Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups.

Five aspects of the complexity of the knowledge representation of business and engineering majors were examined to see whether these differed by group memberships and whether these differences were related to differences in perceived variability. Significantly more subgroups were generated when describing the in-group than the out-group; this difference predicted the relative tendency to see the in-group as more variable, and when controlled for statistically, out-group homogeneity effects were eliminated. Familiarity, redundancy, number of attributes used to describe the group, and the deviance of the subgroups from the larger group generally showed differences for in-group and out-group but did not show consistent evidence of mediation. In a 2nd study, Ss who were asked to sort group members into meaningful subgroups perceived greater variability relative to those who did not perform the sorting task. (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)     

The role of categorization and in-group norms in judgments of groups and their members.

Four minimal group experiments tested the prediction that judgments of groups and their members reflect evaluations made simultaneously but independently at the within-group and intergroup levels. On the basis of self-categorization theory and social identity theory, it was predicted that group members seek both intergroup distinctiveness and legitimization of in-group norms. In Experiments 1–3, membership (in-group, out-group), status of group members (modal, deviant), and either accountability to in-group or to out-group or salience of group norms were varied. Accountability and norm salience increased derogation of out-group normative (in-group deviant, out-group modal) and upgrading of in-group normative (in-group modal, out-group deviant) members. In Experiment 4, within-group differentiation reinforced in-group identification. These findings suggest that subjective group dynamics operate to bolster social identity when people judge modal and deviant in-group and out-group members. (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)     

Processing attitude statements from in-group and out-group members: Effects of within-group and within-person inconsistencies on reading times.

The authors examined reading times of attitude statements made by group members as a function of consistency of statements with stereotypic expectancies (between-member) and consistency of statements with other statements from the same member (within-member). Stereotype-inconsistent statements were studied longer than consistent statements only when the target group was an outgroup or when subjects were instructed to focus on the group as a whole. Results suggested that the out-group was perceived as a single homogeneous whole regardless of experimental instructions. Inconsistencies within individual group members instigated the longest reading times. This effect was stronger for inconsistencies within out-group members than within in-group members, suggesting that subjects not only expected more within-group variability in in-groups than in out-groups, but they also expected more within-person variability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

I know you are, but what am I? Self-evaluative consequences of judging in-group and out-group members.

When judging another person, people often spontaneously compare this person with themselves. Six studies examined the self-evaluative consequences of such spontaneous comparisons with in-group versus out-group members. They demonstrate that spontaneous comparisons with in-group members primarily involved the activation of specific individuating knowledge about the self. In particular, knowledge indicating that the self is similar to the judged target was rendered accessible. As a consequence, subsequent self-evaluations that were based on the implications of accessible self-knowledge were assimilated toward in-group targets. Spontaneous comparisons with out-group members, however, primarily involved the activation of more general category knowledge about the self. Specifically, knowledge about judges' membership in a group that distinguished them from the target was rendered accessible. Consequently, self-evaluations were contrasted away from out-group targets. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

External intergroup threat as an antecedent to perceptions in in-group and out-group homogeneity.

The present research examined the relationship between external intergroup threat and perceptions of group variability. The first study found that when Texas A&M University students worked on a task in which students from a rival university were allegedly biased against them, they perceived more intragroup similarities versus differences than in an out-group benevolent condition and a control condition, and they also perceived the self as more similar to the in-group and more different from the out-group. These results were replicated in a second study, which used the same methodology except that the benevolent condition was excluded. The findings are discussed in terms of different reactions that individuals have to internal and external intergroup threat. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When bad isn't all bad: Strategic use of sample information in generalization and stereotyping.

The influence of the reliability and valence of sample information on generalization to in-group and out-group target populations was investigated in 2 studies. In both studies the valence of the information was either favorable (i.e., a positive in-group sample and a negative out-group sample) or unfavorable. The reliability of sample information was manipulated in terms of sample variability (Study 1) and sample size (Study 2). In both studies the perceived central tendency of favorable sample information was directly generalized, but unfavorable and unreliable sample information was not. Moreover, generalizations based on unfavorable and unreliable samples were characterized by enhanced variability estimates for both in-group and out-group populations, thereby undermining unfavorable group differences. These results are discussed in terms of strategic use of sample information in the formation of social stereotypes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting.

In-group favoritism in the minimal group setting was hypothesized to be a function of 2 processes: a tendency to base in-group judgments on the self (self-anchoring) and a tendency to assume 1 group to be the opposite of the other (differentiation). In the first 3 experiments, in which the order of rating the self and target group was varied, categorized and uncategorized participants were given trait information about 1 group and were asked to estimate the level of those traits in the other group. In-group judges tended to base group ratings on the self, whereas out-group and uncategorized judges inferred the 2 groups to be opposite of one another. Experiment 4 attempted to directly assess the direction of inference between self and in-group by giving feedback about self or in-group on unfamiliar dimensions and found that participants were more willing to generalize from self to in-group than from in-group to self. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-stereotyping and social context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group status.

In 2 laboratory experiments, the tendency to stereotype oneself in terms of one's group membership as a function of the social context was examined. Exp 1 examined the effects of relative ingroup size on self-stereotyping. The results confirmed the prediction that minority members are more likely than majority members to stereotype themselves. Exp 2 examined the interactive impact of relative in-group size and in-group status. As predicted, a high (relative to a low) status of the in-group increased self-stereotyping primarily for minority members, but not for majority members. Moreover, analyses of the differences in perceived in-group and out-group homogeneity suggest that the in-group homogeneity effect should also be interpreted in terms of self-stereotyping processes. Finally, the interplay between cognitive and motivational determinants of self-stereotyping is discussed as well as a possible distinction between self-stereotyping effects on individual level vs group level self-representations. (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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

Intergroup aggression: Its predictors and distinctness from in-group bias.

Investigated predictors of intergroup aggression and its relations to in-group bias. In a questionnaire, 156 Israeli adults reported perceptions of their own religious group and of the ultraorthodox Jewish out-group and expressed aggression toward the ultraorthodox (opposing institutions that serve their needs, supporting acts harmful to them, and opposing interaction with them). Respondents showed in-group favoritism in trait evaluations, but this bias was unrelated to aggression. Perceived intergroup conflict of interests, the postulated motivator of aggression, predicted it strongly. The effects of conflict on aggression were partially mediated by 2 indexes of dehumanizing the out-group (perceived value dissimilarity and trait inhumanity) and by 1 index of probable empathy with it (perceived in-group–out-group boundary permeability). These variables related to aggression more strongly among persons who identified highly with their in-group. The variables also mediated the effects of religious group affiliation on aggression. The value dissimilarity finding supports derivations from belief congruence theory. (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)     

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.     

Models of crossed categorization and intergroup relations

Two studies explored 6 models of crossed categorization. In Experiment 1, Muslims (majority) and Hindus (minority) in Bangladesh evaluated 1 of 4 target groups created by crossing religion (Hindu or Muslim) and nationality (Bangladeshi or Indian) and then rated the target group's perceived variability. Experiment 2 was an extension of the research, including new measures. Both studies showed additive effects of religion and nationality, as predicted by 3 models, a strong effect of category dominance for religion, and out-group homogeneity only when the religious in-group was the dominant and majority group in its country. Experiment 2 also showed a significant relationship between discrimination based on religion and self-esteem and marginal support for the hierarchical ordering model. When and how specific models of crossed categorization might operate in different intergroup contexts are discussed.     

Illusory correlation and social categorization: Toward an integration of motivational and cognitive factors in stereotype formation.

Investigated the effect of group membership on the processes underlying the formation of group stereotypes. In two studies, Ss were randomly assigned to a majority group, a minority group, or neither group (control). Ss were then presented with 48 short statements in which other in-group and out-group members displayed disirable and undesirable behaviors, with either desirable or undesirable behaviors occurring more frequently. Across these items there was no correlation between group membership and desirability of behavior. In Study 1, measures of covariation perception showed that control Ss formed biased impressions of the group, consistent with a memory-based process of stereotype formation. Group members' perceptions showed little evidence of this bias. In Study 2, group members showed evidence of an in-group bias, with further evidence suggesting that these biased judgments were not dependent upon memory processes. Discussion focuses on the complexity of stereotyping processes introduced by social categorization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)