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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification.

Recent research shows individuals' identification with in-groups to be psychologically important and socially consequential. However, there is little agreement about how identification should be conceptualized or measured. On the basis of previous work, the authors identified 5 specific components of in-group identification and offered a hierarchical 2-dimensional model within which these components are organized. Studies 1 and 2 used confirmatory factor analysis to validate the proposed model of self-definition (individual self-stereotyping, in-group homogeneity) and self-investment (solidarity, satisfaction, and centrality) dimensions, across 3 different group identities. Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated the construct validity of the 5 components by examining their (concurrent) correlations with established measures of in-group identification. Studies 5-7 demonstrated the predictive and discriminant validity of the 5 components by examining their (prospective) prediction of individuals' orientation to, and emotions about, real intergroup relations. Together, these studies illustrate the conceptual and empirical value of a hierarchical multicomponent model of in-group identification. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Individuality and group formation: The role of independence and differentiation.

This research examined the interplay of group formation and individualization processes with a particular emphasis on minority and majority groups. First, a 2-component theory of individuality that distinguishes between individuality as independence and as differentiation from other people was presented, tested, and cross-validated in 2 questionnaire studies. Next, a pilot experiment provided first support for the working assumption that the salience of the differentiation or independence components of individuality differentially affect minority and majority group formation. Finally, the main experiment demonstrated that these individuality effects on minority and majority group formation are due largely to a differential orientation toward either intergroup or intragroup comparisons. This experiment also uncovered a unique effect of relative in-group size, but this effect was limited to similarity-based group formation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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)     

When self-categorization makes sense: the role of meaningful social categorization in minority and majority members' self-perception

The authors examined the joint influence of meaningful social categorization and relative in-group size on the depersonalization of self-perception. Meaningfulness of social categorization was varied following the fit principle, introduced by self-categorization theory. In Experiment 1, the authors predicted and found that minority members show more depersonalized self-perception than majority members if, and only if, the meaningfulness of the underlying in-group-out-group categorization is high as opposed to low. Experiment 2 further substantiated that a meaningful social categorization affects only minority members' self-perception. Finally, the conceptual relationship between fit, meaning, and identity is discussed.     

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)     

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)     

Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status on individual and collective status-enhancement strategies.

Two experiments investigated predictions from social identity theory and relative deprivation theory regarding membership in low-status groups, using a 3 (legitimacy of low status)?×?2 (permeability of group boundaries)?×?2 (stability of group status) between-Ss design. Main dependent variables concerned in-group identification and individual and collective mobility attempts. Group members considered their low status more acceptable when it seemed legitimate. In Exp 1 (n?=?184), illegitimate assignment of low status to the Ss' group increased in-group identification. In Exp 2 (n?=?178), illegitimate allocation of individual Ss to a low-status group decreased group identification. Attempts to acquire higher status individually (individual mobilty) or collectively (group mobility) were more strongly affected by prospects for status improvement than by legitimacy manipulations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Diversity in in-group bias: Structural factors, situational features, and social functions.

Four experiments addressed the different forms and functions of in-group bias in different contexts. The authors proposed 2 functions: an identity-expressive function and an instrumental function (or promotion of positive social change). The authors manipulated status differentials, the stability of these differences, and the communication context (intra- vs. intergroup) and measured in-group bias and both functions. As predicted, identity expression via in-group bias on symbolic measures was most important for stable, high-status groups. By contrast, material in-group bias for instrumental motives was most prevalent in unstable, low-status groups but only when communicating with in-group members. This latter effect illustrates the strategic adaptation of group behavior to audience (i.e., displaying in-group bias may provoke the out-group and be counterproductive in instrumental terms). Stable, low-status groups displayed more extreme forms of in-group bias for instrumental reasons regardless of communication context (i.e., they had nothing to lose). Results are discussed in terms of a contextual-functional approach to in-group bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism.

Using 3 experiments, the authors explored the role of perspective-taking in debiasing social thought. In the 1st 2 experiments, perspective-taking was contrasted with stereotype suppression as a possible strategy for achieving stereotype control. In Experiment 1, perspective-taking decreased stereotypic biases on both a conscious and a nonconscious task. In Experiment 2, perspective-taking led to both decreased stereotyping and increased overlap between representations of the self and representations of the elderly, suggesting activation and application of the self-concept in judgments of the elderly. In Experiment 3, perspective-taking reduced evidence of in-group bias in the minimal group paradigm by increasing evaluations of the out-group. The role of self- other overlap in producing prosocial outcomes and the separation of the conscious, explicit effects from the nonconscious, implicit effects of perspective-taking are discussed. (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)     

On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis.

A meta-analysis examined emotion recognition within and across cultures. Emotions were universally recognized at better-than-chance levels. Accuracy was higher when emotions were both expressed and recognized by members of the same national, ethnic, or regional group, suggesting an in-group advantage. This advantage was smaller for cultural groups with greater exposure to one another, measured in terms of living in the same nation, physical proximity, and telephone communication. Majority group members were poorer at judging minority group members than the reverse. Cross-cultural accuracy was lower in studies that used a balanced research design, and higher in studies that used imitation rather than posed or spontaneous emotional expressions. Attributes of study design appeared not to moderate the size of the in-group advantage. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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)     

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)     

Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability.

This work examines the moderating effects of status stability, legitimacy, and group permeability on in-group bias among high- and low-status groups. These effects were examined separately for evaluative measures that were relevant as well as irrelevant to the salient status distinctions. The results support social identity theory and show that high-status groups are more biased. The meta-analysis reveals that perceived status stability, legitimacy, and permeability moderate the effects of group status. Also, these variables interacted in their influences on the effect of group status on in-group bias, but this was only true for irrelevant evaluative dimensions. When status was unstable and perceived as illegitimate, low-status groups and high-status groups were equally biased when group boundaries were impermeable, compared with when they were permeable. Implications for social identity theory as well as for intergroup attitudes are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

In-group favoritism and statistical reasoning in social inference: Implications for formation and maintenance of group stereotypes.

The effects of group categorization on statistical inference processes and the consequent effects on group stereotyping were examined in 3 experiments. In Exps 1 and 2, male and female Ss made data-based judgments about gender and leadership ability. In Exp 3, Ss were randomly categorized into groups and then made data-based judgments about the groups' relative intelligence. Results from all 3 studies indicate significant effects of group categorization on Ss' judgments and on their strategies of data integration and logical inference. These results support the hypothesis that group members selectively engage in statistical inference strategies as a means of justifying in-group favoritism. Discussion focuses on the implications for understanding group-serving biases, motivated reasoning, and group stereotyping processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Linguistic intergroup bias: Differential expectancies or in-group protection?

The linguistic intergroup bias describes the tendency to communicate positive in-group and negative out-group behaviors more abstractly than negative in-group and positive out-group behaviors. This article investigated whether this bias is driven by differential expectancies or by in-group protective motives. In Exp 1, northern and southern Italian participants (N?=?151) described positive and negative behaviors of northern or southern protagonists that were either congruent or incongruent with stereotypic expectancies. Regardless of valence, expectancy-congruent behaviors were described more abstractly than incongruent ones. Exp 2 (N?=?40) showed that language is used in an equally biased fashion for individuals as previously demonstrated for groups. Exp 3 (N?=?192) induced expectancies experimentally and found greater abstraction for expectancy-congruent behaviors regardless of valence. All experiments confirmed the differential expectancy approach. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)