A normative perspective on the linguistic intergroup bias: How intragroup approval of ingroup members who use the linguistic intergroup bias perpetuates explicit intergroup bias

Abstract

The present research examined from a normative perspective how intragroup normative processes regulate the consequences of the linguistic intergroup bias (LIB). Results of three studies supported our hypothesis that intragroup approval of an ingroup member who uses the LIB plays a key role in perpetuating pro-ingroup bias. In Study 1, ingroup members who used pro-ingroup (vs. pro-outgroup) LIB elicited more intragroup approval and this effect was mediated by the perception of the speaker as being biased in favor of the ingroup. In Studies 2 and 3, intragroup approval (vs. disapproval) of an ingroup member who used the LIB enhanced the expression of pro-ingroup bias. By providing the first demonstration of how the LIB relates to intragroup normative processes, our studies highlight a new path by which the LIB helps perpetuate intergroup bias. K E Y W O R D Sintragroup approval, linguistic intergroup bias, normative regulations, pro-ingroup bias, social norms Correction added on 05 October 2019, after first online publication: in the title of this article, "members who use the linguistic intragroup bias" has been corrected to "members who use the linguistic intergroup bias". In the first sentence of the abstract, the second occurrence of "intragroup" has been corrected to "intergroup".

Why punish critical outgroup commenters? Social identity, general norms, and retribution

“…Conversational norms may be universal (Brown & Levinson, 1987), culturally bound (Briley et al, 2014), or even define membership in a particular group (Assilaméhou‐Kunz et al, 2020; Jetten et al, 1996). Whatever their source, the enforcement of a conversational norm is conceptually distinct from the defence of social identity.…”

Caught COVID-19? Covidiot!

“…Finally, because we used a measurement-of-mediation design (Pirlott & MacKinnon, 2016), the relationship between the mediator and the outcome of interest is correlational. Thus, an empirical study using a manipulation-of-mediator design (see Assilaméhou-Kunz et al, 2020, for an example) is needed to check that dehumanization is a causal mechanism of social punishment and not just a correlate.…”