fans of outgroup teams, and engaging in these behaviors oneself, leads to an increased compartmentalization of these behaviors (i.e., such that they are restricted to a particular compartment within the self). This association was expected to be especially strong when derogatory behaviors are portrayed as illegitimate. We also explored whether this compartmentalization then flows on to vitality as a well-being indicator.Method and designIce hockey fans supporting a diversity of NHL teams were recruited (N = 116). The legitimacy of the derogatory behaviors was manipulated by making salient either: that these behaviors have harmful consequences for outgroup members (illegitimate condition) vs. that such behaviors can benefit the ingroup (legitimate condition).ResultsThe expected mediated model was supported among the entire sample. The association between engaging in the derogatory behaviors and their compartmentalization in the self was also moderated by the experimental manipulation: While participants in the illegitimate condition reported a positive link between engaging in these behaviors and their compartmentalization, participants in the legitimate condition did not show a significant association between these variables, suggesting no need for them to restrict these behaviors within themselves.ConclusionsResults are discussed in light of normative approaches, intergroup theories, and the self.     

An angry = Outgroup effect

When are intergroup biases learned responses to specific social groups, and when are they the result of more general cognitive tendencies? This study investigates this question in the context of the tendency for White Americans to be influenced by angry facial affect when making racial categorizations (Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2004), asking whether this same tendency occurs when the groups in question are not racial groups but rather arbitrarily assigned minimal social groups. Results show that while participants are more likely to categorize angry faces as belonging to a racial outgroup, they are equally likely to categorize angry faces as belonging to a minimal outgroup. Thus, the link between anger and group membership cannot be characterized as a learned link between race and affect, but rather must be attributed to a more general intergroup processes. By contrast, implicit attitudes are considerably stronger for racial than minimal outgroups, suggesting a more central role for social learning in their emergence.     

Evidence for the regulatory function of intergroup emotion: Emotional consequences of implemented or impeded intergroup action tendencies

If intergroup emotions are functional, successfully implementing an emotion-linked behavioral tendency should discharge the emotion, whereas impeding the behavioral tendency should intensify the emotion. We investigated the emotional consequences of satisfying or thwarting emotionally induced intergroup behavioral intentions. Study 1 showed that if an attack on the ingroup produced anger, retaliation increased satisfaction, but if an attack produced fear, retaliation increased fear and guilt. Study 2 showed that outgroup-directed anger instigated via group insult dissipated when the ingroup successfully responded, but was exacerbated by an unsuccessful response. Responding in an emotionally appropriate way was satisfying, but ingroup failure to respond elicited anger directed at the ingroup. Study 3 showed that intergroup guilt following aggression was diminished when the ingroup made reparations, but was exacerbated when the ingroup aggressed again. Satisfying behavioral intentions associated with intergroup emotions fulfills a regulatory function.     

Effects of social identity salience on motivational orientation and conflict strategies in intergenerational conflict

With the upsurge of older adults still working, the labour force is becoming increasingly diverse in age. Age diversity in an organisation can increase the likelihood of intergenerational conflict. The present study aims to integrate the dual concern model and social identity theory to explain the underlying mechanisms of intergenerational conflict by examining the effects of social identity salience on motivational orientation and conflict strategies. A 2 (subgroup identity salience: low vs. high younger/older group membership) × 2 (superordinate identity salience: low vs. high organisational group membership) factorial design with a structured questionnaire on motivational orientation and conflict strategies in relation to a hypothetical work conflict scenario was implemented among 220 postgraduate university students in Hong Kong. Results revealed that subgroup and superordinate identities had a combined influence on conflict strategies but not in motivational orientation. Subgroup and superordinate identification promoted integrating and compromising strategies, superordinate identification promoted obliging strategy, subgroup identification promoted dominating strategy and no identification promoted avoiding strategy. Age did not moderate these relationships. This study contributes to the development of the integrated model of conflict.     

Racial allyship: Novel measurement and new insights

Allies are members of an ingroup who work toward fairness for people in an outgroup. Ally behaviors include calling out discrimination and fighting for inclusion of outgroup members, and it includes public and private behaviors. As such, White allies can be an important means of reducing racism against people of color. There are few means of assessing and quantifying allyship in ingroup members, and as such, there is a need for methods for assessing allyship that can be used to better understand characteristics of allies and determine if interventions designed to reduce prejudice can improve allyship. To that end we describe an innovative scenario-based measurement technique to quantify interpersonal allyship, with White students as ingroup members (N = 987) and Black students as outgroup members (N = 61). Measurement of allyship is conducted based on participant responses to hypothetical racially-sensitive scenarios where microaggressions are occurring or likely to occur. Items were developed based focus group input, and rated by diversity experts for relevance. The factor structure of allyship items was examined by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The final 10-item Interpersonal Racial Allyship Scale (IRAS) was negatively correlated to 3 measures of racist attitudes and 1 measure of microaggressive behaviors, and it was positively correlated to 2 measures of outgroup liking. It also predicted making racially supportive statements in a laboratory task. We report on characteristics of allies, noting that allied behaviors are correlated with less prejudice, stronger positive feelings toward outgroup members, and a greater likelihood of having other marginalized identities. Implications of findings and applications of the scale are discussed.     

Does parochial cooperation exist in childhood and adolescence? A meta-analysis

Although previous meta-analytic evidence supports the existence of parochialism in cooperation among adults, the extent to which children and adolescents are more willing to incur a personal cost to benefit ingroups, compared to outgroups, is not yet clear. We provide the first meta-analysis on the existence and magnitude of parochialism in cooperation among pre-adults. Based on 20 experimental economics studies (k = 69, N = 5268, age = 3–19, 12 countries, published 2008–2019), a multilevel meta-analytic model revealed a small overall effect size indicating that children and adolescents were more cooperative towards ingroups (d = 0.22, 95% CI [0.07, 0.38]). A series of single-moderator analyses tested for the following conditions: participant age and sex; game type ([mini-]dictator game, prisoner's dilemma, public goods dilemma, trust game, ultimatum game); outcome interdependence; membership manipulation (between- vs. within-subjects); group type (natural vs. experimental); reward type (monetary vs. non-monetary); and country of the participant. Parochial cooperation did not vary with participants' age. Parochialism was larger in non-interdependent (dictator-type) compared to interdependent (bargaining and social dilemma) games. There were no moderating effects of group type, membership manipulation or reward type. To provide more data on how parochialism develops, primary studies should report age ranges more precisely and use more restricted age groups.