Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias.

Three studies examined the impact of the need for cognitive closure on manifestations of in-group bias. All 3 studies found that high (vs. low) need for closure increased in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Specifically, Study 1 found a positive relation between need for cognitive closure and both participants' ethnic group identification and their collective self-esteem. Studies 2 and 3 found a positive relation between need for closure and participants' identification with an in-group member and their acceptance of an in-group member's beliefs and attitudes. Studies 2 and 3 also found a negative relation between need for closure and participants' identification with an out-group member and their acceptance of an out-group member's beliefs and attitudes. The implications of these findings for the epistemic function of in-groups are discussed. (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)     

When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains.

This article argues that in-group favoritism occurs on positive and negative dimensions only when the dimensions of comparison provide an appropriate and meaningful basis for self–other definition, that is, when traits comparatively and normatively fit in-group–out-group categorizations. Three studies are reported in which groups were evaluated on positive or negative traits that varied in their degree of normative fit to in-group and out-group identity. In line with predictions, fit rather than stimulus valence was the crucial determinant of (1) in-group favoritism and (2) absolute level of differentiation between groups. Implications of the findings for explanations of positive–negative asymmetry and broader understandings of intergroup discrimination are discussed. (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)     

Effect of affective reactions by an out-group on preferences for crossed categorization discussion partners.

The authors experimentally examined the effects of positive or negative affect from an out-group (O) on preferences for the 4 crossed categorization targets—in-group–in-group (ii), in-group–outgroup (io), out-group–in-group (oi), and out-group–out-group (oo)—as discussion partners. Study 1 induced affect with compliments; Study 2 used insults; Study 3 cross-culturally assessed the effects of both types of affect. Preferences for the target who possessed a category membership that matched the out-group source of affect on 1 dimension of categorization (Oi) were increased by compliments and decreased by insults. Confirming predictions, positive affect produced a hierarchical rejection pattern (ii?=?Oi?>?io?>?oo). Negative affect produced a hierarchical acceptance pattern (ii?>?io?>?Oi?=?oo). All 3 control conditions yielded an additivity pattern (ii?>?io?=?oi?>?oo). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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 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)     

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)     

Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview.

Three experiments were conducted to test the hypothesis, derived from terror management theory, that reminding people of their mortality increases attraction to those who consensually validate their beliefs and decreases attraction to those who threaten their beliefs. In Study 1, subjects with a Christian religious background were asked to form impressions of Christian and Jewish target persons. Before doing so, mortality was made salient to half of the subjects. In support of predictions, mortality salience led to more positive evaluations of the in-group member (the Christian) and more negative evaluations of the out-group member (the Jew). In Study 2, mortality salience led to especially negative evaluations of an attitudinally dissimilar other, but only among subjects high in authoritarianism. In Study 3, mortality salience led to especially positive reactions to someone who directly praised subjects' cultural worldviews and especially negative reactions to someone who criticized them. The implications of these findings for understanding in-group favoritism, prejudice, and intolerance of deviance are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 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)     

Perceptual asymmetry in consensus estimates of majority and minority members.

Three experiments revealed a consistent pattern of consensus estimates. Numerical status and group growth or decline were manipulated between subjects. Growth was manipulated orthogonally to a 3rd variable: focus. Focus was manipulated by describing growth information with respect either to the in-group or the out-group (e.g., in-group growth and out-group decline). A Numerical Status?×?Focus interaction emerged in Study 1. Numerical minority members' consensus estimates for an opinion issue increased when growth information was out-group focused, whereas majority members' estimates did not differ as a function of the focus variable. Study 2 replicated these effects across other opinion dimensions. Study 3 confirmed the importance of the growth and focus variables in the absence of numerical status manipulations. (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)     

Devaluing domains in response to threatening intergroup comparisons: Perceived legitimacy and the status value asymmetry.

Group status and status legitimacy were tested as moderators of devaluing in response to threatening intergroup comparisons. In 3 experiments, participants received feedback comparing their in-group (based on school or gender) to a higher or lower status out-group. When the legitimacy of group status differences was assumed (Studies 1 and 2) or manipulated (Study 3), participants devalued the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a lower status out-group but did not devalue the domain when their in-group compared unfavorably with a higher status out-group. In Study 3, this status value asymmetry was eliminated when status differences were delegitimized. Mediational analyses suggested that the status value asymmetry was explained by the perceived utility of the domain for gaining status-relevant rewards. (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)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

On the Behavioral Consequences of Infrahumanization: The Implicit Role of Uniquely Human Emotions in Intergroup Relations.

Four experiments confirmed the hypothesis that people discriminate the out-group on the basis of the expression of uniquely human emotions. In Study 1, using a lost e-mail paradigm, the expression of a uniquely human emotion resulted in "nicer" replies when the sender was an in-group compared with an out-group member. The same pattern of results was obtained in Studies 2 and 3 using a conformity paradigm. In addition, perceived similarity was measured and proposed as a potential underlying mechanism (Study 3). Finally, using an approach-avoidance procedure, Study 4 showed that people not only deprive the out-group of positive consequences as in the former studies but that people also act against the out-group. The role of infrahumanization underlying prejudice and discrimination is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The development of Israeli children's images of Jews and Arabs and their expression in human figure drawings.

The development of images of "a Jew" and "an Arab" in Jewish Israeli children who were 4–15 years of age was investigated by means of human figure drawings followed by the administration of questionnaires. The drawings were scored on structural and thematic variables. The questionnaires assessed beliefs and intentions. The hypotheses predicted a differential perception of in- and out-groups and peaks in negativity toward the out-group at preschool age and in early adolescence. Results indicate that, irrespective of age, Jewish Israeli children have generalized images of the two ethnic groups. Preschoolers expressed both positive biases toward the in-group and negativism toward the out-group, and early adolescents manifested mainly negative biases toward the out-group. Children in middle childhood and mid-adolescents manifested reductions in both in-group favoritism and out-group negativity. (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)