Intergroup bias in third-party punishment stems from both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination

Social norms pervade almost every aspect of social interaction. If they are violated, not only legal institutions, but other members of society as well, punish, i.e., inflict costs on the wrongdoer. Sanctioning occurs even when the punishers themselves were not harmed directly and even when it is costly for them. There is evidence for intergroup bias in this third-party punishment: third-parties, who share group membership with victims, punish outgroup perpetrators more harshly than ingroup perpetrators. However, it is unknown whether a discriminatory treatment of outgroup perpetrators (outgroup discrimination) or a preferential treatment of ingroup perpetrators (ingroup favoritism) drives this bias. To answer this question, the punishment of outgroup and ingroup perpetrators must be compared to a baseline, i.e., unaffiliated perpetrators. By applying a costly punishment game, we found stronger punishment of outgroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators and weaker punishment of ingroup versus unaffiliated perpetrators. This demonstrates that both ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination drive intergroup bias in third-party punishment of perpetrators that belong to distinct social groups.

Being attuned to intergroup differences in mergers: The role of aligned leaders for low-status groups

The present research focused on responses of low-status group members to a merger with a high-status group. A study was conducted (N = 153) in which the alignment of the leader for the merged group (ingroup vs. outgroup) and leader behavior (equality, outgroup favoritism, ingroup favoritism, complementarity) were manipulated. The authors predicted that the leader, by his or her behavior, would play an important role in defining the new relationship between premerger groups. Overall, low-status ingroup leaders were evaluated more positively than high-status outgroup leaders. Ingroup leaders were evaluated more favorably and were more likely to engender a common identity in the merged group than were outgroup leaders when leaders behaved in an ingroup-favoring or complementary fashion. In contrast, evaluations of ingroup and outgroup leaders did not differ when the leader stressed equality or was outgroup favoring. The findings demonstrate the important role leaders can play in accentuating or de-emphasizing premerger status differences.

Atitudes de crianças em relação aos grupos nacionais

In the present study we are going to analyze the development of the ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation in relation to national groups (Portuguese as ingroup and Cape-Verdeans, Brazilian and Chinese as outgroups) in Portuguese children with ages between 6 and 10 years (60 participants with 6/7 years and 60 participants with 9/10 years). The first aim of this research was to examine whether the ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation changes according to the age groups. We started from the idea that the age groups would show ingroup preference. However in relation to negativity outgroup it was expected to be less evident. The second aim of this study was to examine if the ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation would be relatively independent, or if they would be related to each other, so that positive perceptions of national ingroup were associated with negative perceptions of national outgroups (in particular, Cape-Verde, Brazilian and Chinese). In a nut Shell, the results confirmed the hypotheses, and in both age groups, the children showed ingroup preference, the negativism of the outgroup was less obvious in the Brazilian group but not in the others (Cape-Verdeans and Chinese). Regarding the relation between the preference for the ingroup and the negativity of the outgroup we realized that these are relatively independent. As a result, we found that the ingroup favoritism is not related with outgroup derogation, it means that, positive perceptions of the ingroup are not related with negative perceptions of the outgroups.

Atitudes de crianças em relação aos grupos nacionais

In the present study we are going to analyze the development of the ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation in relation to national groups (Portuguese as ingroup and Cape-Verdeans, Brazilian and Chinese as outgroups) in Portuguese children with ages between 6 and 10 years (60 participants with 6/7 years and 60 participants with 9/10 years). The first aim of this research was to examine whether the ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation changes according to the age groups. We started from the idea that the age groups would show ingroup preference. However in relation to negativity outgroup it was expected to be less evident. The second aim of this study was to examine if the ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation would be relatively independent, or if they would be related to each other, so that positive perceptions of national ingroup were associated with negative perceptions of national outgroups (in particular, Cape-Verde, Brazilian and Chinese). In a nut Shell, the results confirmed the hypotheses, and in both age groups, the children showed ingroup preference, the negativism of the outgroup was less obvious in the Brazilian group but not in the others (Cape-Verdeans and Chinese). Regarding the relation between the preference for the ingroup and the negativity of the outgroup we realized that these are relatively independent. As a result, we found that the ingroup favoritism is not related with outgroup derogation, it means that, positive perceptions of the ingroup are not related with negative perceptions of the outgroups.

Atitudes de crianças em relação aos grupos nacionais

No presente estudo vamos analisar o desenvolvimento do favoritismo endogrupal e do “derogation” (desvalorização) exogrupal em relação a grupos nacionais (portugueses como endogrupo e cabo-verdianos, brasileiros e chineses como exogrupos) em crianças portuguesas com idades compreendidas entre os 6 e os 10 anos (60 participantes com 6/7 anos e 60 participantes com 9/10 anos). O primeiro objectivo desta investigação consistiu em examinar se o favoritismo endogrupal e o “derogation” exogrupal variam em função de grupos etários. Partimos da ideia de que os grupos etários evidenciariam preferência endogrupal. Já em relação à negatividade exogrupal era esperado que fosse menos evidente. O segundo objectivo deste estudo foi examinar se o favoritismo endogrupal e o “derogation” exogrupal seriam relativamente independentes, ou se estariam reciprocamente relacionados, de modo que percepções positivas do endogrupo nacional estivessem associadas com percepções negativas dos exogrupos nacionais (em particular, cabo-verdianos, brasileiros e chineses). Os resultados confirmaram as hipóteses, assim em ambos os grupos etários as crianças evidenciaram preferência endogrupal, a negatividade do exogrupo, foi apenas menos evidente para o exogrupo brasileiros e não para os restantes (cabo-verdianos e chineses). Relativamente à relação entre a preferência pelo endogrupo e a negatividade do exogrupo verificou-se que estas são relativamente independentes. Assim verificou-se que o favoritismo endogrupal não está relacionado com a desvalorização exogrupal, ou seja, percepções positivas do endogrupo não estão relacionadas com percepções negativas dos exogrupos.

Psychosocial analysis of the collective processes in the United States after September 11

This article studies alterations in the values, attitudes, and behaviors that emerged among U.S. citizens as a consequence of, and as a response to, the attacks of September 11, 2001. The study briefly examines the immediate reaction to the attack, before focusing on the collective reactions that characterized the behavior of the majority of the population between the events of 9/11 and the response to it in the form of intervention in Afghanistan. In studying this period an eight-phase sequential model (Botcharova, 2001) is used, where the initial phases center on the nation as the ingroup and the latter focus on the enemy who carried out the attack as the outgroup. The study is conducted from a psychosocial perspective and uses "social identity theory" (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) as the basic framework for interpreting and accounting for the collective reactions recorded. The main purpose of this paper is to show that the interpretation of these collective reactions is consistent with the postulates of social identity theory. The application of this theory provides a different and specific analysis of events. The study is based on data obtained from a variety of rigorous academic studies and opinion polls conducted in relation to the events of 9/11. In line with social identity theory, 9/11 had a marked impact on the importance attached by the majority of U.S. citizens to their identity as members of a nation. This in turn accentuated group differentiation and activated ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). Ingroup favoritism strengthened group cohesion, feelings of solidarity, and identification with the most emblematic values of the U.S. nation, while outgroup discrimination induced U.S. citizens to conceive the enemy (al-Qaeda and its protectors) as the incarnation of evil, depersonalizing the group and venting their anger on it, and to give their backing to a military response, the eventual intervention in Afghanistan. Finally, and also in line with the postulates of social identity theory, as an alternative to the virtual bipolarization of the conflict (U.S. vs al-Qaeda), the activation of a higher level of identity in the ingroup is proposed, a group that includes the United States and the largest possible number of countries¿ including Islamic states¿in the search for a common, more legitimate and effective solution.

Psychosocial analysis of the collective processes in the United States after September 11

This article studies alterations in the values, attitudes, and behaviors that emerged among U.S. citizens as a consequence of, and as a response to, the attacks of September 11, 2001. The study briefly examines the immediate reaction to the attack, before focusing on the collective reactions that characterized the behavior of the majority of the population between the events of 9/11 and the response to it in the form of intervention in Afghanistan. In studying this period an eight-phase sequential model (Botcharova, 2001) is used, where the initial phases center on the nation as the ingroup and the latter focus on the enemy who carried out the attack as the outgroup. The study is conducted from a psychosocial perspective and uses "social identity theory" (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) as the basic framework for interpreting and accounting for the collective reactions recorded. The main purpose of this paper is to show that the interpretation of these collective reactions is consistent with the postulates of social identity theory. The application of this theory provides a different and specific analysis of events. The study is based on data obtained from a variety of rigorous academic studies and opinion polls conducted in relation to the events of 9/11. In line with social identity theory, 9/11 had a marked impact on the importance attached by the majority of U.S. citizens to their identity as members of a nation. This in turn accentuated group differentiation and activated ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). Ingroup favoritism strengthened group cohesion, feelings of solidarity, and identification with the most emblematic values of the U.S. nation, while outgroup discrimination induced U.S. citizens to conceive the enemy (al-Qaeda and its protectors) as the incarnation of evil, depersonalizing the group and venting their anger on it, and to give their backing to a military response, the eventual intervention in Afghanistan. Finally, and also in line with the postulates of social identity theory, as an alternative to the virtual bipolarization of the conflict (U.S. vs al-Qaeda), the activation of a higher level of identity in the ingroup is proposed, a group that includes the United States and the largest possible number of countries¿ including Islamic states¿in the search for a common, more legitimate and effective solution.

Phylogenetic relationships within the speciose family Characidae (Teleostei: Ostariophysi: Characiformes) based on multilocus analysis and extensive ingroup sampling

Background: With nearly 1,100 species, the fish family Characidae represents more than half of the species of Characiformes, and is a key component of Neotropical freshwater ecosystems. The composition, phylogeny, and classification of Characidae is currently uncertain, despite significant efforts based on analysis of morphological and molecular data. No consensus about the monophyly of this group or its position within the order Characiformes has been reached, challenged by the fact that many key studies to date have non-overlapping taxonomic representation and focus only on subsets of this diversity. Results: In the present study we propose a new definition of the family Characidae and a hypothesis of relationships for the Characiformes based on phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences of two mitochondrial and three nuclear genes (4,680 base pairs). The sequences were obtained from 211 samples representing 166 genera distributed among all 18 recognized families in the order Characiformes, all 14 recognized subfamilies in the Characidae, plus 56 of the genera so far considered incertae sedis in the Characidae. The phylogeny obtained is robust, with most lineages significantly supported by posterior probabilities in Bayesian analysis, and high bootstrap values from maximum likelihood and parsimony analyses. Conclusion: A monophyletic assemblage strongly supported in all our phylogenetic analysis is herein defined as the Characidae and includes the characiform species lacking a supraorbital bone and with a derived position of the emergence of the hyoid artery from the anterior ceratohyal. To recognize this and several other monophyletic groups within characiforms we propose changes in the limits of several families to facilitate future studies in the Characiformes and particularly the Characidae. This work presents a new phylogenetic framework for a speciose and morphologically diverse group of freshwater fishes of significant ecological and evolutionary importance across the Neotropics and portions of Africa.

Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction

Two studies examined relations between groups (humanities and math-science students) that implicitly or explicitly share a common superordinate category (university student). In Experiment 1, 178 participants performed a noninteractive decision-making task during which category salience was manipulated in a 2 (superordinate category salience) x 2 (subordinate category salience) between-groups design. Consistent with the mutual intergroup differentiation model, participants for whom both categories were salient exhibited the lowest levels of bias, whereas bias was strongest when the superordinate category alone was made salient. This pattern of results was replicated in Experiment 2 (N = 135). In addition, Experiment 2 demonstrated that members of subgroups that are nested within a superordinate category are more sensitive to how the superordinate category is represented than are members of subgroups that extend beyond the boundaries of the superordinate category.

The link between prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviour: The role of ingroup norms

In the present research, a reconceptualisation of the role of norms in the link between prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviour — along the lines suggested by the social identity perspective — was tested. In the first study, group salience and group norm were manipulated. As expected, participants ascribed negative traits to significantly fewer Asian university students when they had received consensus information along these lines from a salient ingroup rather than from a salient outgroup. These results were replicated on a measure of strength of motivation to appear nonprejudiced. In a second study, group salience and norm were once again manipulated and strength of attitude and perceived group threat were measured. As predicted, people's negative attitudes towards globalisation were more likely to predict congruent behavioural responses to the extent that the group norm supported the attitude and group salience was high, particularly when high levels of group threat were perceived.

'You can criticise because you care': How attributions affect responses to ingroup and outgroup critics

There are times when people feel compelled to stand up and articulate their group's shortcomings, an act that carries with it enormous social risks. Indeed, a mechanistic reading of social identity theory might lead one to believe that ingroup critics are doomed to face hostility because they are attacking a fundamental part of people's self-concept. But often ingroup critics are doing more than attacking their group — they are trying to incite positive change. Criticism is the cornerstone of protest, and it is difficult to imagine how a group can be reinvigorated, reinvented, or reformed without some process of critical self-reflection. Thus, although the ingroup critic might create tension within the group, it is possible that internal criticism could be seen by other group members as beneficial in terms of promoting positive change and stimulating innovation, creativity, and flexibility in decision making. In this talk I examine the 'identity rules' that ingroup critics need to follow to avoid defensiveness, and look at empirical evidence of how factors such as language, the intergroup context, and choice of audience shape people's attributions regarding criticism and their subsequent evaluations of critics.

Status, legitimacy and ingroup bias in the context of an organizational merger

Adopting an intergroup perspective, the research was designed to examine predictors of employee responses to an organizational merger. Data were collected from 120 employees of a newly merged scientific organization. As predicted from social identity theory, the most negative responses to the merger were apparent among the employees of the low status premerger organization. There was also evidence of ingroup bias among both groups of employees involved in the merger—as expected, the bias was most marked on the status-irrelevant dimensions for the employees of the lower status organization, but most marked on the status-relevant dimensions for the employees of the high status organization. Also, in support of social identity theory, the perceived legitimacy of the basis for the status differentiation between the groups was associated with more positive responses to the merger among employees of the low status premerger organization, but with poorer responses among employees of the high status premerger organization. There was consistent evidence that the status by legitimacy interaction was mediated through the extent to which employees of the newly merged organization perceived a common ingroup identity

Improving attitude-behavior correspondence through exposure to normative support from a salient ingroup

Two experiments were conducted to test predictions derived from social identity/self-categorization theory concerning the role of group norms in attitude-behavior consistency. In Experiment 1, 160 students who could be classified as having a more or less certain target attitude were exposed to attitude congruent versus incongruent normative support from a relevant reference group (own university) under conditions of low versus high group salience. Experiment 2 was very similar in design and methodology (N=180), but a different correlate of attitude accessibility was used (an experimental manipulation of repeated expression), the target attitude was changed, and the reference group was gender. Across the 2 experiments there was consistent support for the hypothesis that participants would behave more in accordance with their attitudes when they received normative support for, rather than opposition to, their original attitude from a relevant reference group (i.e., their ingroup, not an outgroup). There was slightly weaker support for the second hypothesis that this effect would be stronger under high-than low-salience conditions. The third hypothesis (see Fazio, 1986), that attitude certainty and repeated expression of the attitude would strengthen attitude-behavior consistency, was well supported, as was the expectation that accessibility effects would be independent of reference group norm effects on attitude-behavior consistency.