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)     

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)     

Contact with out-group friends as a predictor of meta-attitudinal strength and accessibility of attitudes toward gay men.

Two studies examined the effects of cross-group friendships on heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men. In Study 1, the authors tested the effects of cross-group friendships with gay men on out-group attitudes, meta-attitudinal strength, and attitude accessibility. The authors simultaneously explored mediational effects of intergroup anxiety. Path analysis showed that cross-group friendships were associated with meta-attitudinally stronger and more accessible out-group attitudes, and the effects on all 3 criterion variables were mediated by intergroup anxiety. In Study 2, the authors sought to replicate the basic results of Study 1, while additionally exploring mediational effects of closeness of cross-group friendship and moderational effects of perceived group typicality. Structural equation modeling showed that cross-group friendships were associated with meta-attitudinally stronger and more accessible out-group attitudes; friendships had indirect effects on all 3 criterion variables, via closeness of friendship and intergroup anxiety. Closeness of friendship only predicted lower intergroup anxiety, however, when the out-group friend was perceived as highly typical. The authors emphasize the importance of considering the nature of out-group attitudes more completely when evaluating the effectiveness of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice. (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)     

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)     

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)     

Assimilation and contrast effects in the judgments of groups.

In a series of four experiments, we examined the impact of varying the salience of an extremely different out-group on subjects' evaluations of a moderately different out-group. Evaluations of the moderately different out-group were accentuated when the extreme out-group was present: In a preliminary study and in Experiment 1, the moderate out-group was rated more poorly; in Experiments 1, 2, and 3, it was rated more favorably. Results were interpreted in a social judgment framework. Evidence from Experiment 3 indicated that salience of the extreme out-group was associated with a shift in the positions subjects thought the moderate out-group espoused. This shift in judgment may have brought about or at least justified the change in subjects' evaluations of the moderate out-group. Implications for intergroup relations are considered in the discussion. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Group identification and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis in South Africa.

Social identity theory (SIT) and realistic conflict theory (RCT) suggest that group identification and out-group negativity will be correlated when intergroup relations involve competition and perceived threat, but the theories differ in their predictions about the direction of causality. The authors assessed Black African students' ethnic group identification and their attitudes toward English Whites, Afrikaans Whites, and Whites in general before and after South Africa's transitional election in April 1994. As predicted, Black African identification was significantly related only to attitudes toward Afrikaans Whites. Longitudinal analyses, however, suggested causal impacts from attitudes to identification and not the reverse, contradicting the SIT prediction. The authors discuss evidence for the existence of two distinct modes of group identification with different implications for intergroup behavior. (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)     

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)     

Social categorization and discriminatory behavior: Extinguishing the minimal intergroup discrimination effect.

Previous research on the minimal intergroup discrimination effect suggests that (a) apparently random social categorization may be sufficient to induce differential responses toward similarly and dissimilarly categorized others and (b) perceived categorical similarity (or intragroup vs intergroup comparisons) may be the basis for the effect. Four experiments were conducted with 227 undergraduates to provide 2 independent tests of the hypotheses. Exps I and II demonstrated that social categorization resulting from a lottery procedure was sufficient to elicit differential allocation of chips to and differential social evaluation of in- and out-group members. Exp III and IV demonstrated that both information about the reward value of the in-group and information about the reward value of the out-group had an impact on Ss' discriminatory behavior. The directions of the effects were opposite: rewards from the in-group increased and those from the out-group decreased discriminatory behavior. (27 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Implicit associations as the seeds of intergroup bias: How easily do they take root?

Three experiments provided evidence that intergroup bias occurs automatically under minimal conditions, using the Implicit Association Test (IAT; A. G. Greenwald, D. E. McGhee, & J. L. K. Schwartz, 1998). In Experiment 1, participants more readily paired in-group names with pleasant words and out-group names with unpleasant words, even when they were experienced only with the in-group and had no preconceptions about the out-group. Participants in Experiment 2 likewise showed an automatic bias favoring the in-group, even when in-group/out-group exemplars were completely unfamiliar and identifiable only with the use of a heuristic. In Experiment 3, participants displayed a pro-in-group IAT bias following a minimal group manipulation. Taken together, the results demonstrate the ease with which intergroup bias emerges even in unlikely conditions. (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)     

Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group-protective motivation.

Linguistic intergroup bias (LIB) is the tendency to describe positive in-group and negative out-group behaviors more abstractly than negative in-group and positive out-group behaviors. Two experiments investigated the role of in-group-protective motives, by varying threat to ingroup identity of hunters vs. environmentalists (Experiment 1, N?=?160) and northern vs. southern Italians (Experiment 2, N?=?212). Participants whose in-group had or had not been threatened described positive and negative behaviors of in-group and out-group protagonists. In both experiments, the LIB was greater under identity threat. Experiment 1 also showed that LIB was positively related to postexperimental but not to preexperimental individual and collective self-esteem. Results suggest that the magnitude of LIB depends on in-group-protective motivation and that in-group-favoring language may be functional to self-esteem maintenance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intergroup Contact and Pluralistic Ignorance.

The present work examined the relationship between people's own interpretations of why they avoid intergroup contact and their interpretations of why out-groups avoid intergroup contact. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that Whites and Blacks would like to have more contact with the out-group but believe the out-group does not want to have contact with them. Studies 3-5 show that Whites and Blacks make divergent explanations about their own and their potential out-group partner's failure to initiate contact. Specifically, individuals explained their own inaction in terms of their fear of being rejected because of their race but attributed the out-group members' inaction to their lack of interest. Study 6 examined the behavioral consequences of this self-other bias. Finally, Study 7 applied theoretical work on the extended contact hypothesis to explore a means to reduce this self- other bias. The implications of these studies for improving intergroup interactions are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Development of new group members' in-group and out-group stereotypes: Changes in perceived variability and ethnocentrism.

Changes in new members' in-group and out-group stereotypes were examined, distinguishing among three stereotype components: stereotypicality, dispersion, and ethnocentrism. Pledges in 4 sororities judged their in-group and out-groups 4 times during their 8-month induction. Overall, out-groups were judged more stereotypically than in-groups at every wave. Although out-groups were initially perceived as more dispersed than in-groups, decreased out-group dispersion resulted in a shift toward out-group homogeneity. Ethnocentrism was present at every wave but decreased because of decreased in-group positivity. The authors discuss implications of these results for existing explanations of stereotype development. It is suggested that other aspects of group socialization (R. L. Moreland & J. M. Levine, 1982) are needed to explain fully the development of intergroup perceptions for new group members. (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)     

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)     

Role of competition-induced anxiety in limiting the beneficial impact of positive behavior by an out-group member.

Several variables influence whether contact with a favorable out-group member has a beneficial impact on intergroup relations. In two experiments we examined the effect of competition-induced anxiety on reaction to the behavior of a favorable out-group member. In Experiment 1 a competitive context produced (a) anxiety, relative to a cooperative context, and (b) assimilation of a favorable out-group member to the unfavorable majority. Experiment 2 replicated this finding and showed that when anxiety was reduced, those who expected to compete with the out-group formed a more favorable and veridical impression of the positive out-group member. Taken together, results support the hypothesis that the expectation of an unpleasant competitive encounter with an out-group generates anxiety that, in turn, lessens the impact of positive behavior by an out-group member. Implications of this research for intergroup relations are discussed. (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)