Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

This study tested the hypothesis that appraisals of discrimination (i.e. its perceived severity, global aspects, stability, and uncontrollability) mediate the relationship between attributions to discrimination and personal self-esteem. It also tested three models of how ethnic group identification is related to discrimination attributions, discrimination appraisals, and personal self-esteem. In a cross-sectional study of 160 Latino-American students, group identification was positively related to attributing ambiguous negative events to discrimination. Discrimination attributions were related to appraising discrimination as more global and severe. These latter appraisals, in turn, were related to lower self-esteem. No direct relationships were observed between self-esteem and either group identification or discrimination attributions. Results illustrate the importance of appraisals in understanding the relationship between perceived discrimination and self-esteem.

We examine how appraisals of the legitimacy of gender inequality affect men's experience of collective guilt. We tested two potential routes by which perceiving intergroup inequality as legitimate might undermine collective guilt: via reductions in empathy for the disadvantaged outgroup or via reductions in the distress experienced when confronted with the suffering of the outgroup. In the first study (N= 52), we measured legitimacy appraisals, and in the second experimental study (N= 73) we manipulated the legitimacy of gender inequality. In both studies, reductions in self-focused distress mediated the effect of legitimacy appraisals on collective guilt, while other-oriented empathy did not. These effects suggest that collective guilt is a self-focused emotion that emerges when members of a dominant group perceive their relationship with a disadvantaged outgroup to be illegitimate.

This research provides an experimental test of the self-esteem hypothesis that avoids potential hypothesis guessing and self-presentational concerns associated with previous research by including subtle measures of both social self-esteem and intergroup discrimination. The role of group identification and social self-esteem as determinants of ingroup bias was examined under high and low identity-threatening conditions utilizing an implicit measure of social self-esteem. Participants read a fictitious statement indicating whether their university received a good or bad evaluation relative to a rival university and then made attributions for this situation. High group identifiers had a greater decrease in implicit social self-esteem after a threat than low group identifiers did and they displayed the greatest ingroup favoritism. Greater ingroup-serving bias was associated with a subsequent increase in implicit social self-esteem.

This research examines whether evaluations of positive deviates (i.e. high achieving group members) are influenced by the attributions they make for their performance. We argue that ingroup positive deviates who make group attributions help enhance the ingroup's image and thus attract favorable evaluations. In Experiment 1, ingroup positive deviates who made group attributions were generally evaluated more favorably than ingroup positive deviates who made individual attributions. There was also evidence that the positive deviates' attribution style influenced group and self-evaluations. Evaluations of outgroup positive deviates were not influenced by their attribution style. In Experiment 2, an ingroup positive deviate who was successful and attributed that success to the group was upgraded relative to an ingroup positive deviate who made individual attributions. Group evaluations were also higher when the positive deviate made group attributions. This pattern did not emerge when the positive deviate failed. The results are discussed from a social identity perspective.

Prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) predictions were examined in light of ethnocentrism and intergroup conflict. An experiment conducted at the outset of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US, UK and their allies explored American and British participants' preferences for certain versus uncertain gains and losses concerning Iraqi, American, and British lives. In four conditions, participants showed the usual loss-aversion when deciding between options that only affected Iraqi lives. Six other conditions examined choices between the lives of Americans, Britons, or Iraqis. Strong ethnocentric biases rather than risk-aversion occurred. Participants preferred policies that prioritized their own nationals' and allies' lives over Iraqi lives. War-related and other attitudes corresponded to participants' decisions. The need to expand prospect theory to address intergroup relations is discussed.

The focus of the current work is on the motivated aspects of entitativity using the perspective gained from theories of cognitive consistency. The central hypothesis is that balance principles will motivate perceivers to partition the social world in such a way as to achieve a state of consistency between social units and attributed acts. Three studies are reported: one employing content analytic methods to investigate motivated perceptions of the US Supreme Court in the context of the 2000 presidential election, and two laboratory experiments. Results generally supported the prediction that agreement with a court's decision would lead to perceiving the court as an entitative unit, whereas disagreement would lead to ‘de-entifying' the court by differentiating individual members or subgroups. Alternative explanations and implications of these findings for motivated cognition are discussed.

We examined intergroup predictors of cultural adjustment among Asian international students in Australia. Sociostructural beliefs (status, legitimacy, and permeability) and initial adjustment were assessed (N= 113) at Time 1, and measures of adjustment were obtained (N= 80) at Time 2 eight weeks later. International students who perceived their cultural group to be relatively low in status experienced lower levels of psychological adjustment. Also, as expected, the effects of status were moderated by perceptions of both the permeability of intergroup boundaries and the legitimacy of the status differential. At high levels of legitimacy, perceptions of permeable group boundaries were associated with better psychological, sociocultural, and academic adjustment among international students perceiving their group to be low in status, but lower levels of adjustment among students who perceived their group to be high in status. At low levels of legitimacy, irrespective of group status position, perceived permeability was not related to adjustment.

Social identity theories have posited that people's social categorization renders ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination. However, studies conducted during political transitions (South Africa's democratic election and East-West German unification) have revealed mixed directions of the causal links between social categorization and intergroup attitudes. To further address this issue, we conducted two longitudinal studies during the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. Study 1 revealed mixed temporal causal links between Hong Kong participants' social categorization and their attitudes toward Chinese Mainlanders across four waves. In Study 2, we conducted a summer camp in which Hong Kong participants came into contact with new immigrants from Mainland China. In this condition, Hong Kong participants' prior attitudes toward Mainlanders predicted their subsequent social categorization. These findings were interpreted in terms of intergroup relations during political transitions.

The impact of ethnic reference group, situational characteristics, generational status, and gender on ethnic identification in relation to adaptation was studied in Indo-Guyanese immigrants living in Ottawa, Canada. Ninety-eight first-(n= 48) and second-generation (n= 50) participants completed a questionnaire in reference to their East-Indian ancestral group, their ingroup and the national Canadian group. Results show that identification was the product of a complex interaction among reference group, situation, generation and gender. The pattern of adaptation to each reference group was influenced by generational status, and greater identification with the Canadian group relative to the Guyanese group was related to positive relations with the Canadian group. The results are discussed within the context of current theories of acculturation and intergroup relations.