Group Cohesion, Attitude Projection, and Opinion Certainty: Beyond Interaction.

This experiment investigated the effects of group cohesiveness and estimations of consensus on opinion certainty. Members of high- or low-cohesive groups indicated their own attitude positions on 6 civic issues in a context removed from the task-oriented situation in which the groups were developed. Each person then estimated the positions of in-group or out-group members or participated in a no-projection control condition. As expected, estimation of the attitudes of either target group conferred opinion certainty onto cohesive members compared with levels found in the no-projection condition or among low-cohesive participants. Furthermore, perceptions that coworker input was facilitated and encouraged during group development mediated the effect of the experimental manipulation of cohesion on opinion certainty following attitude projection. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Role of out-group cues in determining social identity.

Examined the role of out-group cues in determining social identity and guiding behavior in 2 experiments with 131 undergraduates. In Exp I, Ss were exposed to a cue either of an in-group (Ss' college), a relevant out-group (a rival college), or an irrelevant out-group (a baseball team). Ss examined a list of words and were later asked to recognize those they had seen from a larger list in which words related to the 3 groups were embedded. Results indicate that Ss made more false recognitions of in-group related words when a relevant out-group was salient than when an irrelevant out-group was salient. Exp II tested a behavioral implication of Exp I: Out-group salience increases adherence to an in-group norm. In the 1st phase of Exp II, Ss were divided into 2 groups and deliberated 2 civil suits. Ss' in-group favored the plaintiffs for both cases. Ss were divided into new groups for the 2nd phase, and the same procedure was followed. This time, however, the in-group favored the defendants. In the 3rd phase, Ss were exposed to a cue either of the out-group in Phase 1 or Phase 2. Ss' judgments for 2 new cases were biased in the direction of the norm of the in-group that was associated with the salient out-group. Ss favored the plaintiff (or defendant) when the 1st (or 2nd) out-group was salient. (14 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reactions to intergroup similarity: Examination of the similarity-differentiation and the similarity-attraction hypotheses.

Hypothesized that intergroup similarity results in in-group–out-group differentiation rather than intergroup attraction, particularly when social identity is threatened. 66 female and 79 male undergraduates who had expressed their support for 2 issues relating to the equality of men and women were run in 28 pairs of opposite-sex groups. Each pair developed a written position on one of these issues. Intergroup belief similarity was manipulated using false feedback. Each group was led to believe that the other group affirmed or denied that the issue was of importance. The evidence did not support the similarity–differentiation hypothesis; rather, the similarity–attraction hypothesis was supported, particularly for female groups. Groups differentiated the out-group from their own group along stereotype and attitude dimensions in response to threat to social identity. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Processing of persuasive in-group messages.

Two studies investigated the processes mediating the persuasive impact of messages representing in-group opinions. In the 1st study, Ss read either a strong or a weak message attributed to either an in-group member or to another group. Ss were more persuaded by a strong message from the in-group than a weak one, suggesting content-focused processing of the in-group message. Ss were equally unpersuaded by either a strong or a weak message from the other group, and showed little sign of message processing. In the 2nd study, Ss listened to in-group or other-group messages about issues that varied in their relevance to in-group membership. When the issue was relevant to the in-group, Ss were persuaded by a strong message from the in-group, unpersuaded by a weak message from the in-group, and equally unimpressed by strong and weak messages from the other group. When the issue was irrelevant to the in-group, Ss accepted the position advocated by the in-group regardless of message quality, and again ignored messages from the other group. These results suggest that increased message processing, and not merely the impact of source persuasion cues, can underlie in-group-mediated attitude change. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Big fish in small ponds: a social hierarchy analysis of intergroup bias

High- and low-self-esteem group members received feedback about their individual performance as well as that of their own group and an out-group. They then evaluated both groups. Yoked-control observer individuals also provided group evaluations. In the in-group success/out-group failure condition, in-group enhancement tendencies were attenuated by individual failure feedback and augmented by individual success feedback. Low-self-esteem group members who received individual failure feedback showed favoritism toward the unsuccessful out-group over their own successful in-group. In the in-group failure/out-group success condition, in-group enhancement tendencies were attenuated by individual success feedback and augmented by individual failure feedback. Thus individuals' position in a social hierarchy mediates upward and downward social mobility strategies.     

Repulsion or attraction?: Group membership and assumed attitude similarity.

Three studies investigated group membership effects on similarity-attraction and dissimilarity-repulsion. Membership in an in-group versus out-group was expected to create initially different levels of assumed attitude similarity. In 3 studies, ratings made after participants learned about the target's attitudes were compared with initial attraction based only on knowing target's group membership. Group membership was based on political affiliation in Study I and on sexual orientation in Study 2. Study 3 crossed political affiliation with target's obnoxiousness. Attitude dissimilarity produced stronger repulsion effects for in-group than for out-group members in all studies. Attitude similarity produced greater increments in attraction for political out-group members but not for targets with a stigmatic sexual orientation or personality characteristic. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members.

Explored the hypothesis that in-group members perceive their own group as more variegated and complex than do out-group members (the out-group homogeneity principle). In Exps I and II, 168 men and 171 women estimated the proportion of men or women who would endorse a variety of personality/attitude items that varied on stereotypic meaning (masculinity–femininity) and social desirability (favorable–unfavorable). It was predicted and found that out-group members viewed a group as endorsing more stereotypic and fewer counterstereotypic items than did in-group members. Findings are interpreted as support for the out-group homogeneity principle, and it is argued that since this effect was general across items varying in social desirability, the phenomenon was independent of traditional ethnocentrism effects. Exp III asked 90 members of 3 campus sororities to judge the degree of intragroup similarity for their own and 2 other groups. Again, each group judged its own members to be more dissimilar to one another than did out-group judges. In Exp IV, a theory was proposed suggesting that different "levels of social categorization" are used to encode in- and out-group members' behavior and that this process could account for the perception of out-group homogeneity. It was predicted and found that 109 men and 131 women were more likely to remember the subordinate attributes of an in- than out-group member, which provides some evidence for the theoretical model. (26 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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 1 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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis.

Experimental research on intergroup discrimination in favor of one's own group is reviewed in terms of the basis of differentiation between in-group and out-group and in terms of the response measure on which in-group bias is assessed. Results of the research reviewed suggest that (a) factors such as intergroup competition, similarity, and status differentials affect in-group bias indirectly by influencing the salience of distinctions between in-group and out-group, (b) the degree of intergroup differentiation on a particular response dimension is a joint function of the relevance of intergroup distinctions and the favorableness of the in-group's position on that dimension, and (c) the enhancement of in-group bias is more related to increased favoritism toward in-group members than to increased hostility toward out-group members. Implications of these results for positive applications of group identification (e.g., a shift of in-group bias research from inter- to intragroup contexts) are discussed. (67 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The role of integral affect and category relevance on crossed categorization.

The authors investigated integral affect effects (insults or compliments from out-group members) on evaluations of crossed-categorization targets (in-group/in-group, in-group/out-group, out-group/in-group (Oi), and out-group/out-group) as discussion partners. The Oi target possessed a category membership that matched the out-group source of affect. The relevance of this category to participants’ own category membership determined the evaluation patterns. As predicted, negative affect lowered evaluations of targets with group memberships relevant to those of the insulting out-group members (Study 1). Positive affect primed the positive aspects of in-group memberships, leading to broader, more inclusive categorizations of targets irrespective of their relevance to the affective source (Study 2). Evaluation patterns across targets also confirmed predictions, with negative and positive affect respectively producing hierarchical and social inclusion patterns. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-definition, defensive processing, and influence: The normative impact of majority and minority groups.

Past research has found that recipients agree with majority group positions and resist minority group positions on direct measures of influence. The authors suggest that these attitude shifts reflect normative pressures to align with valued majorities and to differentiate from derogated minorities. In support of this idea, participants who considered a majority group relevant to their own self-definitions (but not those who judged it irrelevant), on learning that the group held a counterattitudinal position, shifted their attitudes to agree with the source. In a second study, recipients who judged a minority group (negatively) self-relevant, on learning that the group held a similar attitude to their own, shifted their attitudes to diverge from the source. These shifts in attitudes were based on participants' interpretations of the attitude issues. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behavior.

Three experiments with 91 college students examined the effects of social categorization on memory for behaviors associated with in-group and out-group members. In Exp I, it was predicted and found that social categorization generates the implicit expectancy that the in-group engages in more favorable and/or less unfavorable behaviors than does the out-group. To test the hypothesis that such expectancies bias memory for behaviors associated with in-groups and out-groups, Ss in Exp II were given favorable and unfavorable information about in-group and out-group members and were later tested for recognition memory. Ss showed significantly better memory for negative out-group than for negative in-group behaviors. Exp III assessed the locus of the memory effect and found that the effect could not be attributed to a simple response bias. Implications for intergroup perception are discussed. (17 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social identification effects in group polarization.

Tested a model of group polarization derived from social identity theory, proposing that if group members conform to group norms, attitude polarization could occur only if group members perceive those norms as more extreme than they "objectively" are. In Exp I, 60 undergraduates perceived attitude-relevant information attributed to speakers who were categorized as a group as representing a more extreme position of the issue than when the same information was attributed to noncategorized individuals. Attitude polarization occurred when Ss believed the information came from their in-group. As predicted, this polarization resulted from Ss' adoption of the "extremitized" in-group norm. In Exp II, categorization was manipulated by focusing 42 Ss on their group performance or on their individual performance. When Ss were focused on their group membership, group norms were perceived as more extreme, and attitude polarization due to conformity to these extremitized norms occurred. When Ss were focused on their individual performance, no extremitization occurred, and attitudes shifted to a more neutral position on the issue. (34 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

The view from below: Intergroup relations from the perspective of the disadvantaged group.

This study examined how disadvantaged group members perceive and respond to members of a disadvantaged out-group and an advantaged out-group. Three experiments revealed that a disadvantaged out-group was harmed more and seen as more homogeneous when its own performance was similar to or better than the in-group, and when it was in the presence of an advantaged out-group that performed similar to or better than the in-group. Conversely, an advantaged group was harmed more and seen as more homogeneous when its own performance was worse than the in-group, and when it was in the presence of a disadvantaged out-group that performed worse than the in-group. The results were interpreted in a social comparison framework, suggesting that responses to outgroups are influenced by their status and performance as well as the performance of other out-groups in the situation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the out-group.

Several studies have found that the mere categorization of persons into groups is sufficient to promote intergroup discrimination. Out-group members may be convenient targets of bias because they are more deindividuated than in-group members. If so, then intergroup discrimination may be lessened through individuation of the out-group. In the 1st experiment, 72 undergraduates were divided into groups and were informed that the out-group was either unanimous in its behavior or that one member dissented from the majority. Typical levels of intergroup bias were found in the unanimous condition, but Ss did not discriminate against the out-group when an out-group member dissented. These findings were corroborated and extended in 2 subsequent experiments with 225 Ss. Ss requested assistance from an out-group that had previously frustrated them. Assistance from the out-group was found to be more effective in reducing intergroup bias when the out-group responded as individuals than when it responded as a group. Overall, results indicate that intergroup bias is related to the manner in which persons cognitively structure the out-group. Ss discriminated when the out-group was perceived to be a single entity but behaved more fairly when the out-group was more individuated. (24 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Liking and loaning.

Hypothesized that the amount of money approved for a loan applicant is a positive function of attitude similarity. 53 graduate business students were given relevant financial information concerning a loan applicant and irrelevant attitude information on 8 topics. Ss were then asked to indicate the amount of money to be approved for the applicant's loan. Analysis of variance indicated that proportion of similar attitudes influenced attraction toward the applicant (p     

Cognitive dissonance in an intergroup context.

42 student members of a campus group supporting Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential election participated in a study of the effects of group membership on dissonance reduction. In a 2?×?2 factorial design, half of the Ss were asked to write arguments contrary to their attitudes, whereas the other half were required to write such arguments. Half of the Ss were then asked to advocate a position that was counter to the attitude that defined their membership in the group. The other half produced arguments that were counter to attitudes relevant to but not definitional of group membership. It was predicted that attitude change would be used as a way to reduce dissonance only by those Ss who freely wrote arguments counter to nondefinitional attitudes. Attitude change was not possible, however, for Ss who freely produced arguments counter to a definitional attitude; these Ss were expected to misattribute their arousal to the existence of a competing out-group and to reduce their dissonance by derogating that group. Results supported these predictions. The importance of group membership in affecting attitude change is discussed. (10 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The impact of cultural collectivism on reward allocation.

Two studies, with 224 American and 240 Chinese university students, tested the idea that the collectivism of a culture leads to different styles of reward allocation with in- and out-group members. The 1st study used an out-group situation, in which Ss were led to believe that they worked with a partner whom they would not meet, to obtain a group reward. The collectivistic Chinese Ss were found to follow the equity norm more closely in dividing the group reward than the individualistic American Ss when pressure of social evaluation was removed. In the 2nd study, Ss read a scenario in which an allocator worked with either an in- or out-group member. The allocator had either a low or high input and used either the equity or equality norm to divide a group reward. Compared with American Ss, Chinese Ss liked an allocator who divided the group reward equally with an in-group member more and regarded such an allocation as fairer. When Ss were asked to assume that they were the allocator and to hypothetically divide the reward, Chinese Ss followed the equity norm more closely than did American Ss when the recipient was an out-group member or when the Ss' input was low. However, when Ss' input was high and the recipient was an in-group member, Chinese Ss followed the equality norm more than did American Ss. Findings are discussed in terms of the desire for maintaining group solidarity in a collectivist culture. (42 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social categorization and the assimilation of "new" group members.

50 male and 50 female undergraduates were divided into 5-member same-sex discussion groups that met once a week for 3 wks to discuss topical issues. Within each group, 2 randomly selected experimental Ss were told that they were newcomers entering a long-standing group. The 3 remaining control Ss received no such information and instead believed (correctly) that everyone was new to the group. The experimental Ss exhibited strong in-group/out-group biases as a result of their categorization. These affective, cognitive, and behavioral biases were strongest during the 1st group meeting, then weakened over time as the distinction between new and old members became less salient. No similar biases were exhibited by controls. Results suggest that social categorization plays an important role in the assimilation of new group members. (67 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)