Perceptions of intergroup bias : the roles of social projection and meta-stereotypes

Underlying intergroup perceptions include processes of social projection (perceiving personal traitslbeliefs in others, see Krueger 1998) and meta-stereotyping (thinking about other groups' perceptions of one's own group, see Vorauer et aI., 1998). Two studies were conducted to investigate social projection and meta-stereotypes in the domain of White-Black racial relations. Study 1, a correlational study, examined the social projection of prejudice and 'prejudiced' meta-stereotypes among Whites. Results revealed that (a) Whites socially projected their intergroup attitudes onto other Whites (and Blacks) [i.e., Whites higher in prejudice against Blacks believed a large percentage of Whites (Blacks) are prejudiced against Blacks (Whites), whereas Whites low in prejudice believed a smaller percentage of Whites (Blacks) are prejudiced]; (b) Whites held the meta:..stereotype that their group (Whites) is viewed by Blacks to be prejudiced; and (c) prejudiced meta-stereotypes may be formed through the social projection of intergroup attitudes (result of path-model tests). Further, several correlates of social projection and meta-stereotypes were identified, including the finding that feeling negatively stereotyped by an outgroup predicted outgroup avoidance through heightened intergroup anxiety. Study 2 replicated and extended these findings, investigating the social projection of ingroup favouritism and meta- and other-stereotypes about ingroup favouritism. These processes were examined experimentally using an anticipated intergroup contact paradigm. The goal was to understand the experimental conditions under which people would display the strongest social projection of intergroup attitudes, and when experimentally induced meta-stereotypes (vs. other-stereotypes; beliefs about the group 11 preferences of one's outgroup) would be most damaging to intergroup contact. White participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions and received (alleged) feedback from a previously completed computer-based test. Depending on condition, this information suggested that: (a) the participant favoured Whites over Blacks; (b) previous White participants favoured Whites over Blacks; (c) the participant's Black partner favoured Blacks over Whites; (d) previous Black participants favoured Blacks over Whites; (e) the participant's Black partner viewed the participant to favour Whites over Blacks; or (£) Black participants previously participating viewed Whites to favour Whites over Blacks. In a defensive reaction, Whites exhibited enhanced social projection of personal intergroup attitudes onto their ingroup under experimental manipulations characterized by self-concept threat (i.e., when the computer revealed that the participant favoured the ingroup or was viewed to favour the ingroup). Manipulated meta- and otherstereotype information that introduced intergroup contact threat, on the other hand, each exerted a strong negative impact on intergroup contact expectations (e.g., anxiety). Personal meta-stereotype manipulations (i.e., when the participant was informed that her/ his partner thinks s/he favours the ingroup) exerted an especially negative impact on intergroup behaviour, evidenced by increased avoidance of the upcoming interracial interaction. In contrast, personal self-stereotype manipulations (i.e., computer revealed that one favoured the ingroup) ironically improved upcoming intergroup contact expectations and intentions, likely due to an attempt to reduce the discomfort of holding negative intergroup attitudes. Implications and directions for future research are considered.

Subliminal Exposure to Empathy Primes: A New Method to Reduce Intergroup Bias?

An abundant literature has demonstrated the benefits of empathy for intergroup relations (e.g., Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002). In addition, empathy has been identified as the mechanism by which various successful prejudice-reduction procedures impact attitudes and behaviour (e.g., Costello & Hodson, 2010). However, standard explicit techniques used in empathy-prejudice research have a number of potential limitations (e.g., resistance; McGregor, 1993). The present project explored an alternative technique, subliminally priming (i.e., outside of awareness) empathy-relevant terms (Study 1), or empathy itself (Study 2). Study 1 compared the effects of exposure to subliminal empathy-relevant primes (e.g., compassion) versus no priming and priming the opposite of empathy (e.g., indifference) on prejudice (i.e., negative attitudes), discrimination (i.e., resource allocation), and helping behaviour (i.e., willingness to empower, directly assist, or expect group change) towards immigrants. Relative to priming the opposite of empathy, participants exposed to primes of empathy-relevant constructs expressed less prejudice and were more willingness to empower immigrants. In addition, the effects were not moderated by individual differences in prejudice-relevant variables (i.e., Disgust Sensitivity, Intergroup Disgust-Sensitivity, Intergroup Anxiety, Social Dominance Orientation, Right-wing Authoritarianism). Study 2 considered a different target category (i.e., Blacks) and attempted to strengthen the effects found by comparing the impact of subliminal empathy primes (relative to no prime or subliminal primes of empathy paired with Blacks) on explicit prejudice towards marginalized groups and Blacks, willingness to help marginalized groups and Blacks, as well as implicit prejudice towards Blacks. In addition, Study 2 considered potential mechanisms for the predicted effects; specifically, general empathy, affective empathy towards Blacks, cognitive empathy towards Blacks, positive mood, and negative mood. Unfortunately, using subliminal empathy primes “backfired”, such that exposure to subliminal empathy primes (relative to no prime) heightened prejudice towards marginalized groups and Blacks, and led to stronger expectations that marginalized groups and Blacks improve their own situation. However, exposure to subliminal primes pairing empathy with Blacks (relative to subliminal empathy primes alone) resulted in less prejudice towards marginalized groups and more willingness to directly assist Blacks, as expected. Interestingly, exposure to subliminal primes of empathy paired with Blacks (vs. empathy alone) resulted in more pro-White bias on the implicit prejudice measure. Study 2 did not find that the potential mediators measured explained the effects found. Overall, the results of the present project do not provide strong support for the use of subliminal empathy primes for improving intergroup relations. In fact, the results of Study 2 suggest that the use of subliminal empathy primes may even backfire. The implications for intergroup research on empathy and priming procedures generally are discussed.

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.

Neuroanatomy of intergroup bias: A white matter microstructure study of individual differences

Intergroup bias - the tendency to behave more positively towards an ingroup member than an outgroup member - is a powerful social force, for good and ill. And though it is widely demonstrated, intergroup bias is not universal, as it is characterized by significant individual differences. Recently, attention has begun to turn to whether neuroanatomy might explain these individual differences in intergroup bias. However, no research to date has examined whether white matter microstructure could help determine differences in behavior towards ingroup and outgroup members. In the current research, we examine intergroup bias with the third-party punishment paradigm and white matter integrity and connectivity strength as determined by diffusion tensor imaging (DTI). We found that both increased white matter integrity at the right temporal-parietal junction (TPJ) and connectivity strength between the right TPJ and the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC) were associated with increased impartiality in the third-party punishment paradigm, i.e., reduced intergroup bias. Further, consistent with the role that these brain regions play in the mentalizing network, we found that these effects were mediated by mentalizing processes. Participants with greater white matter integrity at the right TPJ and connectivity strength between the right TPJ and the DMPFC employed mentalizing processes more equally for ingroup and outgroup members, and this non-biased use of mentalizing was associated with increased impartiality. The current results help shed light on the mechanisms of bias and, potentially, on interventions that promote impartiality over intergroup bias.

Counter-stereotypes reduce emotional intergroup bias by eliciting surprise in the face of unexpected category combinations

In three experiments we investigated the impact that exposure to counter-stereotypes has on emotional reactions to outgroups. In Experiment 1, thinking about gender counter-stereotypes attenuated stereotyped emotions toward females and males. In Experiment 2, an immigrant counterstereotype attenuated stereotyped emotions toward this outgroup and reduced dehumanization tendencies. Experiment 3 replicated these results using an alternative measure of humanization. In both Experiments 2 and 3 sequential meditational analysis revealed that counter-stereotypes produced feelings of surprise which, in turn, elicited a cognitive process of expectancy violation which resulted in attenuated stereotyped emotions and an enhanced use of uniquely human characteristics to describe the outgroup. The findings extend research supporting the usefulness of counter-stereotype exposure for reducing prejudice and highlight its positive impact on intergroup emotions.

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.

Diminishing parochialism in intergroup conflict by disrupting the right temporo-parietal junction.

Individuals react to violation of social norms by outgroup members differently than to transgressions of those same norms by ingroup members: namely outgroup perpetrators are punished much more harshly than ingroup perpetrators. This parochial punishment pattern has been observed and extensively studied in social psychology and behavioral economics. Despite progress in recent years, however, little is known about the neural underpinnings of this intergroup bias. Here, we demonstrate by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) that the transient disruption of the right, but not the left temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), reduces parochial punishment in a third-party punishment paradigm with real social groups. Moreover, we show that this observed TMS effect on parochial punishment is mediated by a classical punishment motive, i.e. retaliation. Finally, our data suggests that a change in perspective-taking might be the underlying mechanism that explains the impact of right TPJ disruption on retaliation motivation and parochial punishment. These findings provide the first causal evidence that the right TPJ plays a pivotal role in the implementation of parochial behaviors.

Using partially structured attitude measures to enhance the attitude-behavior relationship

This article recalls a classic scheme for categorizing attitude measures. One particular group of measures, those that rely on respondents' interpretations of partially structured stimuli, has virtually disappeared from attitude research. An attitude measure based on respondents' interpretation of partially structured stimuli is considered. Four studies employing such a measure demonstrate that it predicts unique variance in self-reported and actual behavior, beyond that predicted by explicit and contemporary implicit measures and regardless of whether the attitude object under consideration is wrought with social desirability concerns. Implications for conceptualizing attitude measurement and attitude-behavior relations are discussed.

Individual differences in motivated social cognition: The case of self-serving information processing

Three experiments examined the hypothesis that people show consistency in motivated social cognitive processing across self-serving domains. Consistent with this hypothesis, Experiment 1 revealed that people who rated a task at which they succeeded as more important than a task at which they failed also cheated on a series of math problems, but only when they could rationalize their cheating as unintentional. Experiment 2 replicated this finding and demonstrated that a self-report measure of self-deception did not predict this rationalized cheating. Experiment 3 replicated Experiments 1 and 2 and ruled out several alternative explanations. These experiments suggest that people who show motivated processing in ego-protective domains also show motivated processing in extrinsic domains. These experiments also introduce a new measurement procedure for differentiating between intentional versus rationalized cheating.

Patients' interactions with health providers - A linguistic category model approach

Two studies investigated interactions between health providers and patients, using Semin and Fiedler's linguistic category model. In Study 1 the linguistic category model was used to examine perceptions of the levels of linguistic intergroup bias in descriptions of conversations with health professionals in hospitals. Results indicated a favourable linguistic bias toward health professionals in satisfactory conversations but low levels of linguistic intergroup bias in unsatisfactory conversations. In Study 2, the language of patients and health professionals in videotaped interactions was examined for levels of linguistic intergroup bias. Interpersonally salient interactions showed less linguistic intergroup bias than did intergroup ones. Results also indicate that health professionals have high levels of control in all types of medical encounters with patients. Nevertheless, the extent to which patients are able to interact with health professionals as individuals, rather than only as professionals is a key determinant of satisfaction with the interaction.

The effects of status on subgroup relations

Two experiments were conducted to assess the impact of status differentials on subgroup attitudes and behaviours. In Experiment 1, 73 maths-science students were led to believe they had higher or lower status than humanities students. They then performed a non-interactive decision-making task during which they were categorized exclusively as a university student (superordinate condition), or as a university student and maths-science student simultaneously (subgroups condition). Experiment 2 (N = 98) differed from Experiment I in that perceptions of relative subgroup status were measured rather than manipulated. Consistent with social identity theory, subgroup members tended to categorize themselves more at the superordinate (university) level the lower status they considered their subgroup to be. In Experiment 2, a series of interactions also emerged, showing that status and inter-subgroup bias were positively related when the participants had been categorized exclusively at the superordinate level. When superordinate and subgroup identities were activated simultaneously, perceptions of status had no effect on levels of bias. The results were interpreted in terms of participants' needs for identity enhancement and identity distinctiveness.

Relations between high and low power groups: The importance of legitimacy

Using a social identity perspective, two experiments examined the effects of power and the legitimacy of power differentials on intergroup bias. In Experiment 1, 125 math-science students were led to believe that they had high or low representation in a university decision-making body relative to social-science students and that this power position was either legitimate or illegitimate. Power did not have an independent effect on bias; rather, members of both high and low power groups showed more bias when the power hierarchy was illegitimate than when it was legitimate. This effect was replicated in Experiment 2 (N =105). In addition, Experiment 2 showed that groups located within an unfair power hierarchy expected the superordinate power body to be more discriminatory than did those who had legitimately high or low power. The results are discussed in terms of their implications for group relations.

Impartiality in humans is predicted by brain structure of dorsomedial prefrontal cortex.

The moral force of impartiality (i.e. the equal treatment of all human beings) is imperative for providing justice and fairness. Yet, in reality many people become partial during intergroup interactions; they demonstrate a preferential treatment of ingroup members and a discriminatory treatment of outgroup members. Some people, however, do not show this intergroup bias. The underlying sources of these inter-individual differences are poorly understood. Here we demonstrate that the larger the gray matter volume and thickness of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), the more individuals in the role of an uninvolved third-party impartially punish outgroup and ingroup perpetrators. Moreover, we show evidence for a possible mechanism that explains the impact of DMPFC's gray matter volume on impartiality, namely perspective-taking. Large gray matter volume of DMPFC seems to facilitate equal perspective-taking of all sides, which in turn leads to impartial behavior. This is the first evidence demonstrating that brain structure of the DMPFC constitutes an important source underlying an individual's propensity for impartiality.

Group diversity and group identification:the moderating role of diversity beliefs

Research on diversity in teams and organizations has revealed ambiguous results regarding the effects of group composition on workgroup performance. The categorization—elaboration model (van Knippenberg et al., 2004) accounts for this variety and proposes two different underlying processes. On the one hand diversity may bring about intergroup bias which leads to less group identification, which in turn is followed by more conflict and decreased workgroup performance. On the other hand, the information processing approach proposes positive effects of diversity because of a more elaborate processing of information brought about by a wider pool and variety of perspectives in more diverse groups. We propose that the former process is contingent on individual team members' beliefs that diversity is good or bad for achieving the team's aims. We predict that the relationship between subjective diversity and identification is more positive in ethnically diverse project teams when group members hold beliefs that are pro-diversity. Results of two longitudinal studies involving postgraduate students working in project teams confirm this hypothesis. Analyses further reveal that group identification is positively related to students' desire to stay in their groups and to their information elaboration. Finally, we found evidence for the expected moderated mediation model with indirect effects of subjective diversity on elaboration and the desire to stay, mediated through group identification, moderated by diversity beliefs.