Ingroup bias, self-enhancement and group identification

Abstract

These two studies integrate self-enhancement and ingroup bias and analyse the phenomena from the social identity theory and self-categorization theory. In Study 1, the subjects (N=181) evaluated supporters of two presidential candidates on a rating scale. In Study 2, the subjects (N=302) evaluated either Finnish women's and men's positive characteristics (success condition) or negative characteristics (failure condition) which might play a role in achieving equality between the sexes in Finland. Self-evaluations were conducted on the same scale as those of ingroup and outgroup evaluations. The results showed that ingroup was evaluated more positively than outgroup (hypothesis 1) and that self was evaluated more positively than ingroup (in Study 2, however, this main effect was qualified by gender). As expected, group identification did not dilute self-enhancement (hypothesis 2) in either of the studies but strengthened self-enhancement in Study 1. Hypothesis 3 stated that self-enhancement is inversely related to ingroup favouritism but the hypothesis was only partially confirmed in that the correlation was predictably negative in Study 1 but near zero in both conditions of Study 2. Finally, contrary to hypothesis 4, it turned out that high identified group members evaluated self and ingroup more independently than lows which contradicts the idea of depersonalization. Together the results would be plausible if we rejected the unidimensional conception of interpersonal±intergroup behaviour and assumed instead that interpersonal and intergroup behaviour constitute two bipolar continua.

Identity and School Adjustment: Revisiting the "Acting White" Assumption

“…In addition, what does the social psychology literature contribute in terms of acting White as it relates to in-group and out-group affiliations (see Abele & Petzold, 1996;Franco & Maass, 1996;Lindeman, 1997;Mackie & Ahn, 1998;Moy & Ng, 1996;Terry & Callan, 1998), given the general tendency to make stereotyped assumptions about out-groups (Harasty, 1997;Koomen & Dijker, 1997), as well as to view out-groups in a way that is more negative than one's own identified group (Harasty, 1997)? If the process is this complex for Whites as the in-group available as a behavioral model, the data presented suggest that the inference-making process, as experi-28 SPENCER, NOLL, STOLTZFUS, HARPALANI enced by African American adolescents, is even more complex.…”

Relations between views on ageing and perceived age discrimination: a domain-specific perspective

“…In addition, some individuals might show an opposite effect that neutralizes the positive association. Perceived age discrimination can increase in-group identification especially among older adults (Garstka et al 2004) which is in turn associated with a strengthened selfenhancement and more positive attitudes towards the ingroup (Kaiser et al 2009;Lindeman 1997), but also has been shown to have negative long-term effects (Pavalko et al 2003). These diverging consequences might tend to cancel out each other.…”

Who May Enter? The Impact of In-Group Identification on In-Group/Out-Group Categorization

“…We reasoned that if the motives underlying the categorization bias reflect individuals' concern with the integrity of the in-group, then it is precisely the impact of in-group identification that needs assessment. Furthermore, identification with the in-group has proven to influence a number of phenomena, such as the in-group bias Jetten, Spears, & Manstead, 1996;Lindeman, 1997), the black sheep effect (Branscombe, Wann, Noel, & Coleman, 1993;Castano, Paladino, Coull, & Yzerbyt, 2001;Coull, Yzerbyt, Castano, Paladino, & Leemans, 2001), and the perception of in-group homogeneity Doosje, Ellemers, & Spears, 1995;Kelly, 1989), all of which could be considered strategies to enhance and protect the image of the in-group (Castano, 1999, in press;Doosje & Ellemers, 1997;Leyens et al, 1994;Yzerbyt, Castano, Leyens, & Paladino, 2000).…”