Perceiving personal discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology.

It was hypothesized that relative group status and endorsement of ideologies that legitimize group status differences moderate attributions to discrimination in intergroup encounters. According to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, the more members of low-status groups endorse the ideology of individual mobility, the less likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from higher status group members to discrimination. In contrast, the more members of high-status groups endorse individual mobility, the more likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from lower status group members to discrimination. Results from 3 studies using 2 different methodologies provide support for this hypothesis among members of different high-status (European Americans and men) and low-status (African Americans, Latino Americans, and women) groups. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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 disadvantage and the self-regulatory function of justice beliefs.

Five studies support the hypothesis that beliefs in societal fairness offer a self-regulatory benefit for members of socially disadvantaged groups. Specifically, members of disadvantaged groups are more likely than members of advantaged groups to calibrate their pursuit of long-term goals to their beliefs about societal fairness. In Study 1, low socioeconomic status (SES) undergraduate students who believed more strongly in societal fairness showed greater intentions to persist in the face of poor performance on a midterm examination. In Study 2, low SES participants who believed more strongly in fairness reported more willingness to invest time and effort to achieve desirable career outcomes. In Study 3, ethnic minority participants exposed to a manipulation suggesting that fairness conditions in their country were improving reported more willingness to invest resources in pursuit of long-term goals, relative to ethnic minority participants in a control condition. Study 4 replicated Study 3 using an implicit priming procedure, demonstrating that perceptions of the personal relevance of societal fairness mediate these effects. Across these 4 studies, no link between fairness beliefs and self-regulation emerged for members of advantaged (high SES, ethnic majority) groups. Study 5 contributed evidence from the World Values Survey and a representative sample (Inglehart, Basa?ez, Diez-Medrano, Halman, & Luijkx, 2004). Respondents reported more motivation to work hard to the extent that they believed that rewards were distributed fairly; this effect emerged more strongly for members of lower SES groups than for members of higher SES groups, as indicated by both self-identified social class and ethnicity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Greek Canadians' attitudes toward own group and other Canadian ethnic groups: A test of the multiculturalism hypothesis.

Tested the multiculturalism hypothesis, using 87 Greek-Canadian parents (mean age 44 yrs). Ss were questioned about their attitudes toward (1) assimilation vs culture maintenance, (2) their own group, and (3) other ethnic groups in Canada. Attitudes were measured by trait attributions made to own and other groups and also by willingness to accept other group members at social distance steps. Measures were also taken of economic and cultural security and personal characteristics (e.g., ethnocentrism, religiousness, formal education). It was found that security about own group and culture did relate to favorableness of attributions made to other groups but not to willingness to interact with those groups; the latter is more related to ethnocentrism. These limitations on the multiculturalism hypothesis for less established ethnic groups in Canada are discussed. (French abstract) (18 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)     

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)     

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)     

Adolescents' reference-group choices, self-esteem, and adjustment.

330 Black, Hispanic, Asian, and White high school students reported their reference-group label as mainstream, bicultural, or strongly ethnically identified. Compared with other groups, White students were significantly more likely to be mainstream. Across ethnic groups, students reporting a strong ethnic identification held attitudes that were significantly more separatist, reported more ethnic pride, engaged in less cross-ethnic contact out of school, reported more cross-ethnic conflict, and used English significantly less often than other reference groups. Reference-group label was not associated with significant ethnic differences in self-esteem, social competence, or grade point average (GPA). The generational status of minority students is discussed as a potential influence mediating the impact of reference group on adjustment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

“What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites' reactions to multiculturalism.

A 5-study investigation of reactions of dominant group members (i.e., White Americans) to diversity (relative to racial minority reactions) provides evidence of implicit and explicit associations between multiculturalism and exclusion and of a relationship between perceived exclusion and reactions to diversity. In Study 1, Whites but not racial minorities were faster in an implicit association task at pairing multiculturalism with exclusion than with inclusion. This association diminished in Study 2 through a subtle framing of diversity efforts as targeted toward all groups, including European Americans. In Study 3, in a “Me/Not Me” task, Whites were less likely than minorities to pair multiculturalism concepts with the self and were slower in responding to multiculturalism concepts. Furthermore, associating multiculturalism with the self (Study 3) or feeling included in organizational diversity (Study 4) predicted Whites' endorsement of diversity and also accounted for the oft-cited group status difference in support for diversity initiatives. Study 5 showed that individual differences in need to belong moderated Whites' interest in working for organizations that espouse a multicultural versus a color-blind approach to diversity, with individuals higher in need to belong less attracted to organizations with a multicultural approach. Overall, results show that the purportedly “inclusive” ideology of multiculturalism is not perceived as such by Whites. This may, in part, account for their lower support for diversity efforts in education and work settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reporting discrimination in public and private contexts.

The authors tested the hypothesis that members of stigmatized groups would be unwilling to report that negative events that occur to them are the result of discrimination when they are in the presence of members of a nonstigmatized group. Supporting this hypothesis, women and African Americans were more likely to report that a failing grade assigned by a man or a European American was caused by discrimination, rather than by their own lack of ability, when they made the judgment privately and in the presence of a fellow stigmatized group member. However, they were more likely to indicate that the cause of the failure was lack of ability, rather than discrimination, when they expected to make these judgments aloud in the presence of a nonstigmatized group member. (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)     

Racism and racial categorization.

Social identity theory predicts that perceivers strongly identified with an in-group will maximize the distinction and maintain a clear boundary between their own and other groups by categorizing others' membership accurately. Two experiments tested the prediction that racially prejudiced individuals, who presumably identify highly with their racial in-group, are more motivated to make accurate racial categorizations than nonprejudiced individuals. Results indicated that prejudiced participants not only took longer to categorize race-ambiguous targets (Experiments 1 and 2), but also made more nonverbal vocalizations when presented with them (Experiment 1), suggesting response hesitation. The results support the hypothesis that, compared to nonprejudiced individuals, prejudiced individuals concern themselves with accurate identification of in-group and out-group members and use caution when making racial categorizations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Sticking together or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility.

Two experiments investigated how in-group identification, manipulated with a bogus pipeline technique affects group members' desire for individual mobility to another group. In the first experiment (N?=?88), the in-group had low status, and group boundaries were either permeable or impermeable. Low identifiers perceived the group as less homogeneous, were less committed to their group, and more strongly desired individual mobility to a higher status group than did high identifiers. The structural possibility of mobility afforded by permeable group boundaries had no comparable effect. The second experiment (N?=?51) investigated whether in-group identification can produce similar effects when relative group status is unknown. Even in the absence of an identity threat, low identifiers were less likely to see the groups as homogeneous, felt less committed to their group, and more strongly desired individual mobility than did high identifiers. Results are discussed with reference to social identity and self-categorization theories. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 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)     

Group Cohesion, Attitude Projection, and Opinion Certainty: Beyond Interaction.

This experiment investigated the effects of group cohesiveness and estimations of consensus on opinion certainty. Members of high- or low-cohesive groups indicated their own attitude positions on 6 civic issues in a context removed from the task-oriented situation in which the groups were developed. Each person then estimated the positions of in-group or out-group members or participated in a no-projection control condition. As expected, estimation of the attitudes of either target group conferred opinion certainty onto cohesive members compared with levels found in the no-projection condition or among low-cohesive participants. Furthermore, perceptions that coworker input was facilitated and encouraged during group development mediated the effect of the experimental manipulation of cohesion on opinion certainty following attitude projection. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Contagious Leader: Impact of the Leader's Mood on the Mood of Group Members, Group Affective Tone, and Group Processes.

The present study examined the effects of leaders' mood on (a) the mood of individual group members, (b) the affective tone of groups, and (c) 3 group processes: coordination, effort expenditure, and task strategy. On the basis of a mood contagion model, the authors found that when leaders were in a positive mood, in comparison to a negative mood, (a) individual group members experienced more positive and less negative mood, and (b) groups had a more positive and a less negative affective tone. The authors also found that groups with leaders in a positive mood exhibited more coordination and expended less effort than did groups with leaders in a negative mood. Applied implications of the results are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

In-group variability and motivation to reduce subjective uncertainty.

Building on the subjective uncertainty reduction model of social identity processes (M. A. Hogg, in press-b; M. A. Hogg & B.-A. Mullin, 1999), it was hypothesized that homogeneous groups would be better than heterogeneous groups at reducing uncertainty and therefore that people would show more intergroup differentiation and turn more to a homogeneous in-group under conditions of uncertainty rather than certainty. Two minimal-group studies were conducted to investigate this idea. As predicted, when groups were homogeneous, more intergroup differentiation was observed under low certainty than under high certainty (Study 1). Study 2 provided evidence that group members turn actively to their group to reduce low certainty when the group is homogeneous. Low certainty led group members to request more feedback about other group members' responses, and they were more likely to change their initial responses when the in-group was perceived as homogeneous. These findings confirm predictions derived from the uncertainty model proposing that uncertainty reduction is a motivation for group behavior. These findings also highlight the importance of social structural factors such as perceived group variability in the uncertainty reduction process. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Cognitive reappraisal in the context of oppression: Implications for psychological functioning.

Research on emotion regulation has shown cognitive reappraisal to be positively correlated with better psychological functioning. Prior research has failed to account for contextual influences on this important relationship. We examined how this relationship plays out across two United States ethnic groups that represent different contexts of oppression: Puerto Ricans, experiencing distal oppression (societal level) but not proximal oppression (immediate environment), and Latino Americans, experiencing both. We also captured individual beliefs regarding oppression of one's group and implications of that oppression by measuring oppressed minority ideology (OMI). Results confirmed our hypothesis that the relationship between reappraisal and psychological functioning would be moderated by the context of oppression (as measured by ethnic group membership and OMI). For Latino Americans high on OMI, reappraisal was negatively associated with psychological functioning. For Puerto Ricans, regardless of OMI, this relationship remained positive, suggesting a possible benefit for minorities in being surrounded by in-group members. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)