Some determinants of the persuasive power of in-groups and out-groups: Organization of information and attribution of independence.

Four experiments examined the hypothesis that in-groups exert more influence than do out-groups. The hypothesis was supported using both laboratory groups of university students and a natural social category (university affiliation). Ss exposed to in-group communicators attributed greater independence to them, made fewer errors in recalling their messages, and clustered recollections of messages by individual speaker. In addition, the persuasiveness of out-group members was enhanced when individuating information was provided about them that increased their heterogeneity. The individuated out-group members were as influential as in-group communicators. Results were interpreted in terms of attribution and social identity processes. (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)     

Differential processing of in-group and out-group information.

People have a more differentiated cognitive representation of in-groups than of out-groups. This has led to the prediction that memory should be better for in-group information than for out-group information. However, past research has provided equivocal support for that prediction. This article advances a differential processing hypothesis that offers a solution to this paradox. The hypothesis suggests that whereas in-group information is organized by person categories, out-group information is organized through attribute categories. In-group membership alters the categorical basis of memory for person information, but these categories are not necessarily superior to the attribute categories that are used to organize out-group information. That is, both person and attribute categories elicit equal amounts of recall for the in-group and the out-group. Three experiments are reported that support the differential processing hypothesis. (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)     

Polarized appraisals of out-group members.

Developed and tested a model that assumes that people have a more complex schema regarding in-groups than out-groups and consequently, that appraisals of out-group members will be more extreme or polarized than appraisals of in-group members. Four experiments with 415 White male and female undergraduates tested this model, as well as predictions derived from attribution principles. In Exp I, Ss read and evaluated a law school application containing incidental information about the applicant's race and gender. A Black applicant with strong credentials was judged more favorably than an identical White applicant, supporting a prediction derived from the augmentation principle. In Exp II, an applicant with weak credentials was included in the design. Results support the prediction that out-group members would be evaluated more extremely: When the application credentials were positive, the out-group member (a Black or opposite-sex applicant) was evaluated more favorably than the in-group member (a White or same-sex applicant). When the application credentials were weak, the out-group member was evaluated more negatively. Exp III and IV provided support for the 2 assumptions underlying the complexity–extremity hypothesis: First, White Ss demonstrated greater complexity regarding Whites than Blacks. Second, greater complexity resulted in evaluative moderation. (20 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 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)     

Not quite human: Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing.

The present research examines how awareness of violence perpetrated against an out-group by one's in-group can intensify the infrahumanization of the out-group, as measured by a reduced tendency to accord uniquely human emotions to out-groups. Across 3 experiments that used different in-groups (humans, British, White Americans) and out-groups (aliens, Australian Aborigines, and Native Americans), when participants were made aware of the in-group's mass killing of the out-group, they infrahumanized the victims more. The perception of collective responsibility, not just the knowledge that the out-group members had died in great numbers, was shown to be necessary for this effect. Infrahumanization also occurred concurrently with increased collective guilt but was unrelated to it. It is proposed that infrahumanization may be a strategy for people to reestablish psychological equanimity when confronted with a self-threatening situation and that such a strategy may occur concomitantly with other strategies, such as providing reparations to the out-group. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Measures and models of perceived group variability.

This article examines alternative measures of perceived variability of a group. The pattern of correlations among the measures suggests that variability can be thought of in 2 ways: the perceived dispersion of group members from the group central tendency and the extent to which the group is seen as fitting the group stereotype. Evidence of out-group homogeneity was present for both types of variability judgments, using men and women as the target groups. Judgments of group variability were not predicted by the variance of a retrieved set of group members around their own mean. In the case of the in-group, judgments of variability were predicted by the discrepancy of the retrieved set of group members from the group mean. Likewise, in-group, but not out-group, variability was also predicted by discrepancy of self from the group mean. A 2nd study using talk-aloud protocols revealed that the self and subgroups were more likely to be discussed when one was making variability judgments about the in-group than about the out-group. Instances of the group were almost never discussed for the in-group and were discussed for the out-group. Implications of the results for models of group variability judgments are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The impact of positive mood and category importance on crossed categorization effects.

Four studies examined the effect of positive versus neutral affect on preference among potential discussion partners who were members of two in-groups, two out-groups, or both an in-group and out-group (crossed targets). The importance of targets' category memberships was manipulated by idiographically based selection. Positive affect elevated evaluation of crossed targets with a dominant (differentially important) in-group (Study 1). When categories were made equally important, positive affect had no impact (Studies 2 and 3). Study 4 presented crossed targets with both equally differentially important group memberships and showed that differential category importance (dominance) is necessary for positive affect to influence judgments about them. These results are explained by the broadened categorization induced by positive affect. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and group levels.

Out-groups are generally seen as less variable or diverse than in-groups. Two explanations have been advanced for this out-group homogeneity effect. They differ in whether differential frequency of stored exemplars is a necessary condition for the out-group homogeneity effect. We used a modified minimal group paradigm to discriminate between the two. Our results suggest that when the group distinction is made salient by anticipated competition out-group homogeneity is obtained even with no difference in exemplar frequency. We also show that the effects of competition versus cooperation differ at the level of group judgments and memory for individual group members, such that at the group level out-groups are seen as less variable than in-groups under competition, but competition actually increases memory for information about individual out-group members. This combination of results is clearly inconsistent with an exemplar-based explanation of the out-group homogeneity effect. (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)     

Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias.

Three studies examined the impact of the need for cognitive closure on manifestations of in-group bias. All 3 studies found that high (vs. low) need for closure increased in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Specifically, Study 1 found a positive relation between need for cognitive closure and both participants' ethnic group identification and their collective self-esteem. Studies 2 and 3 found a positive relation between need for closure and participants' identification with an in-group member and their acceptance of an in-group member's beliefs and attitudes. Studies 2 and 3 also found a negative relation between need for closure and participants' identification with an out-group member and their acceptance of an out-group member's beliefs and attitudes. The implications of these findings for the epistemic function of in-groups are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The development of Israeli children's images of Jews and Arabs and their expression in human figure drawings.

The development of images of "a Jew" and "an Arab" in Jewish Israeli children who were 4–15 years of age was investigated by means of human figure drawings followed by the administration of questionnaires. The drawings were scored on structural and thematic variables. The questionnaires assessed beliefs and intentions. The hypotheses predicted a differential perception of in- and out-groups and peaks in negativity toward the out-group at preschool age and in early adolescence. Results indicate that, irrespective of age, Jewish Israeli children have generalized images of the two ethnic groups. Preschoolers expressed both positive biases toward the in-group and negativism toward the out-group, and early adolescents manifested mainly negative biases toward the out-group. Children in middle childhood and mid-adolescents manifested reductions in both in-group favoritism and out-group negativity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Self-Esteem and Favoritism Toward Novel In-Groups: The Self as an Evaluative Base.

The self-as-evaluative base (SEB) hypothesis proposes that self-evaluation extends automatically via an amotivated consistency process to affect evaluation of novel in-groups. Four minimal group studies support SEB. Personal trait self-esteem (PSE) predicted increased favoritism toward a novel in-group that, objectively, was equivalent to the out-group (Study 1). This association was independent of information-processing effects (Study 1), collective self-esteem, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and narcissism (Studies 2 and 3). A self-affirmation manipulation attenuated the association between in-group favoritism and an individual difference associated with motivated social identity concerns (RWA) but did not alter the PSE effect (Study 3). Finally, the association between PSE and in-group favoritism remained positive even when the in-group was objectively less favorable than the out-group (Study 4). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Memory for in-group and out-group information in a minimal group context: The self as an informational base.

The authors argue that persons derive in-group expectancies from self-knowledge. This implies that perceivers process information about novel in-groups on the basis of the self-congruency of this information and not simply its valence. In Experiment 1, participants recalled more negative self-discrepant behaviors about an in-group than about an out-group. Experiment 2 replicated this effect under low cognitive load but not under high load. Experiment 3 replicated the effect using an idiographic procedure. These findings suggest that perceivers engage in elaborative inconsistency processing when they encounter negative self-discrepant information about an in-group but not when they encounter negative self-congruent information. Participants were also more likely to attribute self-congruent information to the in-group than to the out-group, regardless of information valence. Implications for models of social memory and self-categorization theory 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)     

More human than you: Attributing humanness to self and others.

People typically evaluate their in-groups more favorably than out-groups and themselves more favorably than others. Research on infrahumanization also suggests a preferential attribution of the "human essence" to in-groups, independent of in-group favoritism. The authors propose a corresponding phenomenon in interpersonal comparisons: People attribute greater humanness to themselves than to others, independent of self-enhancement. Study 1 and a pilot study demonstrated 2 distinct understandings of humanness--traits representing human nature and those that are uniquely human--and showed that only the former traits are understood as inhering essences. In Study 2, participants rated themselves higher than their peers on human nature traits but not on uniquely human traits, independent of self-enhancement. Study 3 replicated this "self-humanization" effect and indicated that it is partially mediated by attribution of greater depth to self versus others. Study 4 replicated the effect experimentally. Thus, people perceive themselves to be more essentially human than others. (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)     

Intergroup contact with independent manipulations on in-group and out-group interaction.

Tested the hypotheses that (a) Repeated contact with an out-group under favorable conditions would be more effective in decreasing intergroup bias than a single contact session; (b) Independent of out-group contact, increasing in-group contact would accentuate intergroup bias; (c) beneficial effects of contact with a subset of an out-group would generalize to the larger category from which the experimental out-group was drawn. 160 female undergraduates were divided into 2 groups based on their college affiliation. They then interacted for either 1 or 2 sessions with their in-group and with the out-group. Results support the 2 contact hypotheses. Intergroup bias decreased as out-group contact increased and in-group contact decreased, but there was little evidence that changes in evaluation of the experimental in-group and out-group generalized to the larger college populations. (41 ref) (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)