Showing papers on "Ingroups and outgroups published in 1990"

Individualism-Collectivism Critique and Proposed Refinements

Abstract: Three criticisms of the individualism-collectivism dichotomy are explicated. The dichotomy leads one to overlook values that inherently serve both individual and collective interests (e.g., wisdom), it ignores values that foster the goals of collectivities other than the ingroup (e.g., universal values, such as social justice), and it promotes the mistaken assumption that individualistic and collective values each form coherent syndromes that are in polar opposition. These problems are illustrated by applying a more fine-tuned analysis of ten types of values postulated to be present in all cultures (Schwartz, 1987) to data from four empirical studies. This analysis reveals meaningful group differences that are obscured by the individualism-collectivism dichotomy. As an impetus to future research, hypotheses are offered about the types of values likely to differ in importance between societies with a more collectivist (communal) social structure and those with a more individualistic (contractual) structure.

Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias.

Abstract: In addition to personal self-esteem, we propose that there is a second type of self-esteem, collective self-esteem. People who are high in trait collective self-esteem should be more likely to react to threats to collective self-esteem by derogating outgroups and enhanging the ingroup. In a study using the minimal intergroup paradigm, trait personal and collective self-esteem were measured, and subjects received information about the average performance of their group. We conclude that collective self-esteem is an individual difference variable that may moderate the attempt to maintain a positive social identity. The relation between collective and personal self-esteem is discussed

The ‘ultimate attribution error’? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution

Abstract: Studies that examine causal attributions for acts by ingroup and outgroup members are reviewed. The tendency for attributions to favour ingroup over outgroup members is found in three paradigms — explanations for positive and negative outcomes, success and failure, and group differences — and in most of the 19 studies reviewed, but the evidence provides only limited support for Pettigrew's (1979) ‘ultimate attribution error’. The evidence is limited to specific dimensions in a given study, but strongest for three general findings: (1) More internal attribution for positive acts, and less internal attribution for negative acts, by ingroup than outgroup members; (2) More attribution of outgroup than ingroup failure to lack of ability, and ‘explaining away’ outgroup success to good luck, high effort or an easy task; (3) A preference for ingroup-serving versus outgroup-serving attributions for group differences. Finally, theoretical issues and methodological shortcomings are discussed with reference to future research.

Polarized Norms and Social Frames of Reference: A Test of the Self-Categorization Theory of Group Polarization

Abstract: Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) explains group polarization as conformity to a polarized norem which defines one's own group in contrast to other groups within a specific social context. Whether the ingroup norm is polarized or not depends on the social comparative context within which the ingroup defines itself. It was predicted from self-categorization theory that an ingroup confronted by a risky outgroup will polarize toward caution, an ingroup confronted by a caution outgroup will polarize toward risk, and an ingroup in the middle of the social frame of reference, confronted by both risky and cautious outgroups, will not polarize but will converge on its pretest mean. Our experiment adopted a modified version of the risky-shift paradigm, in which subjects gave pretest, posttest, and group consensus recommendations on three choice dilemma item-types (risky, neutral, or risky). The frame of reference was manipulated by confronting the ingroup wi...

Social identity and perceived group homogeneity: Evidence for the ingroup homogeneity effect.

Abstract: On the basis of social identity theory, we argue that the search for a positive social identity is characterized by the accentuation of perceived ingroup homogeneity relative to perceived outgroup homogeneity (the ingroup homogeneity effect). To test our specific hypotheses, we conducted an experiment in which some subjects were provided with a well-defined group membership and others were allocated to ill-defined groups. We also manipulated the information about the relative sizes of the groups. Subsequently, several measures of perceived dimensional and general group homogeneity were administered. As predicted, members of well-defined groups revealed the ingroup homogeneity effect for an attribute associated with the definition of their group. On the other hand, members of ill-defined groups displayed social creativity and selected alternative attributes to accentuate the relative ingroup homogeneity. Moreover, when intergroup comparisons did not contribute positively to the self-concept, subjects accentuated their positive personal identity and evinced the outgroup homogeneity effect. Consistent with previous research, subjects identified more strongly with a well-defined group when it was a minority rather than a majority. Minority members also perceived more general homogeneity within the ingroup than within the outgroup, whereas the majority members showed the opposite effect. Finally, the interrelationship between personal and social identity is briefly discussed.

Predicting intergroup fairness and ingroup bias in the minimal group paradigm

Abstract: Previous social psychological theory and research based on the Minimal Group Paradigm have stressed the dominance of ingroup bias in intergroup evaluations and allocation behaviour. However, fairness in intergroup allocations has also been observed. Tested here were hypotheses derived from three non-mutually exclusive theories: (1) Social Identity Theory (e.g. Tajfel and Turner, 1986), which predicts ingroup evaluative and allocation biases, (2) Ng's (1981) Fate Control/Equity Paradigm, which predicts that ingroup bias in allocations occurs in relationships of mutual but not unilateral fate control, and (3) Social Value Theory (e.g. McClintock, 1972), which predicts that intergroup evaluations and allocation behaviours will vary as a function of the social value orientations of subjects. Evaluations were consistent with expectations from Social Identity Theory. Subjects, in general, evaluated ingroup members more favourably than the outgroup members. Allocations, however, were generally consistent with expectations from Social Value Theory, with prosocial subjects preferring fair to biased allocations, competitive subjects biased to fair ones. Neither allocation behaviour nor intergroup evaluations varied significantly as a function of the fate control relationship.

Minority influence and social categorization

Abstract: In this article, a theoretical distinction is proposed between representative outgroup minorities (representative of a minority category in the society, e.g. gays) and dissident outgroup minorities (defined as a minority subgroup within a larger outgroup category). Two studies are reported comparing the social influence of dissident outgroup minorities with that of ingroup minorities (belonging to the subject's own social category). It was predicted that a position advocated by a dissident outgroup minority would be more readily accepted than that of an ingroup minority, but that the ingroup minority would be more likely to elicit the generation of new, alternative solutions. A first experiment in which subjects were either exposed to an ingroup minority, an outgroup minority, or no influence source confirmed these predictions. In a second experiment, subjects were either exposed to a majority or to a minority source either belonging to the subject's own social category or to the outgroup. The results indicate that the position of an ingroup majority was readily accepted whereas the otherwise identical message of an outgroup majority was rejected; neither ingroup nor outgroup majority stimulated the development of alternative proposals. Again, in line with Nemeth' (1986a) theory, the position of an ingroup minority was rejected but stimulated the generation of new, alternative proposals. The differential role of social category membership in minority and majority influence and the applicability of Nemeth' (1986a) theory to the attitude change area are discussed.

Perceptions of relative group size and group homogeneity: We are the majority and they are all the same

Abstract: On the basis of prior research on the false consensus effect and on the perception of group homogeneity in minority-majority contexts, it was hypothesized that (1) with no information regarding group size available, group members would see their own group in the majority position and perceive more outgroup than ingroup homogeneity and (2) this outgroup homogeneity effect would not occur, when there is no doubt about the numerical equality of ingroup and outgroup. Both hypotheses were confirmed in a laboratory study (n = 88).

The layered prisoners' dilemma: Ingroup versus macro-efficiency

Abstract: In the N-prisoners' dilemma (NPD), cooperation produces ingroup efficiency. But if ingroup gains from cooperation are less than outgroup losses, then macro-efficiency for the collectivity (defined as ingroup plus outgroup) is harmed. We call this situation a layered prisoners' dilemma (LPD). The LPD models diverse real world situations — from OPEC's effect on consumers to interest groups' effect on citizens.

Social Identity and Intergroup Perceptions in Minority-Majority Contexts

Abstract: This study investigates intergroup perceptions between the members of minority and majority factions of a political party. Two hypotheses were tested derivedfrom the social identity approach to intergroup relations. First, it was predicted that minority group members would display higher levels of intergroup differentiation than majority group members, associated with a lower level of intergroup understanding. Second, it was predicted that, within each group, level of ingroup identification would be positively related to intergroup differentiation. A postal questionnaire was completed by 136 members of the British Labour Party, 92 supporters of the majority group, and 44 supporters of the minority group. Findings confirmed both hypotheses, and further investigation suggested that the significance of ingroup identification derived from its impact on ingroup ratings rather than on outgroup ratings. The implications of these findings for the underlying dynamics of intergroup differentiation are discussed.

The Relationships of Intergroup Contact to Social Identity and Political Consciousness

Abstract: The impact of three forms of intergroup contact (Mexican descent, other minority, and Anglo) on the social identities and political attitudes of a national sample of native-born persons of Mexican descent was examined. Cast within Tajfel's Social Identity theory, the various social contexts were expected to predict three distinct types of ethnic identity: Cultural Ethnicity (Ingroup contact), Politicized Ethnicity (Ingroup and Minority Outgroup contact), and Assimilationist Ethnicity (Anglo contact). Contrasting political orientations were also predicted for the types of contact, with group-conscious attitudes associated with Ingroup and Minority Outgroup contacts and conservative political attitudes with A nglo contact. Support is provided for the expected relationships between Ingroup and Minority Outgroup interactions and identity and political attitudes. Anglo contact was related to conservative political attitudes.

The effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism, stereotyping and overestimation of relative ingroup size

Abstract: An experiment (n = 61) investigated the effects of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity on ingroup favouritism, stereotyping and the overestimation of relative ingroup size. As predicted, outgroup homogeneity was conducive to ingroup favouritism. Ingroup homogeneity, however, failed to influence ingroup favouritism. Also unexpectedly, asymmetry in group homogeneity — irrespective of whether the ingroup or the outgroup was the more homogeneous group — led to pronounced stereotyping of both groups and to the overestimation of relative ingroup size.

Maintaining social identity in a mixed-gender setting: Minority/majority status and cooperative/competitive feedback

Abstract: This study tested the applicability of Tajfel and Turner's (1986) Social Identity Theory (SIT) to cooperative behavior in a mixed-gender setting. SIT suggests that as a “socially subordinate” group in a male-dominated society, women, when their gender is in the numerical minority, will engage in social competition in an attempt to enhance social identity. However, gender-based socialization may encourage men toward competition and women toward cooperation, regardless of group gender composition. In this study, male and female subjects were assigned to a six-person mixed-gender group in which their gender was either in the numerical minority or majority, and performed an interactive task under either cooperative or competitive feedback. An interaction of sex and feedback showed males in the cooperative feedback condition responded more competitively than did males in the competitive feedback condition, while females were equally cooperative in both feedback conditions. Feedback also interacted with the numerical ingroup/outgroup gender balance. While competitive feedback elicited little variation in subjects' responses across the ingroup/outgroup balance variable, the cooperative condition elicited greater competition from subjects in the numerical minority and greater cooperation from those in the numerical majority. Results were interpreted as partial support for SIT, while stressing the need for further investigation into gender as a unique influence on intergroup behavior.

Intergroup attributions for success and failure - group-serving bias and group-serving causal schemata

Abstract: Research on intergroup attributions for success and failure has reported the effects of social categorization and outcome for each causal attribution separately, but has ignored the relative importance of the four conventional causes. A complete method of analysis is outlined, which investigates three factors − categorization (ingroup/outgroup) x outcome (success/failure) x attribution type (ability/effort/luck/task) − and then tests relevant contrasts

Downward Social Comparison in the Minimal Intergroup Situation: A Test of a Self‐Enhancement Interpretation1

Abstract: We tested some implications of Wills' (1981) downward comparison interpretation of ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup paradigm. Based on a self-enhancement interpretation of ingroup bias, we predicted that subjects who expected to succeed on a task for dispositional reasons and subsequently failed would be most threatened by the feedback and hence, would engage in downward social comparison strategies. The results did not support the self-enhancement interpretation, but a number of interesting findings emerged. First, downward social comparison involving favorable comparisons of the ingroup relative to the outgroup was pervasive and not mediated by self-esteem. Second, ingroup bias was greatest when individuals' outcomes were consistent with their expectations; ingroup bias was mitigated when subjects received feedback that was inconsistent with their expectations. Third, although low self-esteem subjects rated members of the outgroup more negatively than did high self-esteem subjects, high self-esteem subjects engaged in more downward social comparison by enhancing the self relative to both members of the outgroup and their own ingroup. Finally, self-enhancement strategies were affected by performance expectations, attributions, and chronic self-esteem: People who expected to perform well because of stable, dispositional reasons and who were high in self-esteem showed the greatest tendency to engage in self-enhancing comparisons with others. This was true regardless of whether subjects ultimately succeeded or failed on the important task and regardless of whether the comparison others were members of the outgroup or the ingroup.