Search

Previous research has reported that white survey interviewers remember black respondents’ skin tones in a much narrower range than recollections by black interviewers. This finding has been used to suggest that, in line with the one-drop rule, whites do not perceive meaningful differences between light- and dark-skinned black people. The authors reanalyze evidence thought to demonstrate relative homogeneity in white interviewers’ evaluation of black skin tones. In contrast to previous studies, this examination of several data sources reveals significant heterogeneity in the ratings assigned by white interviewers when taking into account the ordinal nature of the skin tone measures. The results are consistent with theories of social cognition that emphasize that beyond formal racial classification schemes, skin tone is used to implicitly categorize others along a continuum of “blackness.” The findings also align with research suggesting that rather than nullifying within-race skin tone, increases in white racism intensify white colorism.

Marketers seeking to understand diverse customers risk using stereotypes. That market forces will deal with the problem of stereotyping may be an overly strong assumption and so we ask: (1) How might OGHB impact a marketing decision? And (2) are the effects of this likely to persist in markets, i.e., does it matter? Our research combines the psychology of prejudice with game theory to model competitive market outcomes. We model marketers relying on stereotypes—technically experiencing out-group homogeneity bias (OGHB); the tendency to perceive out-groups as less varied simply because we are unable to identify with them. Our core finding is that in competitive market entry OGHB can have negative consequences for the competitor of those experiencing the bias. This comes from a reduction in the value of the market, rather than any gains made by those employing stereotypes. Bias resembles a negative externality and non-market efforts to reduce stereotyping may be in the interests of not just consumers but also the competitors of those using stereotypes.

The present studies investigated the out-group homogeneity effect in 5- and 8-year-old Israeli and German children (n = 150) and adults (n = 96). Participants were asked to infer whether a given property (either biological or psychological) was true of an entire group-either the participants' in-group ("Jews" or "Germans") or their out-group ("Arabs" or "Turks"). To that end, participants had to select either a homogenous or a heterogeneous sample of group members. It was found that across ages and countries, participants selected heterogeneous samples less often when inferring the biological properties of out-compared to in-group members. No effect was found regarding psychological properties. These findings have important implications for our understanding of the origins of intergroup bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

People often fail to individuate members of social outgroups, a phenomenon known as the outgroup homogeneity effect. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) repetition suppression to investigate the neural representation underlying this effect. In a preregistered study, White human perceivers (N = 29) responded to pairs of faces depicting White or Black targets. In each pair, the second face depicted either the same target as the first face, a different target from the same race, or a scrambled face outline. We localized face-selective neural regions via an independent task, and demonstrated that neural activity in the fusiform face area (FFA) distinguished different faces only when targets belonged to the perceivers’ racial ingroup (White). By contrast, face-selective cortex did not discriminate between other-race individuals. Moreover, across two studies (totalN = 67) perceivers were slower to discriminate between different outgroup members and remembered them to a lesser extent. Together, these results suggest that the outgroup homogeneity effect arises when early-to-mid-level visual processing results in an erroneous overlap of representations of outgroup members.

Despite their application in virtually every area of psychological science, indirect procedures have rarely been used to study how Catholic and Protestants automatically respond to one another in Northern Ireland. What little evidence that does exist suggests that automatic ingroup favoritism occurs alongside outgroup derogation. That is, Catholics and Protestants automatically evaluate ingroup members more positively than outgroup members, and also evaluate outgroup members more negatively than ingroup members. The current study addresses a methodological limitation in this early work and provides the first (non-relativistic) assessment of intergroup relational responding in a post-conflict setting using the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP). Contrary to earlier findings, participants displayed evidence of ingroup favoritism in the absence of outgroup derogation.

Based on the argument that the ingroup projection model may not be applicable to the minority group when addressing the effect of relative ingroup prototypicality (RIP) on outgroup attitudes, two studies investigated whether RIP and its effects on outgroup attitudes differ for the majority (Han) and an ethnic minority group (Tibetan). We measured RIP and outgroup attitudes in Study 1 ( N = 164) and manipulated RIP in Study 2 ( N = 145). The results indicated that the Hans presented high RIP, whereas the Tibetans presented low RIP. The effects of RIP on outgroup attitudes were moderated by group size: High RIP among Hans resulted in negative outgroup attitudes, whereas high RIP among Tibetans led to positive outgroup attitudes. These findings imply that improving the minority group’s RIP by making its culture prototypicality equal to that of the majority group would lead to positive outgroup attitudes.

This research examines the effect of target marketing using the black sheep effect, which occurs when individuals judge likable ingroup members more positively than similar outgroup members, while judging unlikable ingroup members more negatively than similar outgroup members. The results of two experiments show that individuals feel more targeted by ads that feature members of their ingroup that are more prototypical and likeable, and feel less targeted by advertisements featuring models who violate the group's positive image on some trait, making them nonprototypical and unlikeable. Theoretical implications regarding the impact of intragroup processes in consumer persuasion effects and target marketing are discussed.

Abstract. Research shows that I-sharing, or sharing subjective experiences with an outgroup member, positively shapes attitudes toward that outgroup member. We investigated whether this type of social experience would also promote a positive interracial interaction with a novel outgroup member. Results showed that White and Black participants who I-shared with a racial outgroup member (vs. I-sharing with a racial ingroup member) expressed more liking toward that outgroup member. However, I-sharing with an outgroup member did not reduce anxious behavior in a future social interaction with a novel racial outgroup member. Therefore, although sharing subjective experiences may increase liking toward one individual from a racial outgroup, it remains to be seen whether this positive experience can influence behaviors in future interactions with other racial outgroup members. Future directions are discussed.

Two studies tested the affect-as-cognitive-feedback model, in which positive and negative affective states are not uniquely associated with particular processing styles, but rather serve as feedback about currently accessible processing styles. The studies extend existing work by investigating (a) both incidental and integral affect, (b) out-group judgments, and (c) downstream consequences. We manipulated processing styles and either incidental (Study 1) or integral (Study 2) affect and measured perceptions of out-group homogeneity. Positive (relative to negative) affect increased out-group homogeneity judgments when global processing was primed, but under local priming, the effect reversed (Studies 1 and 2). A similar interactive effect emerged on attributions, which had downstream consequences for behavioral intentions (Study 2). These results demonstrate that both incidental and integral affect do not directly produce specific processing styles, but rather influence thinking by providing feedback about currently accessible processing styles.

This study examines the impact of relative group size on linguistic ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation. Members of minority, majority, and equal-size groups freely described outcome allocations made by either ingroup or outgroup members. The abstraction and valence of the terms used were analyzed. Majority members expressed ingroup favoritism by describing the majority ingroup with positive terms at a higher level of abstraction than negative terms. They also provided more favorable descriptions of ingroup members than minority members did. Minority members expressed ingroup favoritism, but also outgroup derogation, by referring to the majority outgroup with negative terms at a higher level of abstraction than positive terms. These findings highlight the distinct consequences of minority and majority memberships on these two facets of intergroup discrimination.

WOS: 000424168000004 We investigated how own ethnic and national identities and perceived ethnic and national identities of close cross-ethnic friends may predict outgroup attitudes and multiculturalism among Turkish (majority status, N=197) and Kurdish (minority status, N=80) ethnic group members in Turkey (M-age=21.12, SD=2.59, 69.7% females, 30.3% males). Compared with Turkish participants, Kurdish participants were more asymmetrical in rating their cross-ethnic friend's identities relative to their own, reporting higher ethnic identity, but lower national identity for themselves. Own ethnic identity was negatively associated with attitudes and multiculturalism, whereas own national identity was positively associated with only attitudes. Perceived cross-ethnic friend's national identity was positively related to both outgroup attitudes and multiculturalism. Shared national identification (high levels of own and friend's national identity) led to most positive outgroup attitudes and highest support for multiculturalism. Findings were discussed in the light of social identity and common ingroup identity models. Publisher's Version

In three studies, we examined whether activating a reasoning process that fosters the consideration of alternatives (a conflict mindset) reduces the extent to which individuals consistently overestimate how different outgroup members’ attitudes are from their own attitudes. In Study 1, tacitly activating a conflict mindset reduced the overestimation of outgroup dissimilarity compared to a control condition. Study 2 ruled out the alternative explanation that conflict reduces the tendency to overestimate outgroup dissimilarity through diminishing effortful thought. Study 3 showed that a conflict mindset, but not an accuracy incentive, reduced the tendency to overestimate outgroup dissimilarity. Additionally, Study 3 demonstrated that reductions in perceived self–outgroup distance explained in part why a conflict mindset attenuated the overestimation of outgroup dissimilarity. Implications for social judgment accuracy are discussed.

Three experiments explored whether group membership affects the acquisition of richer information about social groups. Employing a minimal-groups paradigm, 6- to 8-year-olds were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 novel social groups. Experiment 1 demonstrated that immediately following random assignment to a novel group, children were more likely to generalize negative behaviors to outgroup members and positive behaviors to ingroup members and to report a preference for ingroup members. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that this initial ingroup-favoring bias interacts with subsequent learning, thereby attenuating the effect of negative information about the ingroup and enhancing the effect of negative information about the outgroup. These effects were more powerful with respect to preferences than induction: After hearing that some ingroup members behaved badly, children predicted that ingroup members would behave more negatively than outgroup members, but they did not express preferences for the outgroup over the in...

Two laboratory experiments tested the hypothesis that (equality-based) respect from outgroup members facilitates recategorization of the original ingroup and outgroup as a common group. In Experiment 1, we varied respect from outgroup members (low vs. medium vs. high) and measured recipients' willingness to recategorize. As predicted, high respect from an outgroup source increased willingness to recategorize as a common group relative to low respect. In Experiment 2, we orthogonally varied respect (low vs. medium vs. high) and its source (ingroup members vs. outgroup members) and employed a more differentiated recategorization measure including an intermediate or nested-group option (i.e., two subgroups of a common group). While the recategorization effect of high versus low respect from outgroup members was replicated, no such effect was observed for respect from ingroup members. Instead, there was some indication that, when it comes from ingroup members, a medium level of respect may be optimal for inducing a shift towards recategorization as a common group. Implications of the present research for the conceptualization of respect are discussed.

We investigated whether Black–White biracial individuals are perceived as Black in the domain of evaluation. Previous research has documented that White perceivers’ negative evaluation of one Black person leads to a negative implicit evaluation of another Black person belonging to the same minimal group. We built upon this out-group transfer effect by investigating whether perceivers also transferred negative implicit attitudes from one Black person to a novel Black–White biracial person. In three experiments, participants learned about a Black individual who performed undesirable behaviors and were then introduced to a new group member. White perceivers formed negative attitudes toward the original individual and transferred these attitudes to the new group member if she was Black or Biracial, but not if she was White (Experiment 1) or Asian (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 demonstrated that only White participants exhibited transfer to the new Black and Biracial group members; Black participants did not.

We investigated when young children first dehumanize outgroups. Across two studies, 5- and 6-year-olds were asked to rate how human they thought a set of ambiguous doll-human face morphs were. We manipulated whether these faces belonged to their gender in- or gender outgroup (Study 1) and to a geographically based in- or outgroup (Study 2). In both studies, the tendency to perceive outgroup faces as less human relative to ingroup faces increased with age. Explicit ingroup preference, in contrast, was present even in the youngest children and remained stable across age. These results demonstrate that children dehumanize outgroup members from relatively early in development and suggest that the tendency to do so may be partially distinguishable from intergroup preference. This research has important implications for our understanding of children's perception of humanness and the origins of intergroup bias.

Group memberships can dramatically affect the way people perceive each other. One of the effects group membership elicits is called out-group homogeneity. It is the tendency to judge members of out-groups as more similar to one another than in-group members. Research on out-group homogeneity faces some challenges that are difficult to overcome in experimental or field settings. We propose that simulation models can help us further understand these principles and test hypotheses that are difficult to test in classical research settings. Our model simulates trust developments using a classic social dilemma based on the prisoner’s dilemma. The patterns that emerge in our model are coherent with what literature would suggest. We also shed some light onto so far unexplored territory such as the longitudinal analysis of trust development in the context of group perceptions. We further discuss limitations and possible future directions.

This nation-wide probability sample survey study among Finnish majority group members (N = 335) focused on the interactive effects of objective and subjective ethno-cultural diversity on three indicators of intergroup relations: outgroup attitudes, perceived group and personal discrimination, and outgroup trust. Complementing previous research that has mostly examined a linear relationship between cultural diversity and intergroup relations, special attention was given to moderate diversity contexts, which are claimed to pose different challenges to intergroup dynamics than high- and low-diversity contexts. It was hypothesised that majority group members who live in contexts characterised by moderate levels of objective diversity but subjectively perceive high levels of diversity will report more negative outgroup attitudes, lower levels of outgroup trust and higher levels of discrimination, as compared to those living in low- or high-diversity contexts. The hypothesis was confirmed for perceived group discrimination and outgroup trust. The results highlight the need to acknowledge possible non-linear relationships between diversity and intergroup relations.

In everyday life, we are faced with disparate examples of intergroup bias, ranging from a mild tendency to ingroup favoritism to harsh episodes of discrimination, aggression, and even conflicts between groups. Where do they stem from? The origins of intergroup bias can be traced back to two main motivations, that is, attachment to one’s own group (“ingroup love”) and negative feelings toward outgroups (“outgroup hate”). Although lay people, but also some researchers, see the two motivations as intertwined, growing evidence from different fields (e.g., social psychology, evolutionary psychology, and neuroscience) has indicated that intergroup bias is more often driven by needs of ingroup protection and affiliation, which do not imply outgroup hostility or competitive attitudes. Outgroup hate is instead likely to arise in intergroup contexts characterized by a high degree of enmity. It is important that members of the groups involved, but also external observers, recognize ingroup love as the primary motor of intergroup conflict: the attribution of hate to the outgroup’s behavior renders negotiation and conflict resolution harder while at the same time justifying severe aggression or even annihilation of the opposing outgroup. In the domain of intergroup communication, an intriguing way through which group members express their ingroup love and outgroup hate is represented by variations of linguistic abstraction and valence in depicting behaviors performed by ingroup or outgroup members. This unintended use of language reveals that group members are more prone to express ingroup love also at a linguistic level. However, specific changes in intergroup relations along variables such as group size, group status, or relative deprivation can give rise to linguistic patterns of outgroup hate.

Drawing upon research on ingroup and outgroup perceptions, 2 studies examine citizen perceptions of media bias. Study 1 examines how citizens think about media bias across multiple sources. Consistent with the phenomenon of outgroup homogeneity, citizens' political leanings influence how much variation they perceive; politically dissimilar media are seen as having a more uniform partisan bias and politically similar media are seen as having more diverse partisan biases. Study 2 examines whether familiarity, one explanation for outgroup homogeneity, accounts for the patterns. Results demonstrate that familiarity does account for the findings; however, how it does so varies between sources seen as conservative and sources seen as liberal. The study discusses implications relating to theories about media perceptions.

In three studies, we examined the effect of intergroup status on group members' tendencies to characterize the ingroup's relationship with an outgroup as conflictual following outgroup action. Findings from all three studies supported the prediction that the intergroup relationship would be characterized as less conflictual when the ingroup had relatively high rather than low status. Consistent with the hypothesis that the effect of status reflects strategic concerns, it was moderated by the perceived relevance of the outgroup's action to intergroup status relations (study 1), it was sensitive to audience (study 2), and it was partially mediated by status management concerns (study 3). The role of strategic, status-related factors in intergroup relations is discussed.

Many studies of intergroup relations have examined the effects of group identity on various types of intergroup cognition and behavior. However, few studies have focused on the perceived group identity of outgroup members. This study examined the effects of perceptions of outgroup identity on anticipated rejection by an outgroup. In Study 1, we administered a questionnaire pertaining to 30 social groups to Japanese undergraduate and vocational students. The collective images and intra-individual processes relating to perceived outgroup identity were investigated by applying correlation analysis and multilevel structural equation modeling. In Study 2, we conducted an experiment in which we manipulated the participants' perceptions of relative levels of outgroup members' identity. Both studies demonstrated, as predicted, that people anticipated rejection by strongly identified outgroup members more than by weakly identified outgroup members. Furthermore, in Study 2, anticipated same-group favoritism mediated the relationship between the manipulation of perceived outgroup identity and anticipated rejection. These findings suggest the important role of perceived outgroup identity in intergroup cognition.

We explore how rejection by racial ingroup or outgroup members influences the Other Race Effect (ORE; the tendency to have better memory for same-race [SR] relative to other-race [OR] faces). White and Black participants were rejected or accepted by two racial ingroup or outgroup members during an online game. Participants then completed a face recognition task assessing SR and OR targets. Those playing with ingroup members showed the classic ORE. However, inclusion by outgroup members led to the ORE, while exclusion by outgroup members eliminated this effect by increasing outgroup face memory. We discuss future work on exclusion and the ORE.

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.

People use social categories to perceive and interact with the social world. Different categorizations often share similar cognitive, affective and behavioral features. This leads to a hypothesis of the common representational forms of social categorization. Studies in social categorization often use the terms “ingroup” and “outgroup” without clear conceptualization of the terms. I argue that the ingroup/outgroup distinction should be treated as an elementary relational ego-centric form of social categorization based on specific cognitive mechanisms. Such an abstract relational form should produce specific effects irrespective of the nature of a particular social category. The article discusses theoretical grounds for this hypothesis as well as empirical evidence from behavioral and brain research. It is argued that what is commonly termed as “ingroup” and “outgroup” can be produced by distinct cognitive operations based on similarity assessment and coalitional computation.

The positive effect of perspective taking on favorable attitudes towards stigmatized individuals and outgroups is well established (Batson et al., 1997). We draw on the ingroup projection model (Mummendey & Wenzel, 1999) to better understand the processes underlying this effect. Based on their egocentric perspective, ingroup and outgroup members have different representations of the superordinate group (perspective divergence) so that the ingroup is perceived as more relatively prototypical of the superordinate group, leading to negative outgroup evaluation. We hypothesize that the positive effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes is due to a reduction of relative ingroup prototypicality. Across three studies with different manipulations of perspective taking, we found that participants who were taking the perspective of an outgroup member evaluated the outgroup more positively and were less inclined to perceive their ingroup as more relatively prototypical. The effect of perspective taking on outgroup attitudes was mediated by relative ingroup prototypicality.

The present research provides novel insights into people's automatic reactions to outgroup members. Specifically, three experiments examine the unpredictability tendencies that can arise from mere primes of outgroups and the circumstances that produce these tendencies. In Studies 1 and 2, participants reported stronger unpredictability tendencies (Study 1) and were rated by independent coders as more unpredictable (Study 2) after being subliminally primed with a racial outgroup than a racial ingroup, but only if they had a chronically high distrust of others. Study 3 replicated the findings of Studies 1 and 2 by using a different ingroup/outgroup context (university affiliation) and experimentally manipulating distrust. Together, these studies reveal that people's unpredictability tendencies emerge upon being reminded of outgroup members and when distrust is high, which ironically may make understanding and trust between parties all the more difficult to achieve.

Two experiments examined the effect of metastereotype valence on high and low identifiers' judgments of an outgroup. As high identifiers are strongly emotionally invested in the ingroup, we expected that such group members would feel angry when they activate negative metastereotypes which would correspondingly lead to less favourable evaluation of the outgroup. We further expected this pattern to be particularly visible when high identifiers could communicate their dissatisfaction to an outgroup (but not an ingroup) audience presumably to persuade the outgroup to reevaluate their attitudes toward the ingroup. We did not expect low identifiers to reflect the valence of metastereotypes in their outgroup attitudes and judgments, given their weak emotional ties with the ingroup and because such members are likely to feel that metastereotypes do not apply to them personally. Results from two experiments (Study 1, N = 78; Study 2, N = 80) supported these predictions and are discussed in light of the implications of metastereotyping for intergroup relations.

In this paper, we analyzed the relationships among political identity, the perception of moral distance between the political ingroup and the political outgroup, and outgroup animalistic dehumanization. One correlational and one experimental study revealed a positive correlation of ingroup identification (Study 1, N = 99) and salience of ingroup membership (Study 2, N = 96) with the degree to which participants dehumanized the outgroup. This relationship was mediated by the perceived moral distance between the ingroup and the outgroup. The limitations, implications, and possible developments derived from the present findings are discussed.

Religious priming has been found to have both positive and negative consequences, and recent research suggests that the activation of God-related and community-related religious cognitions may cause outgroup prosociality and outgroup derogation respectively. The present research sought to examine whether reminders of God and religion have different effects on attitudes towards ingroup and outgroup members. Over two studies, little evidence was found for different effects of these two types of religious primes. In study 1, individuals primed with the words “religion”, “God” and a neutral control word evaluated both ingroup and outgroup members similarly, although a marginal tendency towards more negative evaluations of outgroup members by females exposed to religion primes was observed. In study 2, no significant differences in attitudes towards an outgroup member were observed between the God, religion, and neutral priming conditions. Furthermore, the gender effect observed in study 1 did not replicate in this second study. Possible explanations for these null effects are discussed. Published version

Meta-stereotypes, the stereotypes believed to be held about one’s ingroup by an outgroup, represent barriers to positive intergroup contact. Little is known, however, about factors accounting for meta-stereotypes. Although previous researchers have speculated on conceptual overlap between social projection (perceiving one’s personal attitudes to be commonly held) and meta-stereotypes, these constructs are typically studied separately. We propose the notion that meta-stereotypes can be explained by social projection processes. We examined Whites’ “bias meta-stereotypes” (perceptions that Blacks consider Whites biased) across two studies. Participants projected personal biases onto both their ingroup (Whites) and outgroup (Blacks); in turn, both ingroup and outgroup bias perceptions uniquely predicted bias meta-stereotypes. Overall, the positive relation between personal bias perceptions and bias meta-stereotypes was fully mediated (i.e., explained) by heightened perceptions of ingroup (White) and outgroup (Black) bias. Overall, there is considerable value in integrating basic social projection within intergroup domains, particularly with regard to meta-stereotyping.

Children, like adults, tend to prefer ingroup over outgroup individuals, but how this group bias affects children's processing of information about social groups is not well understood. In this study, 5- and 6-year-old children were assigned to artificial groups. They observed instances of ingroup and outgroup members behaving in either a positive (egalitarian) or a negative (stingy) manner. Observations of positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviors reliably reduced children's liking of novel outgroup members, while observations of negative ingroup and positive outgroup behaviors had little effect on liking ratings. In addition, children successfully identified the more generous group only when the ingroup was egalitarian and the outgroup stingy. These data provide compelling evidence that children treat knowledge of and experiences with ingroups and outgroups differently, and thereby differently interpret identical observations of ingroup versus outgroup members.

Indirect reciprocity in which players cooperate with unacquainted other players having good reputations is a mechanism for cooperation in relatively large populations subjected to social dilemma situations. When the population has group structure, as is often found in social networks, players in experiments are considered to show behavior that deviates from existing theoretical models of indirect reciprocity. First, players often show ingroup favoritism (i.e., cooperation only within the group) rather than full cooperation (i.e., cooperation within and across groups), even though the latter is Pareto efficient. Second, in general, humans approximate outgroup members' personal characteristics, presumably including the reputation used for indirect reciprocity, by a single value attached to the group. Humans use such a stereotypic approximation, a phenomenon known as outgroup homogeneity in social psychology. I propose a model of indirect reciprocity in populations with group structure to examine the possibility of ingroup favoritism and full cooperation. In accordance with outgroup homogeneity, I assume that players approximate outgroup members' personal reputations by a single reputation value attached to the group. I show that ingroup favoritism and full cooperation are stable under different social norms (i.e., rules for assigning reputations) such that they do not coexist in a single model. If players are forced to consistently use the same social norm for assessing different types of interactions (i.e., ingroup versus outgroup interactions), only full cooperation survives. The discovered mechanism is distinct from any form of group selection. The results also suggest potential methods for reducing ingroup bias to shift the equilibrium from ingroup favoritism to full cooperation., 3 figures, 4 tables

In line with previous results that challenge the traditional primacy of warmth over competence in outgroup perception, we propose to bridge elements from stereotype content model and social identity theory: Perceivers will use the competence and warmth dimensions differentially when interpreting higher or lower status outgroup members' behavior. We test the hypothesis that the dimension that is less favorable for the outgroup and more favorable for the ingroup will be used. In particular, we investigate whether the warmth dimension would better predict the interpretation of higher status outgroup members' behavior than the competence dimension, whereas the competence dimension would better predict the interpretation of lower status outgroup members' behavior than the warmth dimension. Two studies separately test these effects. Results suggest the existence of a motivated bias in interpreting outgroup members' behavior, especially when there is ingroup identification.

Recent research has demonstrated that the self is subject to a variety of subtle influences. To date, however, little research has examined nonconscious factors that influence one's social identity. Unlike most self-conceptions, a person's social identity can be determined not only by the presence of one's own group, but also by the presence of a relevant outgroup. Across two studies, we explored whether the nonconscious presence of ingroup and outgroup stimuli, presented alone and in combination, would lead to increases in conscious social identification with one's ingroup. Consistent with our predictions, we found that the highest level of ingroup identification resulted from the subliminal presentation of both ingroup and outgroup symbols, compared with presentation of either type of symbol in isolation. Results are discussed with respect to social identity perspectives and nonconscious influences on self-conceptions and behavior.

Believing one shares a subjective experience with another (i.e., I-sharing) fosters connections among strangers and alters perceptions of the ingroup and outgroup. In this article, the authors ask whether I-sharing also fosters liking for members of a salient outgroup. Study 1 establishes that I-sharing promotes liking for the other sex, even among people with salient social identities. Study 2 shows that I-sharing promotes liking for a member of the sexual orientation outgroup, whether it occurs before or after group memberships get revealed. Study 3 focuses on salient race categories and looks at the effects of I-sharing versus value-sharing as a function of shared group membership. For those high in existential isolation, I-sharing trumps value-sharing, regardless of the I-sharer’s social identity. I-sharing may offer a way of improving attitudes toward outgroup members that still enables people to embrace their differing social identities.

Purpose - In a multicultural context, this study aims to investigate the effect of ingroup versus outgroup categorization and stereotypes on residents' emotional and behavioral reactions in neighbor-to-neighbor conflicts. Based on the literature on the "black sheep effect", the authors predicted that residents would actually be more irritated by ingroup than outgroup antagonists. Secondly, they predicted that reactions to deviant behavior by an outgroup antagonist would be shaped by the valence of stereotypes about the respective groups.Design/methodology/approach - Residents with either a native-Dutch or a Turkish background (n = 529) completed a questionnaire on outgroup stereotypes, and responded to a conflict situation in which the ethnicity of an antagonist was manipulated between subjects.Findings - Supporting the black sheep effect, results reveal that both native-Dutch and Turkish residents reported more negative emotions towards an ingroup than an outgroup antagonist. In addition, when confronting an outgroup antagonist, stereotype negativity was related to more negative emotions and intentions for destructive conflict behavior.Social implications - The current study demonstrates that residents may actually get irritated more easily by ingroup than outgroup antagonists. Reactions to outgroup antagonists are further moderated by stereotype valence; negative outgroup stereotypes may lead to less tolerance towards outgroup antagonists and higher chances for conflict escalation.Originality/value - This is the first paper in which evidence for the black sheep effect is obtained in a field study and simultaneously for majority and minority members. In addition, evidence is presented that emotions may mediate the influence of the antagonist's group membership on conflict behavior.

Previous research does not inform us if exposure to positive outgroup exemplars is sufficient to explain the observed prejudice reduction effect of extended contact or if interaction with ingroup members is necessary. An experiment (N = 108) in which Romanian students read identical stories about the friendship between a Roma and a Romanian/Bulgarian found that, while information about close outgroup-outgroup relationships is sufficient to improve outgroup attitudes and reduce intergroup anxiety, information about close ingroup-outgroup relationships has stronger and broader positive effects. Mediational analyses revealed that group emotions rather than intergroup anxiety, ingroup norms, or outgroup norms mediated the effect of extended contact on outgroup perception. A core affect perspective of group emotions is used to explain the results.