Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

According to Leyens et al.’s (2000) theory, intergroup discrimination involves a differential appraisal of the ingroup’s and the outgroup’s uniquely human characteristics. Four experiments investigated how emotions that are considered uniquely (i.e. secondary emotions) and non uniquely (i.e. primary emotions) human (Demoulin et al., 2001a) are differentially associated with the ingroup and the outgroup. Using the Implicit Association Task (IAT) we found a stronger association of ingroup names with uniquely human emotions and of outgroup names with non uniquely human emotions, than the reverse. Whereas Study 2 used negative emotions, all other experiments used positive emotions. In Study 3, two IAT indices were collected: an emotional index and a standard evaluative one. While the outgroup was constituted by North African names in the first three studies, Study 4 staged French-speaking Belgians (i.e. the ingroup) versus Dutch-speaking Belgians (i.e. the outgroup). The results are discussed within the framework of psychological essentialism, according to which uniquely human characteristics form the essence of the ingroup.

The effects of intergroup comparisons on the acceptance (i.e. identification with and evaluation) of a superordinate group were examined. Sardinian students were assigned to four conditions, in which either regional and national comparisons within the European Union (EU), national comparisons across the EU border, or interpersonal comparisons were induced. As predicted, EU acceptance was lower after intergroup than interpersonal comparisons. Only little support was found for the prediction that EU acceptance was lower after within-EU than border-crossing comparisons. Moreover, correlational results pointed to the mediating role of perceived intergroup distinctiveness. Implications for research are discussed.

In two experiments, primed subjects were exposed to violent and misogynistic rap music and control subjects were exposed to popular music. Experiment 1 showed that violent and misogynistic rap music increased the automatic associations underlying evaluative racial stereotypes in high and low prejudiced subjects alike. By contrast, explicit stereotyping was dependent on priming and subjects’ prejudice level. In Experiment 2, the priming manipulation was followed by a seemingly unrelated person perception task in which subjects rated Black or White targets described as behaving ambiguously. As expected, primed subjects judged a Black target less favorably than a White target. By contrast, control subjects rated Black and White targets similarly. Subjects’ level of prejudice did not moderate these findings, suggesting the robustness of priming effects on social judgments.

Two experiments tested whether common-bond groups (attachment based on interpersonal bonds between the members) and common-identity groups (attachment based on attraction to the group as a whole; Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994) make different fairness judgments. Overall, the use of the equality heuristic (Messick, 1993) was expected. Moreover, based on social identity theory, we predicted that members of common-bond groups show an egocentric bias, whereas members of common-identity groups forgo their individual goals for the group goal. In both experiments, positive and negative outcomes were distributed. Experiment 1 manipulated the degree of involvement, Experiment 2 varied responsibility for the outcome. Results of both studies supported the hypothesis, thus emphasizing the importance of the distinction between common-bond and common-identity groups.

In two experiments, participants evaluated other individuals who deviated in either an anti-or pro-normative direction relative to normative members of the same group. We predicted that individuals would prefer group members who contributed to the validity of in-group norms. In Study 1, anti-norm deviants in an organization attracted more negative evaluations than did pro-norm deviants, even though both were dissimilar to the in-group prototype. Consistent with our model of ‘subjective group dynamics’, evaluations of such deviants were related to perceivers’ identification with their own group. In Study 2, British and Overseas students were more positive toward in-group and out-group members who deviated in the in-group normative direction with respect to university policies for Overseas students. These findings complement the results from laboratory experiments by Abrams, Marques, Bown, and Henson (2000). Reactions to deviance reflect more than just the magnitude of deviance; they are also affected by the group membership of the deviant, and the direction in which that person deviates.