Showing papers on "Ingroups and outgroups published in 1992"

Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration

Abstract: This paper reports the results of a meta-analytic integration of the results of 137 tests of the ingroup bias hypothesis. Overall, the ingroup bias effect was highly significant and of moderate magnitude. Several theoretically informative determinants of the ingroup bias effect were established. This ingroup bias effect was significantly stronger when the ingroup was made salient (by virtue of proportionate size and by virtue of reality of the group categorization). A significant interaction between the reality of the group categorization and the relative status of the ingroup revealed a slight decrease in the ingroup bias effect as a function of status in real groups, and a significant increase in the ingroup bias effect as a function of status in artificial groups. Finally, an interaction between item relevance and ingroup status was observed, such that higher status groups exhibited more ingroup bias on more relevant attributes, whereas lower status groups exhibited more ingroup bias on less relevant attributes. Discussion considers the implications of these results for current theory and future research involving the ingroup bias effect.

The Perception of Ingroup and Outgroup Homogeneity: Reintroducing the Intergroup Context

Abstract: This chapter investigates the influence of the intergroup context on the perception of ingroup and outgroup homogeneity. Specifically, three determinants of perceived group homogeneity which originate in the intergroup context are examined: (1) the numerical relation between ingroup and outgroup; (2) the relevance of the dimensions or attributes in question for ingroup definition or social identity; (3) the socially prevailing group stereotypes. It is shown that the outgroup homogeneity effect (i.e. the tendency to perceive more outgroup than ingroup homogeneity) is by no means a universal law—rather, both outgroup and ingroup homogeneity effects are found—and that models of category representation which ignore the influence of the intergroup context are insufficient. Finally, the relations between perceived group homogeneity and three other social psychological phenomena, namely minority influence, ingroup favouritism and self-stereotyping, are briefly discussed.

Context‐dependent variation in social stereotyping 1: The effects of intergroup relations as mediated by social change and frame of reference

Abstract: During the 1990‐1991 Persian Gulf conflict an experiment was conducted with Australian university students (N = 200) to investigate whether the social stereotyping of Americans varied with social contextual manipulations related to the hostilities. The study, conducted in two phases at the start and end of the conflict, examined how the assignment of standard stereotypical traits to Americans was affected (a) by the large‐scale social change constituted by the war and (b) by variation in the frame of reference provided by relevant comparison groups. The elicited stereotypes were sensitive to both of these contextual variables, demonstrating significant variation and fluidity. Overall, stereotypes of Americans were relatively negative. They were significantly more negative (a) at the end of the war than at the beginning in the restricted frame (when Australia and Britain were comparison groups) and (b) in the first phase of the conflict when the frame was extended to include Iraq as a comparison group. The findings were in line with expectations derived from self‐categorization theory (Turner, 1985) that the social categorization of self and other into ingroup and outgroup is inherently variable, comparative and context‐dependent. They question the long‐held view of stereotypes as fixed, rigid and resistant to change.

Status protection in high status minority groups

Abstract: The present study investigated the conditions under which group members try to obtain membership in another group, or are motivated to protect their group membership when they risk losing it One hundred and twenty-nine high school students participated as subjects in a laboratory experiment Subjects were divided into two groups, allegedly on the basis of their problem solving style The relative size (minority/majority) and status position (high/low) of the subject's group, as well as the permeability of group boundaries (permeable/impermeable) were manipulated as independent variables in a 2×2×2 factorial design The main dependent variables were the extent to which individuals valued their group membership, and identified with their group The main results are that membership in a group with high status is considered more attractive than membership in a low status group, This differential evaluation of high and low status groups is more extreme in minority groups than in groups of majority size Furthermore, when group boundaries are permeable, members of high status minorities show relatively strong ingroup identification, indicating a strengthening of ties with their own group when an alternative (majority) group affiliation is possible However, our expectation that permeable group boundaries would result in diminished ingroup identification in low status minorities was not confirmed Some additional data suggest that unsatisfactory membership in a low status group is resolved in a different way

The Ingroup Overexclusion Effect - Impact of Valence and Confirmation On Stereotypical Information Search

Abstract: Investigates an old controversy in ethnic identification from the Perspective of information-gathering strategies. It was hypothesized that people would request a lot of positive information before deciding that someone is a member of the ingroup. First, a questionnaire measuring the typical features of likeable and unlikeable targets issuing from two linguistic groups (Flemish and Walloon) revealed the existence of four distinguishable sets. These sets corresponded to the orthogonal combination of valence and group membership, i.e. they were organized in terms of two independent dimensions, an evaluative one and descriptive one. The dimensional complexity and evaluative extremity of the 'positive ingroup' and 'negative outgroup' sets were not different. Second, characteristics in each set served to create personality profiles presumably describing real targets. Subjects read these profiles, one feature at a time up to 10 features, and were asked to decide whether the target was a member of their group. They also learned that they could make their decision as soon as they felt confident. In line with Yzerbyt and Leyens' (1991) results, data indicate that subjects requested more information when the evidence was positive or consistent with their ingroup membership than when it was negative or inconsistent. These findings shed new light on earlier work concerning ethnic identification. In the context of the more general question of intergroup relations and their role in person perception, the present results may be interpreted in terms of an ingroup overexclusion effect rather than a vigilance effect or response bias. Thus is added a new effect to the well-known phenomena of ingroup favouritism and outgroup homogeneity.

The Influence of Individualism Collectivism, Self-Monitoring, and Predicted-Outcome Value on Communication in Ingroup and Outgroup Relationships

Abstract: This study examined the influence of individualism-collectivism on communication in ingroup and outgroup relationships. Differences were predicted in ingroup and outgroup communication in collectivistic cultures. It was also hypothesized that self-monitoring and predicted-outcome value (POV) of the relationships also affect communication processes in these relationships. Data were collected in Hong Kong and Japan (collectivistic) and in Australia and the United States (individualistic). Results supported the prediction regarding the influence of cultural variability on ingroup and outgroup communication, as well as those regarding the influence of self-monitoring and POV.

Physiological arousal and reactions to outgroup members during competitions that implicate an important social identity

Abstract: Exposure to sports competitions, especially those involving violence, can elevate physiological arousal, potentially setting the stage for transforming hostile inclinations into aggressive behavior. Personality and cognitive factors that influence the interpretation given to such competitions may influence the impact of these events. The effects of exposure to a sporting competition that had high or low importance for subjects' social identity on pre- to post-film blood pressure and evaluations of outgroups were examined. Aggression may be particularly likely when arousal levels are elevated, and such arousal was expected to be determined by the importance of the identity at stake, regardless of the outcome of the competition. Individuals who were either strongly identified with America or were less identified viewed a boxing match where the American athlete lost the competition (and the Russian contestant won), or the Russian athlete lost (and the American won). Both diastolic and systolic blood pressure measures showed an increase pre- to post-film in the highly identified persons while no such change was observed in the low identified individuals. Cognitive measures assessing evaluations of the Russian boxer, and Russians in general, showed effects parallel to the arousal indexes with high identified persons expressing more derogation of threat-relevant targets than did those low in identification. Arousal increases in only the highly identified viewers predicted derogation of Russians. Discussion centers on the role of identification with a sports team on physiological processes and their implications for spectator aggression.

Ingroup bias and the black sheep' effect: assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group judgements

Abstract: Two studies compared the relative strength of motivational assumptions drawn from SIT (e.g. Tajfel, 1978) and memory-based assumptions drawn from the differential familiarity hypothesis (Linville, Fischer and Salovey, 1989) in explaining ingroup bias and the black sheep effect (Marques, 1986, 1990). In Study 1, 15 subjects estimated member distributions and gave overall ratings of an ingroup and two outgroups. In Study 2, 42 subjects performed similar tasks for ingroup or outgroup, and evaluated likeable and unlikeable group members. Results showed, first, that overall group ratings account better for ingroup bias than do central tendencies of group distributions. In addition, likeable and unlikeable ingroup members were, respectively, upgraded and downgraded relative to their outgroup counterparts. Finally, whole ingroup ratings as well as judgements of likeable and unlikeable ingroup members proved more independent from variability and central tendency of underlying distributions than did similar outgroup judgements. Results are discussed in light of motivational and knowledge-based determinants of group judgements.

Prototypicality of arguments and conformity to ingroup norms.

Abstract: Social categorization is claimed to elicit a tendency to conform to ingroup norms, which may result in attitude change after exposure to information on the opinions of other ingroup members. It was hypothesized that the degree to which arguments represented ingroup norms, i.e., were prototypical, would affect their potential influence on attitudes, such that prototypical arguments would be perceived as being of higher quality and would elicit more attitude change. Moreover, prototypical arguments were expected to elicit more argument elaboration. Two experiments were designed to test these predictions. In Experiment 1 subjects were exposed to both a set of pro and a set of contra arguments, while one of the sets was allegedly prototypical of ingroup attitudes. In Experiment 2 subjects were exposed to either prototypical or a-prototypical pro or contra arguments allegedly originating from in- or outgroup. In both studies conformity to ingroup norms was observed. In addition, prototypical ingroup arguments elicited higher quality ratings in the first study. Indications of higher elaboration of prototypical ingroup arguments were found.

Prototypicality of arguments and conformity to ingroup norms

Abstract: textSocial categorization is claimed to elicit a tendency to conform to ingroup norms, which may result in attitude change after exposure to information on the opinions of other ingroup members. It was hypothesized that the degree to which arguments represented ingroup norms, i.e., were prototypical, would affect their potential influence on attitudes, such that prototypical arguments would be perceived as being of higher quality and would elicit more attitude change. Moreover, prototypical arguments were expected to elicit more argument elaboration. Two experiments were designed to test these predictions. In Experiment 1 subjects were exposed to both a set of pro and a set of contra arguments, while one of the sets was allegedly prototypical of ingroup attitudes. In Experiment 2 subjects were exposed to either prototypical or a-prototypical pro or contra arguments allegedly originating from in- or outgroup. In both studies conformity to ingroup norms was observed. In addition, prototypical ingroup arguments elicited higher quality ratings in the first study. Indications of higher elaboration of prototypical ingroup arguments were found.

Anticipated bias from an outgroup: An attributional analysis

Abstract: Utilizing a group product evaluation paradigm, a study was conducted to investigate anticipated outgroup evaluations. Specifically, it was proposed that ingroup members view outgroups in a way that leads them to anticipate discrimination. Results indicated, as predicted, that while subjects expected outgroup members to favour their own (outgroup) product, they expected impartial judges to agree with their own more favourable rating of the (ingroup) product. It is thus suggested that while subjects saw outgroup members as biased in their anticipated evaluations, they saw their own evaluations as relatively impartial. The results are discussed as an expression of ethnocentric attribution.

Traditional versus social values as antecedents of racial stereotyping and policy conservatism

Abstract: Recent studies of racial attitudes have focused on traditional values, such as individualism, as important antecedents of Americans' opinions on racial issues, with mixed results. We focus on another set of values that has its roots in an older research tradition examining the psychological sources of racial prejudice, which suggests that prejudice against blacks is part of a more encompassing set of values regarding one's acceptance of social diversity. We find that these social values—conformity and social intolerance—are much stronger predictors of racial stereotypes and racial policy attitudes than traditional values of individualism and equalitarianism. We also find these social values to condition an ethnocentric response toward international outgroups in a domain as diverse as foreign affairs, thus providing additional evidence of the pervasive and general nature of values related to a rejection of diversity. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our findings for future research.

Effects of experienced discrimination and different forms of relative deprivation among Surinamese, a Dutch ethnic minority group

Abstract: In a study among 81 Surinamese, members of a Dutch ethnic minority group, we found that experienced discrimination led to both fratenalistic and egoistic relative deprivation (RD). Fraternalistic RD results from a comparison between ingroup and outgroup, and egoistic RD results from a comparison between self and ingroup. In addition, we investigated two specific hypotheses. Fraternalistic RD would be more strongly related to group militancy than egoistic RD, whereas egoistic RD was hypothesized to predict personal satisfaction better than fraternalistic RD. Results, obtained by path analyses, indicated support for the hypotheses.

Ethnic group preferences and the evaluation of ethnic identity among adolescents in The Netherlands.

Abstract: The relationship between the evaluation of ethnic identity and ethnic group preferences among Dutch and that among ethnic minority adolescents was examined. It was predicted that a more positive attitude toward one's own ethnic identity would be associated with a higher level of ingroup preference. This prediction was confirmed, and this led to the question of how inter-ethnic relations and a positive ethnic identity could be stimulated simultaneously. Not only the ingroup aspect of ethnic group relations was studied but also the outgroup aspect. As members of the high-status group, the Dutch subjects showed a higher level of ingroup preference, compared with ethnic minorities. Also, own-group identification and own-group-oriented patterns of preferences among the Dutch subjects were found to be accompanied by the rejection of minority groups. No such tendency was found among adolescents from ethnic minorities.

The Minimal Group Paradigm and its Minimal Psychology: On Equating Social Identity with Arbitrary Group Membership

Abstract: Tajfel and Turner's (1979, 1986) social identity theory, the minimal group paradigm with which the theory is associated and two core findings stemming from that paradigm are the focus of this paper...

Intragroup differentiation in terms of ingroup and outgroup attributes

Abstract: An experiment (n = 36) was conducted to test the hypothesis that attribute typicality moderates intragroup differentiation. The predicted reversal from perceived relative ingroup homogeneity on typical ingroup attributes to perceived relative outgroup homogeneity on typical outgroup attributes was confirmed for both homogeneity measures (standard deviation and probability of differentiation). But the ingroup homogeneity effects were more reliable than the outgroup homogeneity effects. Relative ingroup size (minority versus majority) was included in the experimental design as a between-subjects factor but did not qualify the reversal of perceived relative homogeneity.

Prejudice in a simulated legal context: A further application of social identity theory

Abstract: A substantial amount of research exploring the theoretical parameters of social identity theory has utilized artificially created ingroups and outgroups. This study aimed to examine the propositions of social identity theory between naturally existing groups (French and English Canadians) where the dependent measure was more consequential than typical ratings within this experimental paradigm. Subjects read a transcript of a rape trial which varied the ethnicity of the defendant and victim and were asked to rate the victim and defendant on 18 adjectives and then determine the defendant's guilt on a 7-point scale, while the results are not entirely consistent with the predictions emanating from social identity theory, we did find that French Canadian subjects rated the outgroup (English) defendant more guilty when the victim was from the ingroup (French) than when she was from the outgroup (English) as was anticipated.

Ingroup, Outgroup, and Global-Human Identities of Turkish-Armenians

Abstract: This study was an examination of the ingroup (Armenian), outgroup (Turkish), and global-human identities of Turkish-Armenians, a relatively inaccessible and politically sensitive minority in Turkey. Age, gender, nature and level of education, and involvement in Armenian ethnic organizations were explored as covariates of the three social identities. A convenience sample of 70 Turkish-Armenians participated in the study. A questionnaire was administered in Turkish. The results showed that men, older Armenians, and those who attended Armenian schools scored higher on ingroup (Armenian) identity than did women, younger Armenians, and those who attended Turkish schools, respectively. The younger generation and those who attended Turkish schools scored higher on outgroup (Turkish) identity, indicating possible acculturation, as well as on global-human identity, indicating a move away from parochialism. Ingroup and outgroup identities tended to be negatively related, showing some polarity. Global-human...

The effects of ingroup-outgroup membership on minority influence when group membership is determined by a trivial categorisation

Abstract: Two experiments are reported which investigate the influence of ingroup and outgroup minority influence where group membership was determined according to a trivial dimension The results of the first experiment replicate an earlier study and show that an ingroup minority has significantly more influence than an outgroup minority In the second study the connotations associated with membership of the ingroup and outgroup (positive/negative) were experimentally manipulated When ingroup/outgroup membership was associated with a positive/negative image respectively, the ingroup minority had the most influence However, when ingroup/outgroup membership was associated with a negative/positive image, as predicted, an outgroup minority had more influence than an ingroup minority These results are interpreted as supporting an intergroup analysis of minority influence processes

Some Thoughts on the Goals of Social Psychological Research on Stereotyping

Abstract: In this provocative piece, Robin Fox argues that the demonstration of Kahneman and Tversky's (1971, 1973; Tversky & Kahneman, 1974) representativeness heuristic is fundamentally a demonstration of the tendency to think in terms of stereotypes. Although judgments derived from this form of thinking may not follow the formal rules of logic, or the law of large numbers, Fox argues that such thought processes persist because they have "worked" in the past. Thinking in terms of social categories has survival value, and as such, stereotyping and prejudice do not deserve the level of "bad press" they have recently received. This argument could (and likely will) be examined from numerous angles. I focus on just one: The theoretical orientation and goals of social scientists who study stereotyping and prejudice. The basic argument Fox makes regarding the functional utility of stereotypes can be interpreted in two ways. I believe what he intends to argue is that the process of stereotyping, the formation of social categories and the placing of others into these, is both inevitable and ultimately desirable. The second, much less benign, interpretation is that the content of the particular stereotypes under which we operate today is justified on the basis of survival value. The text wanders dangerously back and forth between these two interpretations. The first interpretation, that thinking in terms of categories is both necessary and efficient, captures the basic framework under which nearly all social psychological research on the nature of stereotypes has been conducted. That the human mind works by creating and modifying categories of objects has been a basic tenet of experimental and cognitive psychology. Assimilation and accommodation, the means by which cognitive development progresses according to Piaget (1929/1972, 1952), are ultimately the tools for category development and modification. Fox correctly cites the writings of Allport (1958), who argues that stereotypes are social categories for organizing one's world, as inevitable and essential as object categories such as fruits or furniture. From there, however, he claims that social psychologists have concentrated only on the negative implications of stereotypes, and that they have failed to appreciate that stereotypes exist first and foremost as an effective means for dealing with an overly complex social environment. I must be thinking of a different body of social psychological research than Fox. When I read the work of both European and American social psychologists, the common thread is that thinking in terms of stereotypes is a natural extension of thinking in terms of categories, and that this form of mental operation typically serves us well. The tendency to think in terms of stereotypes is so pervasive for exactly the reason that it derives from how we think about many, if not most, other areas of our lives. It is a given that stereotypes will, therefore, never be eliminated. Instead, the research has focussed on negative byproducts of the stereotyping process, recognizing that such byproducts are potentially important precisely because of the inevitability of thinking in terms of social categories, or stereotypes. Henri Tajfel (1969; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), for example, argued that humans have an enormous propensity to categorize one another into social groups. Even groups with a very minimal basis for existence (i.e., dot estimation techniques or painter preferences) can take on important psychological meaning, so that one shows biased judgments in favor of ingroup members at the expense of out-group members. Tajfel's point was not that humans are illogical or inept, but simply that categorization is germane to human cognitive functioning and that, although in general that may be good, some problems can result. Like any form of thinking, categorization processes carry with them certain probable sideeffects that are useful to understand. Tajfel went on to study the implications of categorization. These were not necessarily negative consequences, nor did they pertain only to social categories. Rather, they were effects emerging simply as a function of organizing the world into categories. Thus, in an influential article, Tajfel and Wilkes (1963), using physical stimuli (lines of varying lengths), argued that one consequence of organizing discrete instances into categories is that the perceived differences between two categories are maximized, whereas the perceived differences among instances within the category are minimized. Such consequences are informative when considering social categorization. They need not necessarily lead to negative outcomes, but there are certainly situations in which negative results might likely occur. Similarly, work by Rothbart (Rothbart, 1981; Rothbart & John, 1985), Hamilton (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986), Brewer (1988), and others echoes the point of view that stereotypes exist because of the tendency for the human mind to think in terms of categories, and that such a tendency has predictable and important implications. None of these researchers would argue that stereotypes should not influence judgments about others, as Fox suggests. In Fox's examples where truly diagnostic information is provided, social psychologists would generally agree that a judgment of the likelihood of group membership should be increased due to the stereotype information. In fact, the basic process underlying Kahneman and Tversky's (1971, 1973) representativeness heuristic-namely, failure to use base-rate information-was adopted by a social psychologist, Ann Locksley (Locksley, Hepburn, & Ortiz, 1982; Locksley, Ortiz, & Hepburn, 1980), to argue that humans underuse stereotype information in making judgments of others and that logic dictates we should rely more heavily on knowledge about the category than we do to predict the future behavior of others. This argument has not been without controversy (Glick, Zion, & Nelson, 1988; Krueger & Rothbart, 1988; Rasinski, Crocker, & Hastie, 1985), but the point is that social psychologists have not claimed, as implied by Fox, that under no circumstances is it appropriate to use stereotype information when judging others. The Locksley argument is clearly at odds with Fox's portrayal of social psychologists. In my reading of the social psychological literature, researchers have recognized that organizing the world into

Prejudice-Reduction Simulations: Social Cognition, Intergroup Theory, and Ethics:

Abstract: Taking a social psychological perspective, the capacity for prejudice-reduction simulations to change prejudicial attitudes is examined using theoretical insights from social cognition and intergro...

Social Categorization Affects Recall of Ingroup and Outgroup Members' Attitudes.

Abstract: The most funaamental classificat:i.on of indiviauals into social groups is whether an individual belongs to your group (ingroup member) or to some other group (outgroup member). Individuals tend to favor their own group as compared to the outgroup; perceive outgroup members as being different from ingroup members and homogeneous in their own attitudes and behavior; and perceive ingroup members as similar to one another, but possessing a variety of cpinions and behaviors. Memory for ingroup and outgroup members' behaviors is influenced by expectancies generated by social categorization. This s'zudy examined the effect of social categorization on memory for attitudes of ingroup and outgroup members. College students (N=39) were assigned to a group affiliation based on an arbitrary criterion and were informed that the other person in the study was in their group, the other group, or given no group affiliation for the person. Subjects were given an attitude profile of the person constructed to contain an equal number of similar and dissimilar attitudes to their own. The results of a tree recall task indicated that subjects recalled both similarities and differences about ingroup members, but remembered only differences about outgroup members. These findings suggest that social categorization affects the encoding of information which leads to a differential recall effect. (Author/NB) ********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are thP best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION AFFECTS RECALL OF INGROUP AND OUTGROUP MEMBERS' ATTITUDES BEST COPY AMBLE KATHLEEN E. MARRING and LOWELL GAERTNER