For describing our relation to a group, we often use the language of spatial metaphors: We enter or leave a group; we distance ourselves from a group or are in the inner circle. Finally, we can be simply in a group, which then becomes an ingroup: The interrelational constructs (Higgins & Chaires, 1980) in and out denoting ingroup and outgroup are spatial metaphors. In many cases, this language ®ts the actual behavior in the social environment, where attitudes between social groups are expressed in spatial arrangements (Campbell, Kruskal, & Wallace, 1966). However, social psychological concepts for one's relation to a group, such as identi®cation and self-categorization, in general ignore the spatial dimension. The present research shows that one's relation to a group and the perception of the intergroup context can be assessed with graphical measures that depict spatial relations. We will ®rst review previous approaches in this direction, and then propose a new scale. Convergent and discriminant validity of the scale is demonstrated in four validation studies and one experimental study.

A wealth of research has found that power leads to behavioral approach and action. Four experiments demonstrate that this link between power and approach is broken when the power relationship is illegitimate. When power was primed to be legitimate or when power positions were assigned legitimately, the powerful demonstrated more approach than the powerless. However, when power was experienced as illegitimate, the powerless displayed as much approach as, or even more approach than, the powerful. This moderating effect of legitimacy occurred regardless of whether power and legitimacy were manipulated through experiential primes, semantic primes, or role manipulations. It held true for behavioral approach (Experiment 1) and two effects associated with it: the propensity to negotiate (Experiment 2) and risk preferences (Experiments 3 and 4). These findings demonstrate that how power is conceptualized, acquired, and wielded determines its psychological consequences and add insight into not only when but also why power leads to approach.

In the present research, we introduced a conceptual framework of inclusion and subsequently used this as a starting point to develop and validate a scale to measure perceptions of inclusion. Departing from existing work on inclusion and complementing this with theoretical insights from optimal distinctiveness theory and self‐determination theory, we proposed that inclusion is a hierarchical two‐dimensional concept consisting of perceptions of belonging and authenticity. In addition, we posed that in the process of inclusion, it is the group rather than the individual that has primary agency. From this conceptualization, we developed and validated the 16‐item perceived group inclusion scale (PGIS). Data from two samples supported our proposed configuration of inclusion. In addition, the PGIS appeared to be a reliable measure of inclusion and was demonstrated to possess both nomological and predictive validity. Taken together, this research contributes to the conceptual refinement of the inclusion construct and offers researchers a reliable and valid tool to conduct future inclusion research. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

Employees of merging organizations often show resistance to the merger. The employees' support depends on the companies' premerger status and on the merger pattern. Based on an intergroup perspective, three studies were conducted to investigate the influence of premerger status (high, low) and merger pattern (assimilation, integration-equality, integration-proportionality, transformation) on participants' support for a pending organizational merger. Students (Study 1) and employees (Study 2) had to take the perspective of employees of a fictitious merging organization. Study 3 investigated students' perceptions of a potentially pending university merger using a 2 (status) x 3 (merger pattern: assimilation, integration-equality, integration-proportionality) design. Across all studies, the low-status group favored integration-equality and transformation whereas the high-status group preferred integration-proportionality and assimilation. Perceived threat mediated the effects. Legitimacy was a stronger mediator for effects of the low-status group.

Guided by the early findings of social scientists, practitioners have long advocated for greater contact between groups to reduce prejudice and increase social cohesion. Recent work, however, suggests that intergroup contact can undermine support for social change towards greater equality, especially among disadvantaged group members. Using a large and heterogeneous dataset (12,997 individuals from 69 countries), we demonstrate that intergroup contact and support for social change towards greater equality are positively associated among members of advantaged groups (ethnic majorities and cis-heterosexuals) but negatively associated among disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities and sexual and gender minorities). Specification curve analysis revealed important variation in the size-and at times, direction-of correlations, depending on how contact and support for social change were measured. This allowed us to identify one type of support for change-willingness to work in solidaritythat is positively associated with intergroup contact among both advantaged and disadvantaged group members.

Five experiments investigated the effect of power on social distance. Although increased social distance has been suggested to be an underlying mechanism for a number of the effects of power, there is little empirical evidence directly supporting this claim. Our first three experiments found that power increases social distance toward others. In addition, these studies demonstrated that this effect is (a) mediated by self-sufficiency and (b) moderated by the perceived legitimacy of power-only when power is seen as legitimate, does it increase social distance. The final two studies build off research showing that social distance is linked to decreased altruism and find an interaction between power and legitimacy on willingness to help others. The authors propose that the concept of social distance offers a synthesizing lens that integrates seemingly disparate findings in the power literature and explains how power can both corrupt and elevate.

Two experiments examined whether novel, minimal ingroups are automatically associated with positive aect while outgroups do not elicit such positive evaluative default. Participants were assigned to social categories in a typical minimal group setting and subsequently administered a masked priming task, i.e. prime words were not consciously recognized. Following either the presentation of a priori positive or negative words or the presentation of the group labels, participants classi®ed adjectives with regard to their valence ( positive/negative). In Experiment 1, a standard aective priming paradigm was realized with response latencies as dependent measures; in Experiment 2, a response window technique was used, with errors as crucial measure. In both studies, signi®cant aective congruency eects emerged similarly for standard primes and category labels, indicating ingroup bias on an implicit level.