The development of national in-group bias: English children's attributions of characteristics to English, American and German people

This study investigated the development of national in-group bias in 5-11-year-old children. Three hundred and seven English children were asked to attribute characteristics to their own national group either on its own or in conjunction with attributing characteristics to one of two national out-groups, either Americans or Germans. The importance which the children ascribed to their own national identity in relationship to their other social identities was also assessed. It was found that, with increasing age, there was an increase in the number of negative characteristics attributed to the national in-group, and an increase in the number of positive characteristics attributed to the two out-groups, the net result being an overall reduction in in-group bias across this age range. However, in-group favouritism was still exhibited at all ages. Greater importance was attributed to national identity with increasing age. However, the characteristics attributed to the English in-group did not vary as a function of the comparative out-group which was present while the attributions were being made. The presence of a comparative out-group also did not affect the importance that was ascribed to the national identity. These findings suggest that children are relatively insensitive to the prevailing comparative context when making judgments about national groups.

Resolving questions about bias in real and hypothetical referenda

Despite 10 years of research on behavior in hypothetical referenda, conflict remains in the literature on whether or not the mechanism generates biased responses compared to real referenda, and the nature and source of any such bias. Almost all previous inquiry in respect of this issue has concentrated on bias at the aggregate level. This paper reports a series of three experiments which focuses on bias at the individual level and how this can translate to bias at the aggregate level. The authors argue that only an individual approach to hypothetical bias is consistent with the concept of incentive compatibility. The results of these experiments reflect these previous conflicting findings but go on to show that individual hypothetical bias is a robust result driven by the differing influence of pure self-interest and other-regarding preferences in real and hypothetical situations, rather than by a single behavioral theory such as free riding. In a hypothetical situation these preferences cause yea-saying and non-demand revealing voting. This suggests that investigation of individual respondents in other hypothetical one-shot binary choices may also provide us with insights into aggregate behavior in these situations.

Recruitment bias and clinical characterstics of participants with severe cerebral palsy in a cross-sectional survey

Aim.  This article is a report of recruitment bias in a sample of 5–25-year-old patients with severe cerebral palsy.

Background.  The way in which study participants are recruited into research can be a source of bias.

Method.  A cross-sectional survey of 5–25-year-old patients with severe cerebral palsy using standardized questionnaires with parents/carers was undertaken in 2007/2008. A case register was used as the sampling frame, and 260 families were approached: 178/260 (68%) responded and 82/260 families never replied (non-respondents). Among responders: 127/178 (71%) opted in to the study, but only 123/127 were assessed, and 82/178 were opted out (or refused). Multivariable logistic regression giving odds ratios was used to study the association between participant characteristics and study outcomes (responders vs. non-responders; opting in vs. opting out; assessed vs. eligible, but not assessed).

Results.  Responders (compared with non-responders) were significantly more likely to have a family member with cerebral palsy who was male and resident in more affluent areas. Families who opted in (compared with those opting out and refusing) were more likely to have a family member with cerebral palsy and intellectual impairment and to reside in certain geographical areas. Families who were actually assessed (compared with all eligible, but not assessed) were more likely to have a family member with cerebral palsy and intellectual impairment.

Conclusion.  Several sources of bias were identified during recruitment for this study. This has implications for the interpretation and conclusions of surveys of people with disabilities and complex needs.

Explaining the relationship between ingroup identification and intergroup bias following recategorization: A self-regulation theory analysis

We tested the hypothesis that regulation of discrepancies between perceived actual and ideal differentiation between the ingroup and outgroup could help to explain the relationship between ingroup identification and intergroup bias when participants are recategorized into a superordinate group. Replicating previous findings, we found that following recategorization, identification was positively related to intergroup bias. No such differences emerged in a control condition. However, we also, in the recategorization condition only, observed a positive association between ingroup identification and the perceived discrepancy between actual and ideal degree of differentiation from the outgroup: at higher levels of identification, participants increasingly perceived the ingroup to be less differentiated from the outgroup than they would ideally like. This tendency mediated the relationship between identification and bias. We discuss the theoretical, methodological and practical implications of these findings.

Common Ingroups and Complex Identities: Routes to Reducing Bias in Multiple Category Contexts

We tested the hypothesis that evaluative bias in common ingroup contexts versus crossed categorization contexts can be associated with two distinct underlying processes. We reasoned that in common ingroup contexts, self-categorization, but not perceived complexity, would be positively related to intergroup bias. In contrast, in crossed categorization contexts, perceived complexity, but not self-categorization, would be negatively related to intergroup bias. In two studies, and in line with predictions, we found that while self-categorization and intergroup bias were related in common ingroup contexts, this was not the case in crossed categorization contexts. Moreover, we found that perceived category complexity, and not self-categorization, predicted bias in crossed categorization contexts. We discuss the implications of these findings for models of social categorization and intergroup bias.