Search

Across two preregistered studies with children (3–12-year-olds; N = 356) and adults (N = 262) from the United States, we find robust expectations for intergroup empathic biases. Participants predicted that people would feel better about ingroup fortunes than outgroup fortunes and worse about ingroup misfortunes than outgroup misfortunes. Expectations of empathic bias were stronger when there was animosity and weaker when there was fondness between groups. The largest developmental differences emerged in participants' expectations about how others feel about outgroup misfortunes, particularly when there was intergroup animosity. Whereas young children (3–5-year-olds) generally expected people to feel empathy for the outgroup (regardless of the relationship between the groups), older children (9–12-year-olds) and adults expected Schadenfreude (feeling good when an outgroup experiences a misfortune) when the groups disliked one another. Overall, expectations of empathic biases emerge early but may be weaker when there are positive intergroup relationships. Public Significance Statement: This set of studies demonstrates that expectations of empathy are biased even early in development. From preschool through adulthood, participants expected people to feel more empathy for ingroup members than outgroup members. Therefore, expectations that people will feel more empathy for their own group may be part of a suite of early emerging intergroup biases and expectations. Interestingly, the largest developmental differences were seen for expectations of outgroup Schadenfreude: Expectations that people would feel good about an outgroup member's misfortune only emerged in older children (9–12-year-olds) and adults, and only when there was acrimony between the groups, suggesting empathic biases may be driven more by early expectations of positive feelings for the ingroup rather than negative feelings for the outgroup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across two preregistered studies with children (3-12-year-olds; N = 356) and adults (N = 262) from the United States, we find robust expectations for intergroup empathic biases. Participants predicted that people would feel better about ingroup fortunes than outgroup fortunes and worse about ingroup misfortunes than outgroup misfortunes. Expectations of empathic bias were stronger when there was animosity and weaker when there was fondness between groups. The largest developmental differences emerged in participants' expectations about how others feel about outgroup misfortunes, particularly when there was intergroup animosity. Whereas young children (3-5-year-olds) generally expected people to feel empathy for the outgroup (regardless of the relationship between the groups), older children (9-12-year-olds) and adults expected Schadenfreude (feeling good when an outgroup experiences a misfortune) when the groups disliked one another. Overall, expectations of empathic biases emerge early but may be weaker when there are positive intergroup relationships. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Studying how intergroup prosociality evolves in war-torn societies is critical for gaining a better understanding of conflict perpetuation. Rwanda provides a unique example of how two groups must reconcile and manage their intergroup biases following a genocidal process. In this study, we employed a novel intended behavior task to measure intergroup prosociality among former genocide perpetrators, genocide survivors, and their children in Rwanda. Participants were required to choose between various individuals representing their own in-group or their out-group as recipients of their prosocial intentions. We measured how frequently they selected in-group or out-group individuals and to what extent choosing each individual induced cognitive conflict, as measured by reaction times (RTs) and midfrontal theta (FMθ) activity. The results indicated that survivors and their children selected former perpetrators and their offspring less frequently. Furthermore, selecting them involved a higher cognitive conflict, as evidenced by longer RT and a higher FMθ, compared to choosing their own in-group. For the group composed of former perpetrators and their children, we observed a dissociation. They selected out-group individuals more frequently, perhaps as a compensatory behavior for their past wrongdoings. Nonetheless, selecting the out-group individuals involved a higher cognitive conflict than selecting their own in-group. Importantly, we observed a similar intergroup prosociality bias in the children of both survivors and former perpetrators, mirroring that of their parents. These results are important for understanding how past conflicts influence intergroup prosociality bias and the extent to which this bias is transmitted to the next generation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Olympics aim to promote peace and unity across the globe through sports. Ironically, however, we predicted that the Olympics could be associated with intergroup biases because the Olympics not only activate social/national identity as a citizen, but also highlight intense competition between countries. In support of this prediction, attitudes toward outgroups were negatively associated with international sporting events like the Olympics (Studies 1–2). Moreover, both behavioral intentions (Study 3) and actual behaviors (Study 4) toward outgroups were more negative during the Olympics than before the Olympics. During the Olympics, Koreans were less willing to donate money to help migrant workers and showed a tendency to discriminate against Southeast Asian job applicants. Interestingly, the association was observed for negatively stereotyped outgroups (e.g., Southeast Asians and Chinese), but not for favorably stereotyped outgroups (e.g., Canadians). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examined how recipients reacted to group-directed praise formulated by ingroup or outgroup members and varying in linguistic abstraction. Study 1 (N = 81) showed that ingroup praise was perceived as more sincere when formulated in abstract (vs. concrete) terms, whereas outgroup praise formulated in abstract terms was seen as less sincere than concrete praise. In Study 2 (N = 89), recipients of outgroup praise formulated in abstract versus concrete terms attributed more hidden agenda and prejudice to the speaker, and perceived lower congruency between the speaker's words and beliefs; the opposite pattern occurred for ingroup praise. Perceptions of congruency and hidden agenda mediated the effects of speaker group membership and linguistic abstraction on recipients' perception of the praising message. This research points out that linguistic abstraction influences the appraisal of group-directed praise as it works as a cue of speakers' motives. It also suggests important implications for developing successful communications between groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beyond the scope of the home country’s economy, the present study investigates the effects of ethnocentrism on the cognitive, affective and conative image of a destination, in view of perceptions of cultural distance. Two datasets were collected in the city of Pretoria (South Africa) through structured surveys proposing either Japan (n=346) or Zimbabwe (n=302) as destinations. Psychometric properties as well as model-fit, robustness, and measurement invariance of the composite were confirmed. Ethnocentrism was found to negatively affects the image of less competitive destinations. Cognitive states mediated the positive effects with respect to Japan, whereas the negative effects towards Zimbabwe were explained by affective states. Japan maintained a positive image irrespective of ethnocentrism levels. No significant differences were found in the way ethnocentrism affects destination image across groups displaying different perceptions of cultural distance. This study is set to advance the current knowledge on tourist decision-making beyond marketing mix and socio-demographic variables.

We propose the Evaluative Information Ecology (EvIE) model as a model of the social environment. It makes two assumptions: Positive "good" information is more frequent compared to negative "bad" information and positive information is more similar and less diverse compared to negative information. We review support for these two properties based on psycho-lexical studies (e.g., negative trait words are used less frequently but they are more diverse), studies on affective reactions (e.g., people experience positive emotions more frequently but negative emotions are more diverse), and studies using direct similarity assessments (i.e., people rate positive information as more similar/less diverse compared to negative information). Next, we suggest explanations for the two properties building on potential adaptive advantages, reinforcement learning, hedonistic sampling processes, similarity from co-occurrence, and similarity from restricted ranges. Finally, we provide examples of how the EvIE model refines well-established effects (e.g., intergroup biases; preferences for groups without motivation or intent) and how it leads to the discovery of novel phenomena (e.g., the common good phenomenon; people share positive traits but negative traits make them distinct). We close by discussing the benefits relative to the drawbacks of ecological approaches in social psychology and how an ecological and cognitive level of analysis may complement each other. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The default ideological position is status quo maintaining, and challenging the status quo is associated with increased efforts and risks. Nonetheless, some people choose to challenge the status quo. Therefore, to challenge the status quo should imply a strong belief in one’s position as the correct one, and thus efforts may be undertaken to undermine the position of others. Study 1 (N = 311) showed that challengers undermined, by ascribing more externality and less rationality, the position of defenders to a larger extent than defenders did of challengers’ position. Studies 2 (N = 135) and 3 (N = 109) tested if these effects were driven by the implied minority status of the challenging position. Results revealed no effects of experimentally manipulated numerical status, but challengers were again more biased than defenders. Study 3 also revealed that challengers felt more negatively toward their opponents (possibly due to greater social identification with like-minded others), and these negative emotions in turn predicted biased attributions. Results are important as they add to the understanding of how intergroup conflict may arise, providing explanations for why challengers are less tolerant of others’ point of view.

In this research we demonstrate the powerful role of ingroup favoritism, rather than hostility, in American intergroup biases. Specifically, we take a novel perspective to understanding the relationship between political ideology and discrimination against ethnic-minority Americans by focusing on the role of patriotism. Across three studies, we show that political ideology is a strong predictor of resource allocation biases, and this effect is mediated by American patriotism and not by prejudice or nationalism. Conservatives report greater levels of patriotism than liberals, and patriotism is associated with donating more to American, as opposed to ethnic-minority American, organizations. We further show that the link between patriotism and partiality to the national group is mediated by stronger “American = White” associations. These findings have important implications for intergroup relations and diversity-related policy issues in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A total of 251 Latvian and Russian schoolteachers explained positive and negative behaviours from their own perspective and from the perspective of an ethnic out–group. The results were in line with the attributional pattern usually found in studies using Hewstone’s direct perspective of judgement, when participants are asked to take the perspective of an ethnic out–group. That is, there was an outcome effect in causal attributions for in–group actors and a categorization effect for negative behaviour from the imagined (out–group’s) perspective. The attributions from the direct perspective only partly replicated the commonly found pattern. The results support Montgomery’s perspective theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]