Ingroup and role identity influences on the initiation and maintenance of students' voluntary attendance at peer study sessions for statistics

Background: Although class attendance is linked to academic performance, questions remain about what determines students’ decisions to attend or miss class. Aims: In addition to the constructs of a common decision-making model, the theory of planned behaviour, the present study examined the influence of student role identity and university student (in-group) identification for predicting both the initiation and maintenance of students’ attendance at voluntary peer-assisted study sessions in a statistics subject. Sample: University students enrolled in a statistics subject were invited to complete a questionnaire at two time points across the academic semester. A total of 79 university students completed questionnaires at the first data collection point, with 46 students completing the questionnaire at the second data collection point. Method: Twice during the semester, students’ attitudes, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, student role identity, in-group identification, and intention to attend study sessions were assessed via on-line questionnaires. Objective measures of class attendance records for each half-semester (or ‘term’) were obtained. Results: Across both terms, students’ attitudes predicted their attendance intentions, with intentions predicting class attendance. Earlier in the semester, in addition to perceived behavioural control, both student role identity and in-group identification predicted students’ attendance intentions, with only role identity influencing intentions later in the semester. Conclusions: These findings highlight the possible chronology that different identity influences have in determining students’ initial and maintained attendance at voluntary sessions designed to facilitate their learning.

Construal level and ingroup bias

The causal relationship between mental construal level and ingroup bias remains elusive. This paper uncovers a boundary condition and a mechanism underlying the relationship. We predict and find support for our hypotheses in four experiments conducted in East Asian and Western cultures. Data showed that a high- (vs. low-) level construal activated state belongingness, but had no effect on state rejection, state self-esteem, positive emotion, or negative emotion in participants from Korea (Experiment 1) and Australia (Experiment 3). Moreover, a high- (vs. low-) level construal triggered greater ingroup bias for Koreans (Experiment 2) and Australians (Experiment 3) primed with a relational self, but not for those primed with an independent self. This construal level effect on ingroup bias was eliminated when belongingness was primed at both a high- and a low-level construal; instead, relationals under a low-level construal were more ingroup-biased when they were primed with a belongingness (vs. baseline) condition (Experiment 4). These findings highlight that the relational self is a boundary condition for the construal level-ingroup bias link; belongingness explains the relationship.

Embracing humanity in the face of death: Why do existential concerns moderate ingroup humanization?

People humanize their ingroup to address existential concerns about their mortality, but the reasons why they do so remain ambiguous. One explanation is that people humanize their ingroup to bolster their social identity in the face of their mortality. Alternatively, people might be motivated to see their ingroup as more uniquely human (UH) to distance themselves from their corporeal “animal” nature. These explanations were tested in Australia, where social identity is tied less to UH and more to human nature (HN) which does not distinguish humans from animals. Australians attributed more HN traits to the ingroup when mortality was salient, while the attribution of UH traits remained unchanged. This indicates that the mortality-buffering function of ingroup humanization lies in reinforcing the humanness of our social identity, rather than just distancing ourselves from our animal nature. Implications for (de)humanization in intergroup relations are discussed.

Young children's evaluations of the ingroup and of outgroups: A multi-national study

In investigating intergroup attitudes, previous research in developmental psychology has frequently confounded ingroup favouritism and outgroup derogation. The present study, using unconfounded measures, examines the possibility that ingroup favouritism and outgroup derogation are distinct phenomena. Six-year-old children (n=594) from five, culturally diverse nations were asked to make various evaluations of the national ingroup and of four national outgroups. The data indicate that although there is overwhelming evidence that young children favour the ingroup over other groups, outgroup derogation is limited in extent and appears to reproduce attitudes held by adult members of the particular nations investigated.

Extended contact effects as a function of closeness of relationship with ingroup contacts

Using survey data from Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland (N = 428), the authors examined the effects of extended contact via different types of ingroup contacts (neighbors, work colleagues, friends, and family members) and tested whether closeness to ingroup contacts moderated the effects of extended contact on outgroup trust. Results demonstrated that extended contact effects varied as a function of the relationship to ingroup contacts, and that extended contact interacted with closeness ratings in predicting outgroup trust. Consistent with hypotheses, extended contacts via more intimate ingroup relationships (i.e., friends and family) were overall more strongly related to outgroup trust than extended contacts via less intimate ingroup relations (i.e., neighbors and work colleagues). Moreover, within each level of intimacy extended contact was related to outgroup trust only at high, and not at low, levels of rated closeness to ingroup contacts. The theoretical contributions, limitations and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

Explaining the relationship between ingroup identification and intergroup bias following recategorization: A self-regulation theory analysis

We tested the hypothesis that regulation of discrepancies between perceived actual and ideal differentiation between the ingroup and outgroup could help to explain the relationship between ingroup identification and intergroup bias when participants are recategorized into a superordinate group. Replicating previous findings, we found that following recategorization, identification was positively related to intergroup bias. No such differences emerged in a control condition. However, we also, in the recategorization condition only, observed a positive association between ingroup identification and the perceived discrepancy between actual and ideal degree of differentiation from the outgroup: at higher levels of identification, participants increasingly perceived the ingroup to be less differentiated from the outgroup than they would ideally like. This tendency mediated the relationship between identification and bias. We discuss the theoretical, methodological and practical implications of these findings.

A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, and inclusion of the outgroup in the self

S. C. Wright, A. Aron, T. McLaughlin-Volpe, and S. A. Ropp (1997) proposed that the benefits associated with cross-group friendship might also stem from vicarious experiences of friendship. Extended contact was proposed to reduce prejudice by reducing intergroup anxiety, by generating perceptions of positive ingroup and outgroup norms regarding the other group, and through inclusion of the outgroup in the self. This article documents the first test of Wright et al.'s model, which used structural equation modeling among two independent samples in the context of South Asian-White relations in the United Kingdom. Supporting the model, all four variables mediated the relationship between extended contact and outgroup attitude, controlling for the effect of direct contact. A number of alternative models were ruled out, indicating that the four mediators operate concurrently rather than predicting one another.

Assimilation and contrast to group primes: the moderating role of ingroup identification

This research examined the conditions under which behavioral contrast would be observed in relation to ingroup and outgroup primes. The authors tested the hypothesis that differing levels of commitment to the ingroup would predict diverging behavioral responses to outgroup but not ingroup primes. Across two studies, featuring both age and gender groups, we found that ingroup identification predicted responses to outgroup primes with higher identifiers showing an increased tendency to contrast, that is, behave less like the outgroup, and more like the ingroup. Ingroup identification did not predict responses to ingroup primes. The implications of these findings for social comparison and social identity theories are discussed. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

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.

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.