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.