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)     

Persuasiveness of in-group and out-group political messages: The case of negative political campaigning.

Two experiments investigated the processes underlying evaluation of in-group and out-group political messages from candidates involved in a negative political campaign. The effectiveness of different types of attack messages depended on (a) the political affiliation with the source and target of an attack message and (b) the justification provided for the attack. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the content of the attack messages affected evaluations of an in-group candidate but not of an out-group candidate. Experiment 2 indicated that the use of "apparent justification" for attack messages resulted in more positive evaluations of an out-group source but diminished preference for an in-group source. The results indicate that although participants were sensitive to message content from both in-group and out-group sources, less stringent criteria were used when evaluating out-group political messages that when evaluating in-group political messages. (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.     

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)     

The formation of in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes?

Although standardized measures of prejudice reveal high levels of ethnocentric bias in the preschool years, it may reflect in-group favoritism or out-group prejudice. A measure that partially decouples the two attitudes was given to White children between 4 and 7 years of age to examine the reciprocal relation between and the acquisition and correlates of in-group and out-group attitudes. The two attitudes were reciprocally correlated in 1 sample from a racially homogeneous school but not in a 2nd sample from a mixed-race school. In-group favoritism did not appear until 5 years of age but then reached significant levels; it was strongly related to developing social cognitions. Out-group prejudice was weaker, but its targets suffer from comparison with the high favoritism accorded in-group members. (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 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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

How is emergent writing based on drawing? Analyses of children's products and their sorting by children and mothers.

Writing and drawing produced by children 28-53 months old were compared. Israeli and Dutch preschoolers were asked to draw and write, to classify their products as drawing and writing, and to decide what they had drawn or written. Israeli and Dutch mothers classified the products. Scores on a scale for writing composed of graphic, "writing-like," and symbolic schemes showed improvement with age. Recognition of drawings as drawings preceded recognition of writings as writings. Scores on writing and drawing were substantially correlated, even with age partialed out, suggesting (a) that when children start drawing objects referentially, they write by drawing "print" and (b) that progress in object drawing involves progress in drawing print, so that their writing becomes more writing-like. Children unable to communicate meaning by writing spontaneously resort to drawing-like devices, indicating the primacy of drawing as a representational-communicative system. (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)     

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 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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

Forgiveness and Collective Guilt Assignment to Historical Perpetrator Groups Depend on Level of Social Category Inclusiveness.

The authors examined how categorization influences victimized group members' responses to contemporary members of a historical perpetrator group. Specifically, the authors tested whether increasing category inclusiveness--from the intergroup level to the maximally inclusive human level--leads to greater forgiveness of a historical perpetrator group and decreased collective guilt assignment for its harmdoing. Among Jewish North Americans (Experiments 1, 2, and 4) and Native Canadians (Experiment 3) human-level categorization resulted in more positive responses toward Germans and White Canadians, respectively, by decreasing the uniqueness of their past harmful actions toward the in-group. Increasing the inclusiveness of categorization led to greater forgiveness and lessened expectations that former out-group members should experience collective guilt compared with when categorization was at the intergroup level. Discussion focuses on obstacles that are likely to be encountered on the road to reconciliation between groups that have a history of conflictual relations (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)