This study examined responses to criticism of the in-group as influenced by critic's group membership and justifiability of the criticism. Participants responded to an article in which the author criticized their school. The critic was presented as a student either at the participant's own school (the in-group) or at a college higher or lower in status than the in-group school. The content of the criticism varied by justifiability. Results demonstrate that attributions associated with the person were greater when the critic was a fellow in-group member, and group attributions were stronger when he or she was a student from the higher status school. Neither attribution type dominated in the low-status out-group condition. The content of the criticism did not influence attributions, and harmfulness of the criticism-rather than justifiability-seemed to influence other responses. Associations between type of attributions (group or person) and affective and other perceptual reactions (e.g. anger, perceived accuracy of statements) also differed by the critic's group membership. Implications for intergroup theory and communication in intergroup conflict are discussed.
Reports that persons discriminate against out-group members even at cost to the in-group refer primarily to subjects' distribution of money in minimal group situations. Expectancies that might confound that measure of discrimination are examined here. First divided into minimal groups, subjects divided money between in-group and out-group members so as to (a) confirm whatever they believed to be the study hypothesis (positive demand), (b) disconfirm that hypothesis (negative demand), and (c) express their own unrestricted preferences (intergroup bias). The demand measures preceded, followed, or were placed between blocks of unrestricted trials. There were no effects of demand placement, but significant negative correlations and differences in means were found between amounts awarded under positive and negative demand instructions. Correlations between positive demand and bias scores, questionnaire reports of expectancies favoring discrimination, and relationships between reported expectations and bias scores are consistent with "demand" explanations of early minimal intergroup studies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.