Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Over recent years, the study of self-regulation within and between groups has burgeoned into a vibrant field of research. Classic research findings, now substantiated with process analyses, feed back into and inform self-regulation theorizing. This Special Issue presents ten empirical articles that cover a broad range of current research on self-regulation processes and phenomena within and between groups.

Placing outgroup members in positive social contexts can reduce implicit bias. Different contexts may activate different associations of the group. Alternatively, contexts may act as cues for inhibiting bias. We applied the Quad model (Sherman et al., 2008) to address these possibilities. We also examined how motivation moderates these effects. Participants completed a Black—White evaluative priming task with primes presented in positive versus negative contexts and a measure of motivation to control prejudice. Results showed less implicit bias in positive versus negative contexts and that this effect was stronger among highly motivated participants. Modeling revealed that these effects were related to inhibition of biased associations, but not to changing the associations that were activated. Implications for prejudice reduction are discussed.

Recent research suggests that interaction-appropriate behavior may be automatically triggered by exposure to an out-group cue. Two experiments investigated the role of prejudice and salient egalitarian norms in determining the activation of two fundamental behavioral responses: approach and avoidance. The activation of approach and avoidance was investigated as a function of negative attitudes towards homosexuals (Experiment 1) and African-Caribbeans (Experiment 2). Results indicated that avoidance was automatically activated in response to out-group labels among participants with prejudiced attitudes (Experiments 1 and 2) whereas approach was less activated among prejudiced participants (Experiment 2). The former effect, however, was significantly diminished when egalitarian norms have been made temporarily salient.

Internal motivation to behave nonprejudiced reduces automatic and controlled prejudice. The present studies examined the impact of internal motivation to behave nonprejudiced on reactions to one s failure to behave nonprejudiced. In Study 1 higher levels of internal motivation led to more negative self-directed affect when failing to behave nonprejudiced, but not when failing in other domains. In Study 2 higher levels of internal motivation led to less prejudice after failure to behave nonprejudiced, but not in a non-failure condition. These findings suggest that failure to behave nonprejudiced plays a key role for highly internally motivated individuals in learning to regulate prejudice successfully.

Survey and laboratory studies provide support for the self-regulation of prejudice, but it is unclear whether people similarly self-regulate in“real life. Using a phenomenological approach, 153 non-Black participants recalled racial experiences in which they responded in ways they later wished had been different. Participants internally motivated to control prejudice reported discrepancies regardless of their external motivation, but even participants low on internal motivation reported prejudice-related discrepancies if they were externally motivated. Content analysis results are presented to summarize participants discrepancy experiences. Also, most participants discrepancies produced negative self-directed affect and the self-regulation of prejudice in the future. Findings suggest that self-regulation generalizes beyond the laboratory and occurs even among people who are not internally motivated to control their prejudice.

Previous research on willingness to support affirmative action has examined groups that are historically advantaged or disadvantaged. We argue and show that support for affirmative action depends on whether people are induced to think of the in-group as having something to gain or as something to lose from affirmative action, and the self-regulatory focus this elicits. We hypothesized that group members should be more inclined to adopt a focus on promotion when in-group benefits of affirmative action are emphasized, while a focus on prevention should emerge when addressing potential in-group losses due to affirmative action. Data in support of this hypothesis were obtained in an experimental study asking university students (N = 83) to report emotions indicating a focus on promotion or prevention. Results further indicate that emphasizing in-group benefits (vs. non-benefits) enhances support for affirmative action, and that these effects are mediated by the regulatory focus adopted. Importantly, only promotion-oriented emotions predict support when the in-group is seen to benefit from affirmative action, whereas prevention emotions only predict support when the in-group is portrayed as standing to lose from affirmative action. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

This study examined whether members of low-status, stigmatized groups are less susceptible to the negative cognitive consequences of suppressing their emotional reactions to prejudice, compared with members of high-status, non-stigmatized groups. Specifically, we examined whether regulating one s emotional reactions to sexist comments—an exercise of self-regulation—leaves women less cognitively depleted than their male counterparts. We hypothesized that the greater practice and experience of suppressing emotional reactions to sexism that women are likely to have relative to men should leave them less cognitively impaired by such emotion suppression. Results were consistent with this hypothesis. Moreover, these results suggest that our social group memberships may play an important role in determining which social demands we find depleting.

Previous research suggests that people predisposed toward a more cooperative orientation are stronger at self-control and, accordingly, are better able to ward off the adverse impact of ego depletion on self-regulation (Seeley & Gardner, 2003). Building on this research, we tested the hypothesis that ego depletion would lead to a reduction in concern with the well-being of others among proselfs, but not among prosocials. Study 1 supported the basic proposition that prosocials are higher than proselfs in trait self-control. In Study 2, participants originally classified as prosocials versus proselfs based on mathematical games engaged in an ego depletion task or a control task and later completed a similar measure of prosocial versus proself values. Supporting the primary hypothesis, ego depletion reduced proselfs concern with the well-being of others at time 2, but had no impact among prosocials. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Justifying social systems and defending cultural worldviews may seem to resemble the same human need to protect what is known and predictable. The current paper would like to argue that these society-supporting tendencies concern two different forms of self-regulation: the need for control and the need for meaning. Results show higher levels of system justification when participants were lacking control than when they had to think about death or about a control topic. Simultaneously, participants showed stronger worldview defense reactions when they thought about their own death, compared to those experiencing low control. This suggests that system justification may be used to compensate a loss of personal control, while cultural worldviews protect the person from existential anxiety.

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 study tested the effects of mirror-induced self-focus on participants tendency to self-stereotype. Americans high and low in identification with their nationality rated themselves and the group “Americans on traits that varied in stereotypicality and valence. Participants made these ratings under one of three conditions: (1) while facing a mirror, (2) while facing a mirror with an American flag visible, and (3) while not facing a mirror. High identifiers were more likely to endorse stereotypic traits and to rate themselves as similar to their national group when self-focused. In contrast, low identifiers were less likely to endorse stereotypic traits and to rate themselves as similar to their national group when self-focused. These patterns were limited to traits negative in valence. Correlational analyses indicated that self/group ratings were most similar when high identifiers were self-focused. Implications for the distinction between personal and social identity are discussed.