Processing of persuasive in-group messages.

Two studies investigated the processes mediating the persuasive impact of messages representing in-group opinions. In the 1st study, Ss read either a strong or a weak message attributed to either an in-group member or to another group. Ss were more persuaded by a strong message from the in-group than a weak one, suggesting content-focused processing of the in-group message. Ss were equally unpersuaded by either a strong or a weak message from the other group, and showed little sign of message processing. In the 2nd study, Ss listened to in-group or other-group messages about issues that varied in their relevance to in-group membership. When the issue was relevant to the in-group, Ss were persuaded by a strong message from the in-group, unpersuaded by a weak message from the in-group, and equally unimpressed by strong and weak messages from the other group. When the issue was irrelevant to the in-group, Ss accepted the position advocated by the in-group regardless of message quality, and again ignored messages from the other group. These results suggest that increased message processing, and not merely the impact of source persuasion cues, can underlie in-group-mediated attitude change. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined.

The authors predicted that derogation of group deviants depends on the extent to which in-group norms or values are validated or undermined in a social context. In Experiment 1 participants were less tolerant and derogated in-group deviants more when other in-group members opposed the norm. In Experiment 2 participants derogated in-group deviants more than out-group deviants and than noncategorized individuals, but only when normative in-group members lacked uniformity. In Experiment 3 participants derogated in-group deviants more when there was uncertainty about in-group superiority. These results are consistent with previous research on the black sheep effect (J. M. Marques, V. Y. Yzerbyt, & J. -P. Leyens, 1998) and with the model of subjective group dynamics (D. Abrams, J. M. Marques, N. J. Bown, & M. Henson, 2000; J. M. Marques, D. Abrams, D. Paez, & C. Martinez-Taboada, 1998). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effect of difference oriented communication on the subjective validity of an in-group norm: Doc can treat the group.

The subjective group dynamics model predicts that in-group deviants who violate in-group norms that differentiate between the in-group and the out-group threaten the in-group's public image and its sense of validity. Previous research has shown that, to reduce this threat, group members attempt to symbolically marginalize in-group deviants through negative evaluation. In the current study (N = 107), the effect of another form of symbolic marginalization (difference oriented communication) is investigated. The findings support the subjective group dynamics model by showing that group members whose communications to deviants highlighted differences experienced a subsequent increase in subjective validity of in-group norms. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups.

Participants evaluated other individuals who deviated in either an anti- or pro-normative direction relative to normative members. In Study 1, in-group gender-normative members were rated more positively than deviant members. The pro-norm deviant was viewed as more attractive than the anti-norm deviant. In Study 2 anti-norm in-group deviants were evaluated more negatively than anti-norm out-group deviants even though both held identical attitudes. In both studies, despite objective equivalence, pro-norm deviance was perceived as less "atypical" than anti-norm deviance. Judgments and reactions to deviance depend on group membership and the direction of deviance, not just its magnitude. Evaluations of deviants are also related to perceivers' identification with their own group. These findings are consistent with our model of subjective group dynamics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Prévention, détection et traitement de l'information persuasive en situation de peur.

Evidence from psychological research has shown the importance of fear on attitude and/or behaviour change. Study 1 showed that fear appeal messages that produce high levels of fear are more effective with health prevention responses than with detection responses, and that this effect is reverse with messages that produce low levels of fear. Study 2 showed that for high fear arousal, interventions such as objective processing (vs. imagery processing) enhance persuasion by reducing the need to avoid the message. Low fear arousal increases persuasion for detection responses. Interventions such as objective processing (vs. imagery processing) interferes with persuasion by reducing persuasion. These variables must be taken into account if one wants to set up an effective fear-persuasive communication campaign. (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)     

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)     

I'm a hypocrite, but so is everyone else: Group support and the reduction of cognitive dissonance.

The impact of social support on dissonance arousal was investigated from a social identity view of dissonance theory. This perspective is seen as augmenting current conceptualizations of dissonance theory by predicting when normative information will impact on dissonance arousal and by indicating the availability of identity-related strategies of dissonance reduction. An experiment was conducted to induce feelings of hypocrisy under conditions of behavioral support or nonsupport. Group salience was either high or low, or individual identity was emphasized. As predicted, participants with no support from the salient in-group exhibited the greatest need to reduce dissonance through attitude change and reduced levels of group identification. Results were interpreted in terms of self being central to the arousal and reduction of dissonance. (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)     

Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses.

Two experiments with 96 undergraduates tested the hypothesis that high issue involvement enhances thinking about the content of a persuasive communication. Exp I varied involvement and the direction of a message (pro- or counterattitudinal). Increasing involvement enhanced persuasion for the proattitudinal but reduced persuasion for the counterattitudinal advocacy. Exp II again varied involvement, but both messages took a counterattitudinal position. One message employed compelling arguments and elicited primarily favorable thoughts, whereas the other employed weak arguments and elicited primarily counterarguments. Increasing involvement enhanced persuasion for the strong message but reduced persuasion for the weak one. Together the experiments provide support for the view that high involvement with an issue enhances message processing and therefore can result in either increased or decreased acceptance. (43 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Affirmation, acknowledgment of in-group responsibility, group-based guilt, and support for reparative measures.

Three studies, 2 conducted in Israel and 1 conducted in Bosnia and Herzegovina, demonstrated that affirming a positive aspect of the self can increase one's willingness to acknowledge in-group responsibility for wrongdoing against others, express feelings of group-based guilt, and consequently provide greater support for reparation policies. By contrast, affirming one's group, although similarly boosting feelings of pride, failed to increase willingness to acknowledge and redress in-group wrongdoing. Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated the mediating role of group-based guilt. That is, increased acknowledgment of in-group responsibility for out-group victimization produced increased feelings of guilt, which in turn increased support for reparation policies to the victimized group. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Task importance, feasibility, and agent influence behavior as determinants of target commitment.

Two content factors (issue importance and feasibility) were manipulated for agents in a 2?×?2 factorial experiment using a role-play exercise with 364 students in management courses. A path analysis provided support for the causal model, which specifies that agent perception of importance and feasibility affect the agent's influence behavior, which affects the target's perception of importance and feasibility, which affects the outcome of the influence attempt (target commitment to carry out the request). The study provides the first evidence that different forms of rational persuasion have independent effects and that target perception of issue importance and feasibility mediate the effect of agent influence behavior on target commitment. (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)     

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)     

Reduction of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity: The role of leader accountability and proneness to guilt.

Two experiments contrasted interactions between group leaders with interactions between individuals in a mixed-motive setting. Consistent with the idea that being accountable to the in-group implies normative pressure to benefit the in-group, Experiment 1 found that accountable leaders were more competitive than individuals. Consistent with the idea that being unaccountable to the in-group implies normative pressure to be cooperative and that high guilt proneness provides motivation to be moral, Experiment 2 found that when guilt proneness was high, unaccountable leaders were less competitive than accountable leaders and did not differ significantly from individuals. In other words, the robust interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect was eliminated when groups had unaccountable leaders who were high in guilt proneness. (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)     

The role of persuasive arguments in changing affirmative action attitudes and expressed behavior in higher education.

The research reported in this article examined the conditions under which persuasive arguments are most effective in changing university students' attitudes and expressed behavior with respect to affirmative action (AA). The conceptual framework was a model that integrated the theory of reasoned action and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Studies 1 and 2 established effective manipulations of positive-negative AA information, and peripheral-central routes of processing. Study 3 implemented these techniques, and a path analysis was carried out testing the differential effects of valence of information processed via different routes on AA evaluative beliefs, attitudes, intention, and expressed behavior. Results indicated that positive AA messages processed centrally (i.e., for meaning) resulted in significantly more positive evaluative beliefs. Modifications to the original model resulted in a final model with excellent fit to the data that supported the mediating role of intention in the AA attitude-behavior relationship, as predicted by the theory of reasoned action. The findings highlight potential benefits of interventions for improving support for AA policies, provided that positive information is processed at a central, evaluative level. (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)     

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)