Disease Threat and the Functional Flexibility of Ingroup Derogation

Abstract

While the findings from previous studies directly relate the ingroup derogation phenomenon to the evolved response of the behavioral immune system, there are three major limitations in the previous studies on the functional flexibility of ingroup derogation. The present study further investigated the functional flexibility of ingroup derogation by conducting three behavioral experiments on Chinese participants. In Experiment 1, we tested whether exposing to situational disease primes leads to an exaggerated ingroup derogation attitude by adopting a more rigorous control. In Experiment 2, we manipulated the source of disease threats to test whether the ingroup derogation mechanism adjusts its response according to the specific perceived vulnerabilities to the disease threats posed by ingroup and outgroup members. In Experiment 3, we tested whether recent illness promotes the expression of ingroup derogation attitudes. Results of the three experiments consistently showed that, the Chinese participants adjusted their ingroup derogation attitudes according to the external environmental disease cues (Experiments 1 and 2) and the internal physiological disease cues (Experiment 3). The results also showed that the ingroup derogation mechanism was sensitive to the specific perceived vulnerabilities to the ingroup disease threat and the outgroup disease threat (Experiment 2). Taken together, these results support the evolutionary hypothesis of ingroup derogation and suggest that the ingroup derogation found in East Asian cultures could be accounted by a functionally flexible disease-avoidance mechanism.

Intergroup biologization and outgroup prejudice in the time of COVID‐19

“…Relevant to our findings, several authors (e.g., Hu et al, 2018 ; Wu et al., 2015 , 2019 ) suggested that the mechanism of ingroup derogation is related to the evolutive response of the behavioral immune system, and it is specifically triggered when dealing with a peculiar ecological condition in which greater threat of diseases is incurred by ingroup members. In this regard, studies (see Fincher & Thornill, 2012 ) have shown that, in some areas (e.g., Africa), the correlations between parasite stress and ingroup sociality were reported to be negative rather than positive.…”

Does pathogen avoidance affect intergroup categorization? Replication of Makhanova, Miller, and Maner (2015).

“…Thus, the minimal group paradigm allowed us to examine intergroup cognition largely independent of existing cultural stereotypes. This is particularly important in light of the debate regarding pathogen avoidance and intergroup biases, as well as emerging evidence suggesting biases against specific groups are not culturally universal (van Leeuwen & Petersen, 2018; Wu et al, 2015, 2019). For example, pathogen avoidance was associated with American participants’ biases against Indian targets but not Indian participants’ biases against American targets (van Leeuwen & Petersen, 2018).…”

Pathogen Threat and In-group Cooperation

“…Yet, it should be noted that individuals do not need such support to avoid diseases. Moreover, as in-group members can be a primary source of infection to which the BIS responds with avoidance (Wu et al, 2015(Wu et al, , 2019van Leeuwen and Petersen, 2018), active contact with them can be counterproductive as a means for infection prevention. Thus, these together suggest that an in-group-oriented mind would act as a reactive defense system which operates in response to infection, rather than a proactive defense system (i.e., infection prevention).…”

“…However, there have been several studies showing that the BIS would rather reduce in-group cooperation under pathogen threat; Wu and colleagues have claimed that when in-group members are perceived to be primary sources of infection, the BIS encourages individuals to avoid and develop negative in-group attitudes (Wu et al, 2015 , 2019 ). In addition, van Leeuwen and Petersen ( 2018 ) provided further evidence that the BIS would facilitate in-group avoidance; they had American and Indian participants and presented them with faces of their national in-group and out-group members with or without an explicit pathogen cue (a sore on the cheek).…”