Older but wilier: In-group accountability and the development of subjective group dynamics.

To test social and cognitive variables that may affect the development of subjective group dynamics, the authors had 224 children between the ages of 5 and 12 years evaluate an in-group and an out-group and normative and deviant in-group members under conditions of high or low accountability to in-group peers. In-group bias and relative favorability to normative versus deviant in-group members (differential evaluation) increased when children were accountable to peers and as a function of perceptions of peer group acceptance of these members (differential inclusion). These effects were significantly larger among older children. Multiple classification ability was unrelated to judgments of group members. This study shows that the development of subjective group dynamics involves an increase in sensitivity to the normative aspects of the intergroup context. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-evaluation effects of interpersonal versus intergroup social comparison.

Two studies tested the prediction that the outcome of social comparison will differ depending on whether interpersonal or intergroup comparison processes have been engaged. Results of an experiment in which college students were assigned to membership in a minority or majority social category confirmed the predicted 3-way interaction effect of in-group salience, target group membership, and upward–downward comparison on self-assessments of academic ability. Majority group members exhibited contrast effects in their self-ratings following exposure to a videotape of an in-group member displaying either very high or very low academic competence. Self-evaluations of minority group members revealed assimilation effects in response to in-group comparisons and contrast effects in response to out-group comparisons. In a 2nd follow-up experiment, this in-group assimilation effect was found to be dependent on intergroup contrast. (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)     

White fears and native apprehensions: An integrated threat theory approach to intergroup attitudes.

Motivational and cognitive factors have been used to explain negative attitudes toward out-group members. According to the integrated threat theory of prejudice, negative intergroup attitudes are predicted by proximal factors consisting of perceived threats from out-group members; these threats, in turn, are predicted by distal factors such as perceived differences in group status or negative out-group contact. In the present study, White and First Nation people (adolescents and adults) completed measures assessing distal and proximal variables and attitudes toward members of the other ethnic group. Path analyses indicate that realistic and symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes predicted negative out-group attitudes. Many of these threats, and in some cases ethnic attitudes, were associated with negative intergroup contact, strength of in-group identity, perceptions of intergroup conflict, and perceived status inequality. Theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Group norms and attitude–behavior consistency: The role of group salience and mood.

This study tested the social identity–self-categorization theory reconceptualization of the role of norms in attitude–behavior relations. Specifically, the study investigated how the effects of in-group norms on the relationship between people's attitudes and their behavior vary as a function of the salience of group membership and mood. Participants' (N?=?131) attitudes toward students being responsible for picking up litter on campus grounds were examined. As expected, the effects of the attitudinal congruency of norms varied as a function of group salience under neutral mood (i.e., deliberative processing) conditions. In-group norms were more influential for high-salience individuals than for low salience individuals in a neutral mood. These findings indicate that in-group norms influence behavioral decision making for individuals high in group salience only when there is an opportunity to carefully process the normative information. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups.

Participants evaluated other individuals who deviated in either an anti- or pro-normative direction relative to normative members. In Study 1, in-group gender-normative members were rated more positively than deviant members. The pro-norm deviant was viewed as more attractive than the anti-norm deviant. In Study 2 anti-norm in-group deviants were evaluated more negatively than anti-norm out-group deviants even though both held identical attitudes. In both studies, despite objective equivalence, pro-norm deviance was perceived as less "atypical" than anti-norm deviance. Judgments and reactions to deviance depend on group membership and the direction of deviance, not just its magnitude. Evaluations of deviants are also related to perceivers' identification with their own group. These findings are consistent with our model of subjective group dynamics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Moral identity and the expanding circle of moral regard toward out-groups.

This article examines moral identity and reactions to out-groups during intergroup conflict. Four studies suggest that a highly self-important moral identity is associated with an expansive circle of moral regard toward out-group members (Study 1) and more favorable attitudes toward relief efforts to aid out-group members (Study 2). Study 3 examines moral identity and national identity influences on the provision of financial assistance to out-groups. Study 4 investigates the relationship between moral identity and (a) the willingness to harm innocent out-group members not involved in the conflict and (b) moral judgments of revenge and forgiveness toward out-group members directly responsible for transgressions against the in-group. Results are discussed in terms of self-regulatory mechanisms that mitigate in-group favoritism and out-group hostility. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intergroup norms and intergroup discrimination: Distinctive self-categorization and social identity effects.

Manipulation of in-group and out-group norms of discrimination and fairness allowed for the operation of competing social identity principles concerning in-group bias, conformity, and group distinctiveness. The combined effects of these principles on in-group bias were first examined in a modified minimal-group setting (Study 1). Results demonstrated that participants' allocation strategies were in accord with the in-group norm. Furthermore, dissimilar norms resulted in greater use of positive differentiation allocation strategies. However, in natural groups (Study 2), more in-group bias was found when both group norms were similar and discriminatory. The results confirm the importance of in-group norms and demonstrate differences between experimental and natural groups in the applicability of competing social identity and self-categorization principles. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intergroup perception in naturally occurring groups of differential status: A social relations perspective.

This study investigated intergroup perception in well-acquainted groups. Also of interest were the effects of a naturally occurring status differential on these perceptions. The study is framed within the social relations model, which provided a measure of in-group bias as well as 3 innovative measures of out-group homogeneity. Results indicated that low-status groups consistently displayed out-group favoritism. High-status groups displayed in-group bias, but only on ratings of leadership ability. The results also provided consistent evidence of out-group homogeneity. In instances when group status moderated out-group homogeneity effects, members of the high-status groups perceived their in-group as more variable than the out-group, whereas members of the low-status groups tended to see the in-group and out-group as equally variable. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined.

The authors predicted that derogation of group deviants depends on the extent to which in-group norms or values are validated or undermined in a social context. In Experiment 1 participants were less tolerant and derogated in-group deviants more when other in-group members opposed the norm. In Experiment 2 participants derogated in-group deviants more than out-group deviants and than noncategorized individuals, but only when normative in-group members lacked uniformity. In Experiment 3 participants derogated in-group deviants more when there was uncertainty about in-group superiority. These results are consistent with previous research on the black sheep effect (J. M. Marques, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & J. -P. Leyens, 1998) and with the model of subjective group dynamics (D. Abrams, J. M. Marques, N. J. Bown, & M. Henson, 2000; J. M. Marques, D. Abrams, D. Paez, & C. Martinez-Taboada, 1998). (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)     

Ethnic Group Identification and Group Evaluation Among Minority and Majority Groups: Testing the Multiculturalism Hypothesis.

Following social identity theory, the author hypothesized that members of minority groups are more likely than majority group members to endorse multiculturalism more strongly and assimilationist thinking less strongly. In addition, the multiculturalism hypothesis proposes that the more minority groups endorse the ideology of multiculturalism (or assimilationism), the more (or less) likely they will be to identify with their ethnic in-group and to show positive in-group evaluation. In contrast, the more majority group members endorse multiculturalism (or assimilationism), the less (or more) likely they are to identify with their ethnic group and to show negative out-group evaluation. Results from 4 studies (correlational and experimental) provide support for this hypothesis among Dutch and Turkish participants living in the Netherlands. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains.

This article argues that in-group favoritism occurs on positive and negative dimensions only when the dimensions of comparison provide an appropriate and meaningful basis for self–other definition, that is, when traits comparatively and normatively fit in-group–out-group categorizations. Three studies are reported in which groups were evaluated on positive or negative traits that varied in their degree of normative fit to in-group and out-group identity. In line with predictions, fit rather than stimulus valence was the crucial determinant of (1) in-group favoritism and (2) absolute level of differentiation between groups. Implications of the findings for explanations of positive–negative asymmetry and broader understandings of intergroup discrimination are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context.

Three studies tested the idea that when social identity is salient, group-based appraisals elicit specific emotions and action tendencies toward out-groups. Participants' group memberships were made salient and the collective support apparently enjoyed by the in-group was measured or manipulated. The authors then measured anger and fear (Studies 1 and 2) and anger and contempt (Study 3), as well as the desire to move against or away from the out-group. Intergroup anger was distinct from intergroup fear, and the inclination to act against the out-group was distinct from the tendency to move away from it. Participants who perceived the in-group as strong were more likely to experience anger toward the out-group and to desire to take action against it. The effects of perceived in-group strength on offensive action tendencies were mediated by anger. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 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)     

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)     

The effect of difference oriented communication on the subjective validity of an in-group norm: Doc can treat the group.

The subjective group dynamics model predicts that in-group deviants who violate in-group norms that differentiate between the in-group and the out-group threaten the in-group's public image and its sense of validity. Previous research has shown that, to reduce this threat, group members attempt to symbolically marginalize in-group deviants through negative evaluation. In the current study (N = 107), the effect of another form of symbolic marginalization (difference oriented communication) is investigated. The findings support the subjective group dynamics model by showing that group members whose communications to deviants highlighted differences experienced a subsequent increase in subjective validity of in-group norms. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice.

The extended contact hypothesis proposes that knowledge that an in-group member has a close relationship with an out-group member can lead to more positive intergroup attitudes. Proposed mechanisms are the in-group or out-group member serving as positive exemplars and the inclusion of the out-group member's group membership in the self. In Studies 1 and 2, respondents knowing an in-group member with an out-group friend had less negative attitudes toward that out-group, even controlling for dispositional variables and direct out-group friendships. Study 3, with constructed intergroup-conflict situations (on the robbers cave model), found reduced negative out-group attitudes after participants learned of cross-group friendships. Study 4, a minimal group experiment, showed less negative out-group attitudes for participants observing an apparent in-group–out-group friendship. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perceived intragroup homogeneity in minority-majority contexts.

Examined how the factors relative in-group size and relative outgroup size (i.e., minority vs. nonminority) affect the perception of in-group and out-group homogeneity. On the basis of social identity theory, we hypothesized that (a) members of minorities would perceive the in-group as more homogeneous than the out-group, whereas members of nonminorities would perceive the reverse; (b) this effect would be strongest on dimensions most strongly correlated with the social categorization; and (c) members of minorities would identify more strongly with their in-group than would members of nonminorities. 192 13–15 yr olds participated in the experiment. On the presumed basis of a perceptual task, approximately half were randomly allocated to minimal social categories, which differed in perceived size relative to an out-group (which also differed in perceived size). They were asked to estimate the homogeneity of the two groups on a number of dimensional attributes. The remaining (control) subjects gave similar estimates under identical conditions, except that they were not allocated to a category. The data confirmed all but the second hypothesis, which was only partially supported. The results were interpreted in terms of social identification processed. Results tend to rule out alternative explanations in terms of an inverse relation between group size and perceived group homogeneity, rating extremity, and in-group favoritism. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)