Linking superiority bias in the interpersonal and intergroup domains

The author conducted 2 studies to explore the link between superiority bias in the interpersonal and intergroup domains. Australian university students evaluated the extent to which various personality traits were more or less applicable to themselves than to other Australian university students in general. They then evaluated the extent to which the same traits were more or less applicable to Australians than to people from other countries in general. As expected, the more participants evaluated themselves as superior to other university students, the more they evaluated Australians as a whole as superior to people from other countries. This link between interpersonal and intergroup superiority biases explained 22.1% of variance in Study 1 and 33.6% of variance in Study 2. The author interprets the results of the 2 studies as support for fundamental principles of social identity theory: (a) that self-concept consists of not only one's personal self but also the social groups to which one belongs and (b) that people are motivated to view both levels of self in a relatively positive fashion.

Criticizing groups from the inside and the outside: An identity perspective on the intergroup sensitivity effect

Research on group criticism has demonstrated that criticisms are received less defensively when made by an ingroup member than when made by an outsider (the intergroup sensitivity effect). Three experiments tested the extent to which this effect is driven by social identity concerns or by judgments of how experienced the source of the criticism is. In Experiments I and 2, Australians who criticized Australia (ingroup critics) were met with less defensiveness than were foreigners who criticized Australia (outgroup critics), regardless of the amount of experience the foreigner had with Australia. Furthermore, the effects of speaker type on evaluations were mediated by perceptions of the extent to which the criticisms were intended to be constructive but not by perceptions of experience. Finally, Experiment 3 indicated that although experience does not help outgroup critics, a lack of experience can hurt ingroup critics. Recommendations are provided as to how people can reduce defensiveness when making group criticisms.

The social identity perspective - Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups

The historical development, metatheoretical background, and current state of the social identity perspective in social psychology are described. Although originally, an analysis mainly of intergroup relations between large-scale social categories, and more recently an analysis with a strong social cognitive emphasis, this article shows that the social identity perspective is intended to be a general analysis of group membership and group processes. It focuses on the generative relationship between collective self-conception and group phenomena. To demonstrate the relevance of the social identity perspective to small groups, the article describes social identity research in a number of areas: differentiation within groups; leadership; deviance; group decision making; organizations; computer mediated communication; mobilization, collective action, and social loafing; and group culture. These art the areas in which most work has been done and which arc therefore best placed for further developments in the near future.

When differences matter: Intergroup distinctiveness and the evaluation of impostors

The present study examined the effect of intergroup distinctiveness and group membership on evaluations of impostors. We predicted that ingroup members would be harsher than outgroup members on an impostor and that perceptions of intergroup distinctiveness would further moderate these evaluations. Specifically, we tested the social identity theory prediction that low intergroup distinctiveness would lead to greater derogation of the impostor (the 'reactive distinctiveness' hypothesis) against the self-categorization hypothesis that high intergroup distinctiveness would instigate more derogation of an impostor (the 'reflective distinctiveness' hypothesis). In this study, vegetarians (ingroup members) and meat eaters (outgroup members) were presented with a target claiming to be vegetarian, but caught indulging in a meat dish. We found that ingroup members derogated the impostor more and felt less pleased about discovering the impostor behaviour than did outgroup members. In line with the reflective distinctiveness hypothesis, the heightened derogation displayed by ingroup members only emerged when intergroup distinctiveness was high, an effect that was mediated by ratings of group identification. The discussion focuses on the different responses intergroup distinctiveness may evoke. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Perceptions of the intergroup structure and anti-Asian prejudice among white Australians

Subjective intergroup beliefs and authoritarianism were assessed in a field study (N=255) of White Australians' anti-Asian stereotyping and prejudice. A social identity analysis of intergroup prejudice was adopted, such that perceptions of the intergroup structure (instability, permeability, legitimacy and higher ingroup status) were proposed as predictors of higher prejudice (blatant and covert) and less favorable stereotyping. Consistent with the social identity approach, both independent and interacting roles for sociostructural predictors of Anti-Asian bias were observed, even after demographic and personality variables were controlled. For example, perceived legitimacy was associated with higher prejudice when White Australians' status position relative to Asian Australians was valued. Moreover, when participants evaluated Whites' position as unstable and high status or legitimate, perceptions of permeable intergroup boundaries were associated with anti-Asian bias. The present findings demonstrate status protection responses in advantaged group members in a field setting, lending weight to the contention that perceptions of sociostructural threat interact to predict outgroup derogation. Implications for theories of intergroup relations are discussed.

Normative influence and rational conflict decisions: Group norms and cost-benefit analyses for intergroup behavior

The present paper articulates a model in which ingroup and outgroup norms inform 'rational' decision-making (cost-benefit analysis) for conflict behaviors. Norms influence perceptions of the consequences of the behavior, and individuals may thus strategically conform to or violate norms in order to acquire benefits and avoid costs. Two studies demonstrate these processes in the context of conflict in Quebec. In the first study, Anglophones' perceptions of Francophone and Anglophone norms for pro-English behaviors predicted evaluations of the benefits and costs of the behaviors, and these cost-benefit evaluations in turn mediated the norm-intention links for both group norms. In the second study, a manipulated focus on supportive versus hostile ingroup and outgroup norms also predicted cost-benefit evaluations, which mediated the norm-intention relationships. The studies support a model of strategic conflict choices in which group norms inform, rather than suppress, rational expectancy value processes. Implications for theories of decision-making and normative influence are discussed.

'You can criticize because you care': Identity attachment, constructiveness, and the intergroup sensitivity effect

Criticism of one's group (e.g. nation, gender, or organization) is typically received in a less defensive way when it stems from another ingroup member than when it stems from an outsider (the intergroup sensitivity effect). We present two experiments demonstrating that this effect is driven not by group membership per se, but by the extent to which critics are perceived to be psychologically invested in the group they are criticizing. In Experiment 1 (N = 117), Australian participants were exposed to criticisms of their country from either other Australians (ingroup critics) or non-Australians (outgroup critics). Furthermore, the ingroup critics were described as having either strong or weak attachment to their Australian identity. Ingroup critics were only received more positively than outgroup critics when they appeared to have a psychological investment in the group. In Experiment 2 (N = 96) we show how outgroup critics (Asian-Australians) can overcome defensiveness among Anglo-Australians by locating themselves within a shared, superordinate identity (Australian). Implications for communication within and between groups are discussed.

Predictors of cultural adjustment: Intergroup status relations and boundary permeability

We examined intergroup predictors of cultural adjustment among Asian international students in Australia. Sociostructural beliefs (status, legitimacy, and permeability) and initial adjustment were assessed (N = 113) at Time 1, and measures of adjustment were obtained (N = 80) at Time 2 eight weeks later. International students who perceived their cultural group to be relatively low in status experienced lower levels of psychological adjustment. Also, as expected, the effects of status were moderated by perceptions of both the permeability of intergroup boundaries and the legitimacy of the status differential. At high levels of legitimacy, perceptions of permeable group boundaries were associated with better psychological, sociocultural, and academic adjustment among international students perceiving their group to be low in status, but lower levels of adjustment among students who perceived their group to be high in status. At low levels of legitimacy, irrespective of group status position, perceived permeability was not related to adjustment.