A social identity theory of leadership

A social identity theory of leadership is described that views leadership as a group process generated by social categorization and prototype-based depersonalization processes associated with social identity. Group identification, as self-categorization, constructs an intragroup prototypicality gradient that invests the most prototypical member with the appearance of having influence; the appearance arises because members cognitively and behaviorally conform to the prototype. The appearance of influence becomes a reality through depersonalized social attraction processes that make followers agree and comply with the leader's ideas and suggestions. Consensual social attraction also imbues the leader with apparent status and creates a status-based structural differentiation within the group into leader(s) and followers, which has characteristics of unequal status intergroup relations. In addition, a fundamental attribution process constructs a charismatic leadership personality for the leader, which further empowers the leader and sharpens the leader-follower status differential. Empirical support for the theory is reviewed and a range of implications discussed, including intergroup dimensions, uncertainty reduction and extremism, power, and pitfalls of prototype-based leadership.

Uncertainty reduction, self-enhancement, and ingroup identification

Two experiments tested the prediction that uncertainty reduction and self-enhancement motivations have an interactive effect on ingroup identification. In Experiment 1 (N = 64), uncertainty and group status were manipulated, and the effect on ingroup identification was measured. As predicted, low-uncertainty participants identified more strongly with a high- than low-status group, whereas high-uncertainty participants showed no preference; and low-status group members identified more strongly under high than low uncertainty, whereas high-status group members showed no preference. Experiment 2 (N = 210) replicated Experiment 1, but with a third independent variable that manipulated how prototypical participants were of their group. As predicted, the effects obtained in Experiment 1 only emerged where participants were highly prototypical. Low prototypicality depressed identification with a low-status group under high uncertainty. The implications of these results for intergroup relations and the role of prototypicality in social identity processes are discussed.

Motivations for group membership: The role of subjective importance and uncertainty reduction

An experiment was conducted to investigate the idea that an important motive for identifying with social groups is to reduce subjective uncertainty, particularly uncertainty on subjectively important dimensions that have implications for the self-concept (e.g., Hogg, 1996; Hogg & Mullin, 1999). When people are uncertain on a dimension that is subjectively important, they self-categorize in terms of an available social categorization and, thus, exhibit group behaviors. To test this general hypothesis, group membership, task uncertainty, and task importance were manipulated in a 2 x 2 x 2 between-participants design (N = 128), under relatively minimal group conditions. Ingroup identification and desire for consensual validation of specific attitudes were the key dependent measures, but we also measured social awareness. All three predictions were supported. Participants identified with their group (H1), and desired to obtain consensual validation from ingroup members (H2) when they were uncertain about their judgments on important dimensions, indicating that uncertainty reduction motivated participants towards embracing group membership. In addition, identification mediated the interactive effect of the independent variables on consensual validation (H3), and the experimental results were not associated with an increased sense of social awareness and, therefore, were unlikely to represent only behavioral compliance with generic social norms. Some implications of this research in the study of cults and totalist groups and the explication of genocide and group violence are discussed.

Humanizing outgroups through multiple categorization:the roles of individuation and threat

In three studies, we examined the impact of multiple categorization on intergroup dehumanization. Study 1 showed that perceiving members of a rival university along multiple versus simple categorical dimensions enhanced the tendency to attribute human traits to this group. Study 2 showed that multiple versus simple categorization of immigrants increased the attribution of uniquely human emotions to them. This effect was explained by the sequential mediation of increased individuation of the outgroup and reduced outgroup threat. Study 3 replicated this sequential mediation model and introduced a novel way of measuring humanization in which participants generated attributes corresponding to the outgroup in a free response format. Participants generated more uniquely human traits in the multiple versus simple categorization conditions. We discuss the theoretical implications of these findings and consider their role in informing and improving efforts to ameliorate contemporary forms of intergroup discrimination.

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.

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.

Stereotypic explanatory bias: Implicit stereotyping as a predictor of discrimination

Two experiments examined whether a measure of implicit stereotyping based on the tendency to explain Black stereotype-incongruent events more often than Black stereotype-congruent events (Stereotypic Explanatory Bias or SEB) is predictive of behavior toward a partner in an interracial interaction. In Experiment I SEB predicted White males' choice to ask stereotypic questions of a Black female (but not a White male or White female) in an interview. In Experiment 2 the type of explanation (internal or external attribution) made for stereotype-inconsistency was examined. Results showed that White participants who made internal attributions for Black stereotype-incongruent behavior were rated more positively and those who made external attributions were rated more negatively by a Black male confederate. These results point to the potential of implicit stereotyping as an important predictor of behavior in an interracial interaction. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Suppressing the negative effect of devaluation on group identification: The role of intergroup differentiation and intragroup respect

We examined (N = 76) how social creativity strategies such as intergroup differentiation and intragroup respect suppress the negative impact of threat to an ingroup's value on group identification. Threat was manipulated through false feedback concerning how other groups perceived an ingroup. Both intergroup differentiation and intragroup respect were higher when participants learned that the ingroup was devalued compared to when it was valued. Mediational analyses demonstrated that these factors suppressed the direct negative relationship between value threat and group identification. Discussion focused on the consequences of these social creativity strategies for group identification and collective action. (C) 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Relations intergroupes : attribution à la discrimination et perception d'hostilité chez autrui

Résumé: La thèse que nous présentons s'intéresse aux phénomènes d'attribution d'intentions hostiles. Dodge (1980) observe que les individus agressifs ont tendance, en situation ambiguë, à sur-attribuer des intentions hostiles à leurs pairs, ce qui induit des réponses agressives. Pour l'auteur, l'attribution d'intentions hostiles est un médiateur entre certaines caractéristiques personnelles (l'agressivité) des individus, et le type de réponses qu'ils apportent aux situations. Cependant, les informations concernant l'appartenance groupale des "pairs" ne sont jamais prises en compte dans leurs études. Si ce processus est perméable à l'influence des normes et croyances (Bègue et Muller, 2006), aucune étude ne met en évidence quel serait l'impact d'informations groupales sur l'élaboration des réponses aux situations, dans le cadre de ce modèle. L'objectif de cette thèse est de montrer que l'attribution d'intentions hostiles peut être envisagée comme un processus agissant également à un niveau intergroupes et donc prenant en compte des informations groupales sur les individus. En s'inspirant du modèle de Dodge, nous avons émis l'hypothèse que les logiques intergroupes intervenaient dans l'interprétation des intentions des acteurs impliqués dans les interactions, afin de produire une réponse adaptée aux logiques intergroupes. Afin de tester cette hypothèse, nous avons suivi trois axes de recherches: Dans le premier de ces axes, nous avons introduit, dans le paradigme de Dodge, des informations .sur l'appartenance groupale des protagonistes de l'interaction (endogroupe vs exogroupe). Nous avons montré que le type de situation (ambiguë vs hostile) est moins important que l'information groupale dans la production d'une réponse à la situation (Étude 1). En outre, nous avons mis en évidence des processus différents selon la position des individus dans leur groupe (Étude 2). Dans le second axe, nous avons montré que si les différences de statut entre groupes n'influençaient pas directement le modèle de Dodge, elles interagissaient avec l'appartenance groupale et la clarté de la situation au niveau de l'attribution d'intentions hostiles (étude 3) et des intentions comportementales (Ettide 4). Dans le troisième et deriúer axe, nous avons introduit l'attribution d'intentions hostiles dans un processus de dévalorisation d'une cible expliquant un échec par la discrimination (Kaiser et Miller, 2001; 2003). Nous avons alors montré que l'attribution d'intentions hostiles médiatisait le lien entre l'attribution mobilisée pour expliquer l'événement et l'évaluation de la cible (Étude 5), et que ce type d'attribution était spécifique, aux intentions comportementales agressives (Études 6). Nous avons alors conclu sur la dimension sociale de l'attribution d'intentions hostiles et sur le fait qu'il s'agissait d'un élément permettant la construction d'une représentation des interactions sociales. Abstract The present thesis focuses on the phenomena of hostile intents attribution. Dodge (1980) observes that in ambiguous situations, aggressive people tend to over attribute hostile intents to others. This attribution leads them to respond aggressively. According to the author, hostile intents attribution mediates the link between some personal characteristics (aggressiveness for example) of individuals and their responses to the situation. However information related to participants group membership is always neglected in these studies. Begue and Muller (2006) showed that some beliefs could moderate the interaction between aggressiveness and hostile intents attribution on behaviors, but no study exhibited evidence of a similar effect with social information. The aim of this thesis is to show that hostile intents attribution needs to be considered at an intergroup level by taking into account people's group ineinbership. Based on the Dodge model, we formulated the hypothesis that intergroup strategies had an impact on actors' intents interpretations which in return should lead to different but adapted reactions to the situation. To test this hypothesis, three lines of research were developed. In the first line, we introduced, in the Dodge's paradigm, some information about the participants group membership (ingroup vs outgroup). We showed that when elaborating a response to a specific situation its nature (ambiguous vs hostile) had less impact than group membership information (Study 1). In addition, we highlighted some different processes according to the position of individuals in their group (Study 2). In the second line, we showed that if the differences between groups status didn't influence the Dodge model, they interacted with group membership and situation nature to influence hostile intents attribution (Study 3) and behaviors intents (Study 4). In the last line of research, we introduced hostile intents attribution within the process of derogation of a target explaining its failure by discrimination (Kaiser and Miller, 2001; 2003). We showed that hostile intents attribution mediated the link between the attibution mobilized to explain the failure and the derogation of the target (Study 5), and that this attribution type was specifically linked to aggressive behavior intents (Study 6). We finally concluded that hostile intents attribution imply an important social dimension which needs to be taken into account because involved in the construction of a representation of social interactions.

Absence of progression as assessed by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors predicts survival in advanced GI stromal tumors treated with imatinib mesylate: the intergroup EORTC-ISG-AGITG phase III trial.

PURPOSE: From February 2001 to February 2002, 946 patients with advanced GI stromal tumors (GISTs) treated with imatinib were included in a controlled EORTC/ISG/AGITG (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Italian Sarcoma Group/Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group) trial. This analysis investigates whether the response classification assessed by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors), predicts for time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Per protocol, the first three disease assessments were done at 2, 4, and 6 months. For the purpose of the analysis (landmark method), disease response was subclassified in six categories: partial response (PR; > 30% size reduction), minor response (MR; 10% to 30% reduction), no change (NC) as either NC- (0% to 10% reduction) or NC+ (0% to 20% size increase), progressive disease (PD; > 20% increase/new lesions), and subjective PD (clinical progression). RESULTS: A total of 906 patients had measurable disease at entry. At all measurement time points, complete response (CR), PR, and MR resulted in similar TTP and OS; this was also true for NC- and NC+, and for PD and subjective PD. Patients were subsequently classified as responders (CR/PR/MR), NC (NC+/NC-), or PD. This three-class response categorization was found to be highly predictive of further progression or survival for the first two measurement points. After 6 months of imatinib, responders (CR/PR/MR) had the same survival prognosis as patients classified as NC. CONCLUSION: RECIST perfectly enables early discrimination between patients who benefited long term from imatinib and those who did not. After 6 months of imatinib, if the patient is not experiencing PD, the pattern of radiologic response by tumor size criteria has no prognostic value for further outcome. Imatinib needs to be continued as long as there is no progression according to RECIST.

Exploring the impact of outgroup membership discoveries on individual outcomes and intergroup relations

Group memberships represent important components of identity, with people holding membership in various groups and categories. The groups that one belongs to are known as ingroups, and the groups that one does not belong to are known as outgroups. Movement between groups can occur, such that an individual becomes a member of a former outgroup. In some cases, this movement between groups can represent a sudden discovery for the self and/or others, especially when one becomes a member of an ambiguous, concealable, or otherwise not readily visible group. The effects of this type of movement, however, are poorly documented. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate these outgroup membership discoveries, examining the individual intrapsychic, interpersonal, and potential intergroup effects of both self- and other-outgroup membership discoveries. Specifically, discoveries of homosexuality were examined in three studies. In Study 1, hypothetical reactions to self- and other-homosexuality discovery were assessed; in Study 2, the effects of discovering self-homosexuality (vs. self-heterosexuality) were experimentally examined; and in Study 3, the effects of discovering another’s homosexuality earlier relative to later in a developing friendship were experimentally examined. Study 1 revealed that, upon a discovery of self-homosexuality, participants expected negative emotions and a more negative change in feelings toward the self. Upon a discovery of a friend’s homosexuality, participants expected a more negative change in feelings toward the friend, but more a positive change in feelings toward homosexuals. For both hypothetical self- and friend- homosexuality discoveries, more negative expected emotions predicted more negative expected change in feelings toward the target individual (the self or friend), which in turn predicted more negative expected change in feelings toward homosexuals as a group. Further, for self-homosexuality discovery, the association between negative expected emotions and negative expected change in feelings toward the self was stronger among those higher in authoritarianism. Study 2 revealed that, upon discovering one’s own homosexuality (vs. heterosexuality), heterosexual participants experienced more negative emotions, more fear of discrimination, and more negative self-evaluations. The effect of the homosexuality discovery manipulation on negative self-evaluations was mediated by fear of discrimination. Further, those higher in authoritarianism or pre-test prejudice toward homosexuals demonstrated more negative emotions following the manipulation. Study 3 revealed that upon discovering an interaction partner’s homosexuality earlier (vs. later) participants reported a more positive contact experience, a closer bond with the partner, and more positive attitudes toward the partner. Earlier (vs. later) discovery predicted more positive contact experience, which in turn predicted a closer bond with the partner. Closer bond with the partner subsequently predicted more positive evaluations of the partner. Interestingly, the association between bond with partner and more positive attitudes toward the partner was stronger among those higher in authoritarianism or pre-test prejudice toward homosexuals. Overall, results suggest that self-homosexuality discovery results in negative outcomes, whereas discovering another’s homosexuality can result in positive outcomes, especially when homosexuality is discovered earlier (vs. later). Implications of these findings for both actual outgroup membership discoveries and social psychological research are discussed.

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.